HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAFT Evaluation & Appraisal ReportDRAFT EVALUATION' JAPPRA1SAL REPORT
`'MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
CITY OF M1AMI
NOVEM8ER 2004
6 !!IIIIFI
CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION
Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor
Joe M. Sanchez, Chairman Angel Gonzalez, Vice -Chairman
Tomas P. Regalado, Commissioner Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner
Jeffery L. Allen, Commissioner
Joe Arriola, City Manager
Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk
CITY OF MIAMI PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
James C. Black, Chairman
Arva Moore Parks McCabe, Vice -Chairman
Tamara Gort Cathy Leff
Dana Manner Guillermo Revuelta
Luis Revuelta Dr. Ney Denis Rod, Jr.
Doris Scheer Max Strang
Vivian Villaamil
Teresita Fernandez, Executive Secretary
Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Department of Planning and Zoning
The Corradino Group, Consultant
November 2004
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER I. MAJOR ISSUES
I.A. The Need for, and Impacts of, Equitable Redevelopment and
Development 4
1. Issue Description and Analysis 4
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts 21
3. Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations 23
I.B. Preservation and Enhancement of Natural, Historic, Archeological
and Recreational Resources 30
1. Issue Description and Analysis 30
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts 40
3. Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations 41
I.C. Neighborhood Integrity 52
1. Issue Description and Analysis 52
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts 55
3. Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations 56
I.D. Transportation 61
1. Issue Description and Analysis 61
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts 61
3. Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations 62
DRAFT
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
CHAPTER II. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT ANALYSIS 64
ILA. Future Land Use Element 64
II.B. Housing 81
II.C. Sanitary and Storm Sewers 91
II.D. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge 100
II.E. Potable Water 101
II.F. Solid Waste Collection 103
II.G. Transportation 108
II.H. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities 121
ILI. Parks, Recreation and Open Space 127
II.J. Coastal Management 142
II.K. Natural Resource Conservation 159
II.L. Capital Improvements 169
II.M. Intergovernmental Coordination 175
DRAFT
ii
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER III. COMMUNITYWIDE ASSESSMENT
III.A. Population Changes, Vacant Land, Changes in Land Areas and
Location of Development in Relation to Comprehensive the
Neighborhood Plan
III.B. Level of Service Analysis
1. Sanitary Sewer
2. Potable Water
3. Recreation and Open Space
4. Solid Waste Collection
5. Storm Sewer Capacity
6. Traffic Circulation
III.C. Coordination of Land Use and Public School Planning
III.D. Consistency with Growth Management Laws
1. State Comprehensive Plan
2. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
3. Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
4. Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida
CHAPTER IV.
CHAPTER V.
APPENDIX A.
APPENDIX B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF
MEETINGS, INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163, F.S.
APPENDIX C. CONSISTENCY WITH RULE 9J-5, F.A.C.
Page
181
181
182
182
182
182
182
183
183
184
187
187
187
187
188
189
206
iii
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table I.A.1. Projected Population Growth in the City of Miami and
Miami -Dade County 4
Table I.A.2. City of Miami Large Scale Development Report:
1995 — September 2004 6
Table I.A.3. Median Household Income (1999) in the City of Miami 15
Table I.A.4. 2000 Census Low to Moderate Income Limits for Miami
PMSA with Updates Based on HUD CDBG Eligible
Areas for 2004 16
Table I.A.5. Year 2000 and Projected Year 2010 Households by Income
Level 17
Table I.B.I. Park Acreage Required to Meet Current and Projected
Population 37
Table II.A.1. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.1 Achievement Status 64
Table II.A.2. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.2 Achievement Status 66
Table II.A.3. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.3 Achievement Status 67
Table ILA.4. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.4 Achievement Status 69
Table II.A.5. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.5 Achievement Status 71
Table II.A.6. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.6 Achievement Status 72
Table II.A.7. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.7 Achievement Status 73
Table II.A.8 Land Use Element Objective LU-2.1 Achievement Status 74
Table II.A.9. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.2 Achievement Status 75
Table II.A.10. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.3 Achievement Status 76
Table II.A.11. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.4 Achievement Status 77
Table II.A.12. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.5 Achievement Status 78
Table II.A.13. Land Use Element Objective LU-3.1 Achievement Status 79
Table II.A.14. Land Use Element Objective LU-3.2 Achievement Status 80
Table II.B.1. Housing Element Objective HO-1.1 Achievement Status 81
Table II.B.2. Housing Element Objective HO-1.2 Achievement Status 83
Table II.B.3. Housing Element Objective HO-1.3 Achievement Status 85
Table II.B.4. Housing Element Objective HO-1.4 Achievement Status 86
Table II.B.5. Housing Element Objective HO-1.5 Achievement Status 87
Table II_B.6. See note on page 87
Table II.B.7. Housing Element Objective HO-2.1 Achievement Status 88
iv
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table II.C.1.
Table II.C.2.
Table II.C.3.
Table II.C.4.
Table II.C.5.
Table II.C.6.
Table II.C.7.
Table II.C.8.
Table II.C.9.
Table II.C.10.
Table II.D.1.
Table II.D.2.
Table II.E.1.
Table II.E.2.
Table II.F.1.
Table II.F.2.
Table II.F.3.
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
Achievement Status
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Objective AR-1.1 Achievement Status
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Objective AR-1.2 Achievement Status
Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.1 Achievement
Status
Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.2 Achievement
Status
Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.1
Achievement Status
Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.2
Achievement Status
Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.3
Achievement Status
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
Objective
SS-1.1
SS-1.2
SS-1.3
SS-1.4
SS-2.1
SS-2.2
SS-2.3
SS-2.4
SS-2.5
SS-2.6
Element
Element
Page
91
92
93
94
95
95
97
97
98
99
100
101
102
102
103
104
106
v
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table II.F.4. Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.4
Achievement Status 107
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement
Status 108
Table II.G.2. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.2 Achievement
Status 112
Table II.G.3. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.3 Achievement
Status 113
Table II.G.4. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.4 Achievement
Status 114
Table II.G.5. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.5 Achievement
Status 115
Table II.G.6. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.6 Achievement
Status 118
Table II.G.7. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.7 Achievement
Status 119
Table II.G.8. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.8 Achievement
Status 119
Table II.G.9. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.9 Achievement
Status 120
Table II.H.1. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element
Objective PA-1.1 Achievement Status 121
Table II.H.2. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element
Objective PA-2.1 Achievement Status 123
Table II.H.3. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element
Objective PA-3.1 Achievement Status 124
Table II.H.4. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element
Objective PA-3.2 Achievement Status 125
Table II.H.5. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element
Objective PA-3.3 Achievement Status 126
Table II_I.1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.1
Achievement Status 127
Table II.I.2. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.2
Achievement Status 130
Table II.I.3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.3
Achievement Status 131
vi
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 11.1.4. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.4
Achievement Status 133
Table 11.1.5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.5
Achievement Status 134
Table I1_I.6. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.6
Achievement Status 136
Table 11.1.7. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-2.1
Achievement Status 137
Table 11.1.8. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-3.1
Achievement Status 139
Table 11.1.9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-3.2
Achievement Status 139
Table II.I.10. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-4.1
Achievement Status 140
Table II.J.1. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.1
Achievement Status 142
Table II.J.2. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.2
Achievement Status 146
Table II.J.3. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.3
Achievement Status 147
Table II.J.4. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.4
Achievement Status 147
Table II.J.5. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-2.1
Achievement Status 158
Table II.J.6. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-2.2
Achievement Status 150
Table II.J.7. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-3.1
Achievement Status 151
Table II.J.8. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.1
Achievement Status 151
Table II.J.9. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.2
Achievement Status 153
Table II.J.10. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.3
Achievement Status 154
vii
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table II.J.11. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-5.1
Achievement Status 156
Table II.J.12. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-5.2
Achievement Status 157
Table II.K.1. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-1.1 Achievement Status 159
Table II.K.2. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-1.2 Achievement Status 161
Table II.K.3. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-1.3 Achievement Status 162
Table II.K.4. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-2.1 Achievement Status 164
Table II.K.5. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-3.1 Achievement Status 166
Table II.K.6. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective
NR-3.2 Achievement Status 166
Table II.L.1. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI.1.1
Achievement Status 169
Table II.L.2. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI.1.2
Achievement Status 172
Table II.L.3. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI.1.3
Achievement Status 173
Table II.L.4. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI.1.4
Achievement Status 174
Table II.M.1. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Objective CI-1.1 Achievement Status 175
Table II.M2. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Objective CI-2.1 Achievement Status 177
Table II.M.3. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Objective CI-2.2 Achievement Status 178
Table II.M.4. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Objective CI-3.1 Achievement Status 179
Table III.A.1. Projected Population Growth in the City of Miami and
Miami -Dade County 181
viii
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure I.A.1. City of Miami Existing Land Uses 8
Figure I.A.2. City of Miami Future Land Uses 9
Figure I.A.3. Characteristics of Neighborhood Development Zones 14
Figure I.B.1. Historic Districts 34
Figure LB.2. Parks 39
Figure I.C.1. City of Miami Neighborhood Enhancement Team Areas 53
ix
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Miami, known as the "Magic City", is located in Southeast Florida, in
Miami -Dade County on the Miami River, between the Florida Everglades and the
Atlantic Ocean. The City of Miami was incorporated in 1896 and has grown into one of
the world's renowned centers where people can work, live and play while enjoying a high
quality of life. The City of Miami, known for its diverse culture and ethnicities, is the
largest municipality in Miami -Dade County. The City of Miami is also known as the
Gateway to Latin America, which attracts a variety of foreign born people, and is
recognized as a worldwide international hub.
The City adopted a comprehensive plan in February of 1989 called the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), the City's blueprint for existing and future
development. The MCNP's goals, objectives and policies reflect the City's vision for its
future, and for how it will meet the needs of existing and future residents, visitors and
businesses.
The Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is a State -mandated evaluation and update
of the MCNP. Required every seven years, the EAR is intended to be an assessment of
how well the MCNP is working, and to provide an opportunity to revise the MCNP to
address changing issues and conditions. In order to be effective, the MCNP must be a
living document, one with the flexibility to adapt to changing conditions and needs.
Although there are other opportunities to periodically revise the MCNP, these revisions
often occur as the result of outside development applications.
The City initiated its EAR process with an extensive community involvement effort that
occurred between May and July 2004. During this time, the Project Team conducted
approximately 30 meetings that entailed: a series of one-on-one meetings with key City
staff and elected officials; an interagency scoping meeting held on May 24, 2004 with
adjacent local governments, and County, regional, and State agencies; five public
workshops (one per Commission district), and a workshop with the City's Planning
Advisory Board on July 28, 2004. This process is also detailed in the Public Participation
Summary section of this report.
Based on input received via this process, the City of Miami identified four major issues
for inclusion in the EAR. On August 9, 2004 the City provided the Florida Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) with a request for a Letter of Understanding regarding
these issues, and the City's proposed Scope of Work (Appendix A). On August 19, 2004,
DCA provided the City with a Letter of Understanding agreeing to the proposed issues
and Scope. The four major issues are as follows:
1
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Issue A. The Need for, and Impacts of, Equitable Redevelopment and
Development
As the central City for a populous and growing metropolitan region, the City of Miami is
substantially developed, with the exception of geographically dispersed vacant parcels.
In addition, there are a number of neighborhoods with concentrations of properties that
are underutilized or that have been previously utilized but are currently not in use. At
present, redevelopment is rapidly transforming some areas, with positive and negative
impacts, while other areas demonstrate unmet redevelopment needs.
Despite its function as an international business, trade and tourism center, the City of
Miami faces a number of economic challenges, including great disparities in wealth and
income, high unemployment and poverty rates in comparison to other U.S. cities of its
size. Economic development initiatives, including job creation and training programs,
efforts to attract new and support existing businesses and employers, and strategies to
strengthen the City's role in the regional, national, and international economies must be
supported by the MCNP. Redevelopment efforts should include economic development
and job creation initiatives at the neighborhood level. The role of infill, and in particular
brownfield redevelopment, in the City's economic development strategies should be
addressed as well.
Since the last EAR was prepared, the City of Miami has successfully seen dramatic
improvements in its bond ratings and other fiscal indicators. The MCNP should reflect
and support the City's existing and planned efforts to enhance its fiscal ability to provide
services and quality of life to existing and future residents through such efforts as bond
initiatives, impact fees, and possible annexation efforts.
Issue B. Preservation and Enhancement of Natural, Historic, Archeological
and Recreational Resources
The City of Miami has a number of natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources
that are vital to community identity, provide important benefits, document and preserve
cultural heritages, and contribute to quality of life. These resources are threatened by a
variety of factors, including developmental impacts, degradation, misuse and/or neglect.
Under the larger issue of resource preservation, there are a number of specific sub -issues
that must be addressed as well. The City's historic buildings and resources, including
archeological sites, are threatened by demolition and deterioration. The City needs more
incentives to encourage owners to prevent demolition. The City's tree canopy,
greenspaces and natural resources are threatened by development and the lack of
adequate protections. Such protections need to be addressed in the MCNP. Finally, the
City's existing park system faces a number of challenges, including undeveloped or
underdeveloped park sites, limited public access, lack of resources, and the need to
provide additional parks. Public access to the City's waterfront, greenspaces, and
parkland needs to be improved.
2
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Issue C. Neighborhood Integrity
The City of Miami is comprised of a series of neighborhoods with distinct histories,
socioeconomic characteristics, land uses, functions, development trends, and challenges.
The integrity of these existing neighborhoods is threatened by a number of factors,
including encroachment of incompatible land uses, the need for locally appropriate
development standards, unmet redevelopment and infrastructure needs, and slum and
blight conditions. Strategies to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible
development and negative impacts need to be addressed in the MCNP.
Issue D. Transportation
Amenities need to be provided to attract more trips to alternative modes of transportation,
such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle. Transportation and land use needs to be
coordinated more closely, and transportation problems (excessive speeds, congestion,
traffic noise, inappropriate roadway classifications, negative impacts on neighborhoods)
need to be addressed. Many areas lack adequate parking. The person trip methodology
needs to be revisited to ensure that the results of the calculations accurately reflect the
capacity of corridors. Transportation Control Measures will be revised.
As per the requirements of S. 163.3191, Florida Statutes, this document includes an
analysis of these issues, their impacts, and corrective measures, including plan
amendments.
3
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
CHAPTER I: MAJOR ISSUES
I. A. THE NEED FOR, AND IMPACTS OF, EQUITABLE REDEVELOPMENT
AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Issue Description and Analysis
a. Population, Growth and Development Patterns
According to the 2000 Census, the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale Metropolitan Statistical Area
had a population of 3,876,3801, making it the twelfth largest metropolitan area in the
nation. With a year 2000 population of 362,470, Miami is the largest City in the region,
and an internationally recognized business, trade, tourism and cultural center.
Over the past few decades, growth in the region has been primarily accommodated by
suburban expansion and has not occurred within the City limits. While Miami -Dade
County's population increased from 1,937,094 to 2,253,362 (16.3%) between 1990 and
2000, the City's population only increased from 358,548 to 362,470 (1.1%).2 Miami -
Dade County estimates that 86% of its population growth between 1995 and 2003
occurred in the "western fringe".3 Land in South Florida is a limited resource, however,
and continued expansion is limited by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Everglades
to the west. By all projections, growth will continue to occur in the region. Table I.A.1
below outlines projected population growth by 2005, 2015, and 2025 for Miami -Dade
County and the City of Miami. These projections, however, are based on the prevailing
trends. The depletion of land supply and implementation of such initiatives as urban
infill and downtown redevelopment will direct more of this growth back to urban centers,
such as the City of Miami. Recent data indicates that this is occurring. As discussed in
this Chapter, the City is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of development
and redevelopment. For these reasons, it is anticipated the City of Miami will receive a
greater share of the County's population growth.
Table I.A.1. Projected Population Growth in the City of Miami and
Miami -Dade Count?
Year
Miami -Dade County
Population
City of Miami
Population
2000
2,253,362
362,470
2005
2,403,195
368,479
2015
2,706,496
380,921
2025
3,011,900
391,912
1 Census 2000, Metropolitan Areas Ranked by Population, US Census Bureau,
2 Miami -Dade County Facts, Miami -Dade Department of Planning & Zoning, May 2004
3 Proposed 2003 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Miami -Dade County Department of Planning &
Zoning, 2003
4 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2003
4
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
b. Development and Redevelopment Trends and Opportunities
It is widely recognized that the costs and negative impacts of the prevailing westward
sprawl that has characterized South Florida's recent development far outweighs the
benefits. Because of the low density character of such development, it results in the
consumption of greater amounts of land, and the loss or degradation of environmental
resources. Moreover, because such development usually occurs in areas in which
infrastructure is not in place, existing infrastructure has to be extended to serve such
areas, resulting in greater public costs. Such inefficiencies can overtax public services
and infrastructure, diminishing the quality of life in the region as a whole. This
development pattern negatively impacts established city centers and neighborhoods
through the diversion of public and private investments and deferred maintenance on
older public improvements.
Figure IA.1. shows the existing land uses in the City of Miami. As can be seen, the City
is substantially developed, with a limited stock of vacant and developable land (556
acres). These vacant and developable parcels tend to be small sites, and are scattered
throughout the City. The location of these vacant and developable parcels was compared
with the City's adopted Future Land Use Plan Map (Figure IA.2) in order to estimate
future development potential.
Because of its substantially built -out status, the City's greatest development potential will
occur as mid to high rise redevelopment. For purposes of this discussion, redevelopment
is defined as construction of a building or facility on a parcel of land that was or is being
utilized for another use, or for the same use but at a different intensity. Redevelopment
may also entail the adaptive reuse of an existing building for a new purpose.
Within the past few years, the City of Miami has seen an unprecedented wave of
development and redevelopment that will rapidly change the urban environment. There
are a number of factors which have contributed to this trend, including the diminishing
land supply in the County and region, the afore -mentioned efforts to redirect growth and
development to the urban core, and the development community's realization that there is
a strong demand for alternatives to suburban living. Some of this redevelopment may
also be attributed to the redevelopment efforts that will be addressed later in this Chapter.
The Large Scale Development Report consists of Major Use Special Permits (MUSP),
which are developments of 200 units or more and/or developments with 500 parking
spaces or more; and Class II Permits, which are just under 200 units and/or 500 parking
spaces. While this does not include all development activity, generally these
development projects are concentrated along special corridors and development areas
which create the biggest impact on the City and its level of services. This Report gives
the best sense of where the City is going and the direction of City growth. Table I.A.2
below indicates the scope of development that the City has seen since 1996.
5
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table I.A.2. City of Miami Large Scale Development Report:
1996 — September 2004
Project
Status
Number
Res./Condo
Hotel
Office
Retail
Parking
Spaces
Construction
Costs (est.)
Complete
28
4,541 units
1,447
units
1,190,021
s.f.
186,731
s.f.
14,194
$1,576,085,841
Under
Construction
33
9,831 units
288
units
930,266
s.f.
429,090
s.f.
16,538
$3,362,489,850
Approved
61
18,982
units
667
units
1,076,781
s.f.
1,629,317
s.f.
29,873
$6,465,299,872
Application
Phase
15
2,451 units
209
units
84,284
s.f.
214,689
s.f.
7,031
$1,622,132,758
Preliminary
76
15,747
units
173
units
561,467
s.f.
1,598,810
s.f.
32,642
$557,521,019
Total
213
51,552
units
2,784
units
3,842,819
s.f.
4,058,637
s.f.
100,278
$13,583,529,340
Source: City of Miami Large Scale Development Report, 1995 to Present, City of Miami
Department Planning Department, September 1, 2004
As can be seen from Table I.A2, the level of development that the City is facing will
inevitably transform the City and region. Positive impacts of this development include an
increased tax base, promotion of more efficient development patterns, and the ability to
support a livable 24-hour downtown, as well as transit services and urban infrastructure.
This level of development has obvious implications for the City's population and quality
of life. According to the 2000 Census, the average household size in the City of Miami is
2.62 persons per household. As indicated in Table I.A.2., 28,813 new residential units
are under construction or approved in large-scale development projects, with another
18,198 in the application process or in the preliminary stages. Based on under
construction and approved large-scale residential development alone, an upper estimate
of population increase by 2015 is 75,490. This far exceeds projections. Many of these
units are expected to be purchased by investors, seasonal residents or residents who
already live in the City, and many will likely be occupied by single or two person
households. In light of these factors, a more realistic estimate of population increase
based on these large scale residential projects is about 40,000 by 2015.
In order to accommodate such development, a number of infrastructure improvements
and public service expansions will be desired to maintain adopted levels of service
standards, including transportation improvements, the provision of additional parks, and
increased water and sewer capacity. The promotion of mixed -use development patterns,
walkable communities, and increased transit services will be necessary to accommodate
increased transportation demand and reduce automobile dependence. In addition, it must
be recognized that true urban living entails different level of service expectations, with
the added convenience of living proximate to places of employment, retail, and culture,
thus mitigating the negative impacts of increased congestion and population density. For
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
this reason, Miami -Dade County's Urban Infill Area (UTA), which includes the majority
of the City of Miami, is designated as a Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area,
and is exempt from transportation concurrency requirements. Nonetheless, the City must
develop strategies to maintain or improve upon quality of life for existing and future
residents in the face of the current wave of development and redevelopment, including
strategies to maintain levels of service standards, and these strategies must be reflected in
the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
7
City of Miami
Figure I.A.1
EXISTING LAND USE
-
=
A/
LEGEND
Atoms
Cemeteries
Communications . IJIiIIIiOS, 'Farm
Industrial
Insli[Nlarval
Low -Density MtuIl-Famly
Mobile Home Parks
MulliFarnlly. Migrant Camps
Parks tinoluding Preserves 8 Conservation)
SMppil Centars. Commercial-. Stadiums
Singkr-Family
Tawnhplres
TranskM•ROSldOniial l.alclM lerisl
Two -Family {Duplexes)
'Meant Itnprotedud
Vacant. [Government gvmpd
Miamv.sap
Ithighway. stip
AmaJpt3hp
PpOIS.Shp
Water
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
COY bF?,Iln.k' mS IIAtr O,SE OCTOBER 2t
City of Miami
Figure I.A.2
FUTURE LAND USE
LEGEND
Central Business Disi ict
Commercial Regrfeled
Commerical General
COnSeruatien
Industrial
Transportation Willies
Office
keureeaonat
Display.
HIgh llensily MuIl tamIty
Medulm Density Melllitmdy
Sktgre Family
Mlemi.shp
Pperts.shp
M19hway.shp
Wnejer.ehp
Water
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
c. Redevelopment and Poverty Initiatives
In addition to accommodating growth in areas where infrastructure is in place and
addressing underutilized, vacant or abandoned sites, redevelopment is also a powerful
tool for addressing many of the City's social, economic and infrastructure problems.
Despite its role as an international center of banking, finance, trade, and tourism, Miami
has one of the nation's lowest median incomes ($23,483), and in addition, 28.5% of its
residents are below the federal poverty level.5 Unemployment and low educational
attainment are among the many problems that contribute to and are exacerbated by the
City's high poverty level. By providing opportunities for economic development and job
creation in distressed areas of the City, redevelopment is an important component of the
City's anti -poverty strategy.
A number of the City's neighborhoods are distressed and have a demonstrated need for
redevelopment. Many of these neighborhoods have suffered from the out -migration of
residents, businesses and capital to the suburbs, while those who have remained or moved
in have tended to be recent immigrants and/or of lower income. These efforts are led by
the Mayor's Poverty Initiative and the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years
2004-2009 that incorporates and is guided by the Mayor's Initiative. Both of these
efforts are geared at improving the living standards for low income residents.
In September 2002, the Mayor launched a citywide Poverty Initiative campaign
allocating $2 million for poverty -reduction programs. This unprecedented use of general
fund resources was a direct attempt to help improve the standard of living for working
families residing in the City of Miami. The goal is to give local residents valuable
information about multiple federal and state wage support programs to raise them above
the poverty level. As a result of these efforts, an additional $17 million dollars was
brought into the City in 2002. The campaign seeks to attack the problem through four
primary approaches:
• Educate residents about programs in place that can support them, such as KidCare,
Food Stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC)
• Assist small businesses to obtain loans, financial support and business expertise
• Work to increase the standard of living for city residents through a living wage
ordinance
• Seek to build the wealth necessary for residents to raise themselves out of poverty
through matched savings accounts
Through the Poverty Initiative, the City's strategy is to provide access to capital resources
and expand awareness within the community about readily available benefits that can
help increase incomes, revitalize economically disenfranchised neighborhoods, and
reduce poverty. Additionally, Miami's anti -poverty program includes investments in
5 City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, City of Miami Department of Community
Development
10
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
wealth -building strategies, such as Individual Development Accounts (IDA); financial
literacy education and training; and increasing homeownership.
The City has developed a host of strategic collaborations. The City's anti -poverty
campaign consists of the following steps and elements:
• Partner with Miami -Dade County in the Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign to
increase individual wealth by informing residents about Medicaid and KidCare, etc.
• Partner with the IRS, the Human Services Coalition and many local service groups to
provide free tax filing services staffed by IRS employees and volunteers.
• Mail information about benefits of the EITC and the CTC to more than 80,000
households in Miami's poorest neighborhoods.
• Establish a free call center that handles approximately 20,000 calls from the neediest
residents about the EITC.
• Partner with the U.S. Small Business Administration to inform and educate the
77,500 micro- entrepreneurs of SBA -guaranteed loans .
• Partner with ACCION International to provide access to credit to small business
owners who do not qualify for traditional bank loans.
In addition, the Initiative commits funding for poverty reduction through the following:
• Implementing and monitoring the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years
2004-2009 and the Economic Revitalization Plan.
• Supporting urban revitalization through the development of residential units, retail
space, and commercial corridors.
• Assisting local businesses located within economic revitalization corridors with such
improvements as facade improvements, landscaping, and streetscape maintenance.
• Supporting the mixed use redevelopment of the 55 acre Buena Vista Yards and
Wagner Square Civic Center site as stimuli for economic development.
• Promoting investment and economic opportunities in Overtown and Allapattah
through the Miami Partnership that consists of the City, University of Miami, State,
and stakeholders in the Civic Center Area.
• Supporting the development of University of Miami biomedical centers in the area.
The Consolidated Plan provides the framework for allocating funds from the Community
Development Block Grants, Home Investment Partnership, Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS, and Emergency Shelter Grants. The recently adopted City of Miami
Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, sets forth a refocused strategy that aims to
improve the economic and housing conditions in the City's lower income neighborhoods.
It is based on the concepts of broader Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), and
more tightly defined Model Blocks and Commercial Business Corridors. The NDZ
concept is a comprehensive long-term approach to neighborhood revitalization that
focuses on community assets as a means of stimulating market driven redevelopment.
Although the NDZ's set the framework for neighborhood change, the City of Miami
recognizes that these areas are too large. If community revitalization efforts are to make a
11
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
visible impact, the focus must shift to smaller geographic areas. The Model Block
concept enables the City to advance the principles of the Neighborhood Development
Zones by focusing resources in areas within the NDZ's that are poised for revitalization.
Thus, the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009 calls for each NDZ
to have a corresponding Model Block. By concentrating resources for housing, public
infrastructure improvements, slum and blight removal, and economic development, the
aim of the Model Block concept is to provide a visible and concentrated revitalization
initiative that can serve as a catalyst for further private investment and change in the
NDZ's. The Model Block concept seeks to:
• Create physical improvements through infrastructure improvements, streetscape
improvements, code enforcement, and removal of slum and blight.
• Improve housing conditions by targeting rehabilitation and new construction
assistance in the Model Block area.
• Stimulate economic development through facade improvements and other forms
of targeted business assistance.
• Improve the living condition of residents in the Model Block by targeting social
service assistance.
One of the major elements of the Model Block concept is economic revitalization. Hence,
each Model Block area in the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009
is in close proximity to a commercial corridor. This is based on the premise that
economic development can have a positive impact on residential areas and, likewise,
commercial corridors need a steady stream of clients from the surrounding areas.
Success in redeveloping the Commercial Business Corridors (CBC) may depend on
leveraging opportunities in and around the corridors. Many of the CBC's can build upon
projects already taking place in the area. By concentrating resources for economic
development, public infrastructure improvements and commercial corridor rehabilitation,
the CBC's will provide a visible improvement to the targeted corridors that can serve as
the foundation to provide incentives for private investment.
A detailed program of action will be developed to operationalize these concepts at the
Model Block and Commercial Business Corridor level.
In addition to these citywide efforts, there are a number of important players and key
initiatives focused on redevelopment and the amelioration of poverty in the City of
Miami. Two semi -autonomous agencies of the City that contribute to the City's
redevelopment are the Downtown Development Agency (DDA) and the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
Downtown development and redevelopment is promoted by the DDA. As a result of the
DDA and other agency efforts, Miami's downtown is being transformed by a number of
existing projects. A strong residential component is necessary to achieve the goals of a
24-hour, mixed -use City center.
12
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The CRA is responsible for administration and development of projects within the two
City tax increment districts, namely Southeast Overtown Park West and the Omni. Due
in part to the efforts of the CRA, major redevelopment and transformation is occurring in
both the Omni and Park West areas.
An important initiative focused on economic redevelopment is the City's Brownfield
Program. It seeks to transform properties that are affected by environmental
contamination, and are often vacant or underutilized, into clean properties that are
productive job producing economic assets for neighborhoods. Currently, the focus is on
the previously mentioned mixed used project known as Wagner Square.
Another important effort relates to redevelopment along the Miami River. The City,
Miami -Dade County, and the Miami River Commission have worked together towards
developing a program that would foster appropriate development along the Miami River.
Currently the City is developing a market analysis and economic development study for
the River. Ultimately, the intent of this study is to recommend proposed development
opportunities for the Miami River.
Finally, programs such as the Miami -Dade Empowerment Zone, whose geographic
boundaries are largely within the City, support the Mayor's Poverty Initiative. The City
works with the County and the Empowerment Zone Trust, a non-profit agency charged
with maximizing the use of federal funds, in order to implement economic development
projects and incentive programs in the Empowerment Zone.
13
NORTH
LIA natis
r.3 4iTiP '
1
tt%
• —4--
111
A
COT OFFALY.' WEB PAGE OCTOBER 20.14
City of Miami
Figure I.A.3
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
ZONES (NOZ)
BY DISTRICT
LEGEND
Legend
City 1,11.?jor Street
FiFig11100.0.04 0.11k*bianib,S Alnn
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
d. Economic Development Needs
Miami is a City of economic extremes. Enclaves of great wealth are often located
proximate to some of the most economically distressed areas in the nation. According to
the Brooking Institutes 2004 report "Growing the Middle Class: Connecting All Miami -
Dade Residents to Economic Opportunity", the gap between households of different
income levels increased dramatically in the 1990's, with the wealthiest 20% increasing
their income by 29% while the poorest 20% experienced a five percent decrease. Table
I.A.3. below documents median household income in the City of Miami for 1999.
Table I.A.3. Median Household Income (1999) in the City of Miami6
Income Range
Number of Households
Percentage of Total
Less than $10,000
32,558
24%
$10,000 - $14,999
14,370
11%
$15,000 - $24,999
23,087
17%
$25,000 - $34,999
17,280
13%
$35,000 - $49,999
17,036
12%
$50,000 - $74,999
14,484
11%
$75,000 - $99,999
6,458
5%
$100,000 +
9,071
7%
Total Households
134,344
100%
The City of Miami and its residents face a number of economic challenges. These
challenges are a part of larger economic problems that the City faces, including a scarcity
of high paying jobs, the low educational attainment of residents, a large immigrant
population that often requires a period of adjustment before becoming economically self-
sufficient, and a high percentage of young, elderly, or otherwise dependent residents who
cannot contribute to the economics of the households. In addition, residents of distressed
neighborhoods often have limited access to capital.
The recent development and redevelopment that is occurring in the City is anticipated to
increase the number of middle income residents by providing additional housing
alternatives, public amenities, and neighborhood improvements. Nonetheless,
maintaining and increasing the City's middle income sector by providing economic
opportunities to lower income households and providing the infrastructure, amenities and
services necessary to retain and attract middle income households must be a key
component of the City's economic development strategies.
6 Census 2000, Population and Housing Profile by Social Characteristics, US Census Bureau
15
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
f. Housing Needs
Miami is challenged by great extremes of wealth among its residents, concentrations of
poverty and distressed neighborhoods. The provision of a decent, safe, and affordable
housing to all City residents is one of the key challenges that the City faces, and an
important component of any redevelopment and neighborhood revitalization program.
Whether or not housing is affordable to a household is dependent, of course, on that
household's income. It is important that the City promote and facilitate the development
of a diverse housing mix that will meet the housing demand of all its residents, including
those of low, moderate, middle and upper incomes. The promotion of a diverse housing
mix and provision of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households,
are key City objectives.
i. Affordable Housing Needs and Demand
The City's strategy for addressing affordable housing needs is described in the
Community Development Department's 2004-2009 Consolidated Plan. "Housing cost
burden", defined as the percent of a household's income that is used to pay for housing
costs, is frequently used as a measure for determining whether or not housing is
affordable, and is the indicator used in the Consolidated Plan. According to federal
housing program guidelines and the University of Florida's Shimberg Center for
Affordable Housing (Shimberg Center), housing costs should not exceed 30 percent of a
household's income in order to be considered affordable'.
The City measures housing affordability for a variety of income levels. These income
levels are determined by comparing household income to the median for the area. Table
I.A.4 below defines the income levels utilized by the City of Miami, based on a
household size of four and utilizing 2000 Census data adjusted to 2004.
Table I.A.4. 2000 Census Low to Moderate Income Limits for Miami PMSA with
Updates Based on HUD CDBG Eligible Areas for 20048
Income Level
Household Income (% of
Median)
Household Income
Extremely Low
Below 30 %
$12,100
Low
Between 31 and 50 %
$20,150
Moderate
Between 51 and 80 %
$32,500
Middle and Above
Above 80%
Above $32,500
The State of Florida's Housing, 2000, Page 33, University of Florida Shimberg Center for Affordable
Housing, William O'Dell and Mark T. Smith,
8 City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, City of Miami Department of Community
Development
16
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table I.A.5 below utilizes 2000 Census Information to categorize the City's 134,198
households by the defined income levels. The City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal
Years 2004-2009 projects anticipated increases in numbers for each of these income
levels to the year 2010. These projections, as well as an analysis of unmet housing needs,
provide the basis for measuring existing and projected housing demand.
Table I.A.S. Year 2000 and Projected Year 2010 Households by Income Leve19
Income Level
Year 2000 Number of
Households/% of Total
Year 2010 Number of
Households/% of Total
Extremely Low
25,631 (19.1%)
27,851 (19.2%)
Low
17,579 (13.1%)
19,185 (13.2%)
Moderate
23,360 (17.4%)
25,192 (17.3%)
Middle and Above
67,628 (50.4%)
72,809 (50.2%)
Total
134,198
145,037
Of the City's extremely low income households, it is projected that 85 % will be renters
and 15% will be owners. Of low income households, 78% will be renters and 22% will
be owners. Of moderate income households, 72% will be renters and 28% will be
owners. Of the households of middle income and higher, 50% will be renters and 50%
will be owners.
In order to qualify for most federal and state housing assistance programs, a household
must have a low or moderate income level. Based on the existing and projected
household population by income level, it can be seen that almost half of the City's
households in 2000 (49.6%) qualify for housing assistance based on income level alone.
In 2010, it is projected that the percentage of the City's households that will qualify for
housing assistance will increase slightly to 49.8%. Existing data and projections suggest
that housing assistance programs should be targeting the extremely low-income
population (38%) first, then the moderate -income population (35%) second, and the low-
income population (27%) last.
As noted earlier, in order to be considered affordable, housing costs should not exceed
30% of the household income. Therefore, based on Table I.A.5, an extremely low
income household of four should pay no more than $3,630 in annual housing costs; a low
income household of four should pay no more than $6,045 in annual housing costs; and
moderate income household should pay no more than $9,750 in annual housing costs.
The Consolidated Plan states that in 2000, 55,629 of the City's households (41%) paid
more than 30% of their income in housing costs. Furthermore, the Consolidate Plan
forecasts that the proportion will remain consistent to 2010, when it is projected that
60,000 households will pay more than 30% of their income in housing costs. Of cost
burdened households, it is projected that in 2010, 13,896 will be owners and 46,139 will
be renters.
9 City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, City of Miami Department of Community
Development
17
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Assisted housing programs will not meet the demand for affordable housing alone. The
City has an opportunity to work with and provide incentives to the residential
development community in order to provide housing that is affordable to all City
residents. Based on projected population figures and tenure characteristics, in order to
fully address housing demand in 2010 the City's housing inventory should include:
23,673 rental units and 4,178 ownership units affordable to extremely low income
households; 14,964 rental units and 4,221 ownership units affordable to low income
households; 18,183 rental units and 7,009 ownership units affordable to moderate income
households; and 36,405 rental units and 36,405 ownership units affordable to households
who are of middle or upper income levels. In order to minimize economic segregation
and undue concentrations of a particular housing type, efforts should be made to disperse
these different housing types throughout the City.
The condition of the existing housing stock is another component of the goal of providing
decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing to the City's existing and future residents.
The Consolidated Plan defines substandard units as those that have one or more of the
following characteristics: no heating fuel; incomplete kitchen and/or plumbing, and/or
overcrowded units. In addition, substandard units may have code violations and/or
structural issues. Addressing these conditions is an important component of both
neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing programs.
According to the Consolidated Plan in 2000, 9,233 units (6.9 %) used no heating fuel;
3,000 units (2%) lacked complete kitchen facilities, and 2,593 units (1.7%) lacked
complete plumbing facilities. An overcrowded unit is one in which there is more than
one person per room. In 2000, 35,244 (26%) of the City's household resided in
overcrowded units. These figures do not necessarily reflect units with one or more code
violations and/or substandard conditions. It is therefore imperative that the City continue
to allocate funds and implement programs to assist low and moderate income households
in improving their units, and utilize the Code enforcement process to address code
violations. To the maximum extent feasible, low and moderate income households
should be provided with assistance to address such violations.
18
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
ii. Rising Housing Costs and the Demand for Middle Income Housing
One of the consequences of the recent wave of development and redevelopment that is
occurring in the City, and development trends in the region as a whole, is a rapid rise in
housing costs. These trends, in many cases, are forcing middle income households who
do not qualify for the assistance that is provided to moderate and low income households
out of the market. If Miami is to maintain and increase the size of its middle class, this
issue must be addressed.
According to a recent article in the Miami Herald10, the average home price in Miami -
Dade County (the median housing cost) is $237,000, which requires an annual household
income of $73,886 in order to be affordable. In many of Miami's traditionally middle
income neighborhoods, housing costs have risen to levels that are prohibitive to middle
income households.
In addition, redevelopment and development is resulting in the "gentrification" of many
neighborhoods, many of which were previously low and moderate income. For purposes
of this report, gentrification is defined as the process by which redevelopment and the in -
migration of higher income residents lead to increases in housing costs and potentially
displaces existing residents. As housing costs rise in these neighborhoods, the existing
low and moderate residents may no longer be able to afford their units, and are therefore
displaced. Renter -occupied households are particularly vulnerable to displacement; as
noted previously, the vast majority of the City's low income households are renters.
Although low and moderate income households may benefit from the increased value of
their units, they too can be negatively impacted by rising property taxes.
g•
Fiscal Health
Since the date of the previous EAR, the City of Miami has emerged from a major fiscal
crisis and regained financial viability. In his 2004 State of the City address, Mayor
Manny Diaz noted many financial accomplishments, including the lowest millage rate in
50 years, the highest Standard & Poor bond rating (A+) in City history, the passage of a
parking surcharge that will allow further tax burden reductions, and $12.5 billion in new
projects. He further noted that its overall tax base increased by 15% in 2003.
Significant credit for this increased fiscal health can be attributed to the development and
redevelopment that is currently occurring in the City. It must be noted, however, that this
development results in increased demand for City services and infrastructure, and that
maintaining or increasing levels of service to meet this demand is essential in providing
quality of life to existing and future residents, businesses, and visitors. Identifying
innovative and effective funding mechanisms to provide for increased service levels
while not unduly increasing the tax burden on existing and future residents is therefore an
essential component of the City development and redevelopment strategies.
1° Housing Prices Squeeze Buyers, Natalie P. McNeal and Amy Sherman, The Miami Herald, July 21, 2004
19
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City currently assesses an impact fee on new development, with the exception of
single family development and certain types of development in designated redevelopment
areas. The impact fee is used to pay for infrastructure and service expansions that are
necessitated by the development, including police services, fire services, parks, solid
waste, stormwater, streets and general services administration. Maintaining the impact
fees, and adjusting them as appropriate and warranted, is important to keep pace with the
current wave of development. Certain impact fees, such as the Public Schools Impact
Fee, are collected by Miami -Dade County for development within the City. A concern
with the Public School Impact Fee is that the benefit districts are too large to ensure that
capital projects are directed to the impacted schools. The City will continue to coordinate
with Miami -Dade Public Schools to address the issue.
In 2001, Miami voters approved a $255,000,000 Homeland Defense/Safe Neighborhoods
Bond issue in order to enhance security, improve and provide parks, and improve
neighborhoods throughout the City. This source of funding is an important component of
the City's $765,000,000 capital improvement program, which includes the repair of
deficient roadways, 57 miles of roadway resurfacing, 19 miles of sidewalks, park
rehabilitation, flood mitigation, and other public facilities. In addition, the County's
People's Transportation Plan provides funding to implement a number of important
transportation projects in the City. The County's 2004 "Building Better Communities"
bond issue provides for the City to receive over $42,000,000 for water, sewer, drainage,
park, neighborhood, infrastructure, and public building projects.
In addition to the funding sources described above, there are a number of mechanisms,
which are used to implement projects in certain areas. Tax increment financing is a
mechanism whereby expected growth in property tax revenues is used to finance
improvement bonds. Tax increment financing is used to implement projects in the City's
designated redevelopment areas, and in downtown Miami in conjunction with the CRA
and the DDA. Special taxing districts are another mechanism by which funds are
collected for specific projects in designated areas. There are a number of special taxing
districts, which have been established for a variety of purposes, including street lighting,
increased security patrol, and public improvements.
Grants are another important component in achieving redevelopment and development
goals. As noted earlier, the City receives $35,248,352 in Federal and State grants,
including Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and State Housing Initiatives
Partnership funding to implement a variety of redevelopment, economic development and
housing programs. In addition, the City aggressively seeks and has received other grants
to implement specific projects, including brownfield and economic development grants
totaling over $3,000,000.
20
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts
Section 163.3191(2)(e), F.S., requires that the potential social, economic, and
environmental impacts of the identified major issues be addressed in the EAR. The
previous section of this report described specific impacts of the redevelopment issue in
detail.
In summary, major social impacts of redevelopment include the following:
• The creation of stronger neighborhoods, which in turn strengthens the sense of
community and social fabric.
• Opportunities to address many of the social ills associated with declining
neighborhoods, enhancing the quality of life for existing and future residents and
visitors by providing increased opportunities for social interaction, reducing
automobile dependence, and providing better public space.
• Providing additional economic opportunities.
• Ensuring the provision of decent, safe sanitary and affordable housing for
everyone.
Substandard and dilapidated housing negatively impacts the quality of life of occupants
and their neighborhoods. Affordable housing reduces such problems with the added
social benefit of increased economic diversity. Efforts to ensure that potential negative
impacts of development and redevelopment include: reduced service levels that might
result from increasing density without expanding service capacity, and the encroachment
of incompatible uses on existing communities that are essential to healthy development.
These issues are respectively addressed in the "Levels of Service Analysis" and
"Neighborhood Integrity" sections of this report.
From an economic standpoint, the development and redevelopment issue has a number of
implications. As discussed, development and redevelopment increases the tax base, and
therefore increase the City's ability to provide services to existing and future residents.
Moreover, such development attracts new residents and businesses to neighborhoods,
creating new jobs for existing residents. Economic development strategies have a
number of positive economic implications, including job creation, poverty reduction, and
an increased tax base. The availability of affordable housing makes an area more
attractive for workers and employers, and can be a key factor in attracting new businesses
to the area. Because development and redevelopment increases density, it requires the
provision of additional and expanded public services and infrastructure, with added
public costs. Impact fees, concurrency requirements, and other mechanisms are in place
to ensure that development assumes its fair share of these costs.
From an environmental standpoint, redevelopment and infill development result in more
sustainable development patterns than suburban sprawl, and play an important role in
protecting the region's many environmental resources, including the Everglades and
other environmentally sensitive lands. Brownfield redevelopment provides an
opportunity to clean-up contaminated sites, while environmental clean-up and water
21
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
quality improvements are key components of efforts to redevelop the Miami River
corridor. Strategies to protect these resources are more fully addressed in the "Resource
Preservation and Enhancement" section of this report.
22
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
3. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations
Section 163.3191 (2)(g), F.S., requires that the EAR evaluate the plan objectives within
each element as they relate to the major issues and identify, where appropriate,
unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances which have resulted in problems or
opportunities with respect to the major issues. Issue I.A., "The Need for, and Impacts of,
Equitable Development and Redevelopment", impacts the following Elements, Goals,
Objectives and Policies of the City of Miami's Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan. Specific recommendations to address these impacts are made where appropriate
and warranted.
a. Future Land Use Element
The following goals, objectives, and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goals LU-1 and LU-3; Objectives LU-1.1, LU-1.4,
LU-1.6, and LU-3.1, and; Policies LU-1.1.1, LU-1.1, LU-1.1.4, LU-1.1.10, LU-1.1.11,
LU-1.2.1, LU-1.2.2, LU-1.2.4, LU-1.2.5, LU-1.3.4, LU-1.3.10, LU-1.3.11, LU-1.3.12,
LU-1.4.1, LU-1.4.3, LU-1.4.4, LU-1.4.6, LU-1.4.7, LU-1.4.8, LU-1.4.9, LU-1.4.10, LU-
1.4.11, LU-1.4.12, LU-1.6.1, LU-1.6.3, LU-1.6.4, LU-1.6.5, LU-1.6.6, LU-1.6.8, LU-
1.6.9, and LU-1.6.11.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy LU-1.1.7 is impacted because it calls for the provision of a number of
neighborhood support activities in neighborhoods. It is recommended that this Policy be
amended to more clearly call for the development and redevelopment of well -designed
mixed -use neighborhoods that provide for the full range of residential, office, live/work
spaces, neighborhood retail, and community facilities in a walkable area, and that are
amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycles,
automobiles and mass transit.
Objective LU-1.2 is impacted because it addresses the redevelopment and revitalization
of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas. It is
recommended that this Objective be amended to more clearly state the City's
commitment to promoting, facilitating and catalyzing the revitalization of its
neighborhoods through a variety of public, private and public -private redevelopment
initiatives and revitalization programs.
Policy LU-1.2.3 is impacted because it because it establishes the City's priorities for its
residential, commercial and industrial revitalization programs. It is recommended that
this Policy be revised to state that the City's priorities in implementing, facilitating and
encouraging redevelopment and revitalization projects shall be determined on an area
specific basis in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009,
adopted redevelopment plans, and/or other specific neighborhood and area plans as
appropriate.
23
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Objective LU-1.3 is impacted because it addresses encouraging commercial, office and
industrial development in existing commercial, office and industrial areas, programs to
increase the utilization and appearance of buildings, and concentrating commercial and
industrial development in areas that have the capacity to meet the increased demands.
This Objective should be amended to also encourage the development of well -designed
mixed use neighborhoods that provide for a variety of uses within a walkable area, and to
call for directing all development (including residential) to areas that have the capacity to
accommodate such development.
Policy LU-1.3.1 calls for the provision of incentives for commercial redevelopment and
new construction in a number of specified neighborhoods. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to replace references to specific neighborhoods with "designated
Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone,
the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors, and other
designated targeted areas".
Policy LU-1.3.2 is impacted because it calls for assisting the private sector in making
commercial and small business loans available in a number of specified priority
neighborhoods. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to replace references to
specific neighborhoods with "designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the
Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area,
Commercial Business Corridors, and other designated targeted areas".
Policy LU-1.3.5 calls for the creation of high intensity activity centers characterized by
mixed -use and specialty center development in a number of specified neighborhoods. It
is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete references to specific
neighborhoods, and to state that the development of such activity centers will be in
accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result
of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives.
Policy LU-1.3.6 is impacted because it calls for strategic efforts to increase economic
diversity, buffering the City from national and international cycles. It is recommended
that this Policy be amended to replace references to specific neighborhoods with
"designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the Empowerment Zone, the
Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors,
and other designated targeted areas".
Policy LU-1.3.7 is impacted because it addresses the use of the Enterprise Zone and tax
increment financing districts to stimulate economic revitalization. It is recommended that
this Policy be amended to include the Empowerment Zone, Commercial Business
Corridors, and Brownfield Redevelopment Area.
Policy LU-1.3.8 is impacted because it addresses directing training programs to support
minority and semi -skilled City residents. It is recommended that this Policy be amended
to call for the development and implementation of job training and educational programs
24
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
to assist the City's existing and future residents in achieving economic self-sufficiency
utilizing government resources as necessary.
Policy LU-1.3.9 is impacted because it addresses the City's strategy of directing
community development efforts in concentrated neighborhoods. It is recommended that
this Policy be amended to delete references to specific neighborhoods.
Policy LU-1.3.14 is impacted because it calls for urban design guidelines for public and
private projects. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to state that such
guidelines should reinforce and be consistent with neighborhood character, history and
function.
Policy LU-1.4.2 is impacted because it calls for the development of special management
districts and special assessments to attract visitors and residents to downtown retail areas.
It is recommended that this Policy be amended to delete references to specific retail
areas.
Policy LU-1.6.10 is impacted because it calls for land development regulations to allow
for the provision of safe and convenient on -site traffic flow and parking. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to also call for access by a variety of
transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycles, automobiles, and transit.
Policy LU-3.1.1 is impacted because it calls for the creation of Regional Activity Centers
in Urban Infill and Redevelopment Areas to facilitate mixed -use development. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to amplify encouragement for the creation of
Regional Activity Centers citywide, as appropriate, in order to achieve economic
development and redevelopment goals, and to include additional incentives, as
appropriate, for the creation of such centers.
The Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map section of the Future Land Use
Element is impacted because it regulates the uses and activities allowed in each Future
Land Use District. In preparing the EAR -based amendments, it is recommended that the
Office, Commercial, Central Business District, and Industrial designations be amended to
ensure that they provide for the full range of appropriate uses to implement the City's
economic development goals, and that any requirements that have served as barriers to
economic development efforts be reconsidered. As the City redefines its land
development regulations the City should re-evaluate and amend land use classifications
as appropriate.
b. Housing Element
The following Objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective HO-1.5, and Policies HO-1.1.2, HO-1.1.3, HO-1.1.4, HO-
1.1.9, HO-1.2.2, HO-1.2.6, HO-1.2.8, HO-1.2.9, HO-1.2.10, HO-1.5.1, HO-2.1.2, HO-
2.1.5, and HO-2.1.8.
25
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Goal HO-1 is impacted because it calls for the provision of safe, sanitary and affordable
housing for low and moderate income households, rehabilitating older homes, and
revitalizing residential neighborhoods. This goal should be amended to call for
encouraging middle income housing, and for encouraging a range of housing types in all
areas of the City to meet the needs of all income groups.
Objective HO-1.1 is impacted because it calls for providing a local regulatory, investment
and neighborhood environment to increase the stock of affordable housing in the City by
10% by 2005. It is recommended that this Objective be amended to change the date to
2010 in order to be consistent with the Consolidated Plan, and to establish that the City's
goal is to encourage the provision of housing options for City residents of all income
levels, including extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle
income.
Policy HO-1.1.1 is impacted because it defines affordable (moderate income) housing in
accordance with the standards and regulations of the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is recommended that this Policy be revised
to reference the State of Florida's definition (up to 120% of median household income) in
order to allow the inclusion of, and assistance to, middle income households.
Policy HO-1.1.10 is impacted because it calls for incentives to aid the private sector in
assembling land for major residential projects. It is recommended that this Policy be
consistent with the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009.
Objective HO-1.2 calls for preservation of the City's stock of housing that is affordable
to low and moderate income residents, reduction of substandard units through demolition,
and preservation of historically significant housing. It is recommended that this
Objective be revised to include housing that is affordable to middle income residents, and
the reduction of substandard units through demolition or rehabilitation.
Policy HO-1.2.1 defines low income housing in accordance with HUD requirements. It
is recommended that this Policy be revised to reflect State of Florida definitions as well.
Policy HO-1.2.3 calls for providing low and moderate income, low density housing at
scattered sites in order to prevent the geographic concentration of low income housing. It
is recommended that this Policy be amended to delete the reference to low density
housing, and to call for the provision of a diverse range of housing types in all areas of
the City, including housing that is affordable to extremely low income, low income,
moderate income, and middle income households.
Policy HO-1.2.4 calls for the City to assist non-profit organizations in the provision of
low and moderate income housing. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to
include middle income housing as well.
26
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy HO-1.2.5 defines substandard housing as housing which has incomplete kitchen or
plumbing facilities, or which does not meet health and safety codes. It is recommended
that this Policy be amended to include housing with Code violations that detract from the
physical appearance of neighborhoods.
Objective HO-2.1 calls for achieving a livable City center with a variety of housing types.
It is recommended that this Objective be revised to call for achieving a livable City center
and healthy neighborhoods.
Policy HO-2.1.4 calls for the development of high quality, dense urban neighborhoods. It
is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete reference to specific neighborhoods.
Policy HO-2.1.6 is impacted because it addresses strategies to direct government housing
assistance programs to viable neighborhoods and redevelopment districts. This Policy
should be amended to call for avoiding undue concentrations of assisted housing.
Policy HO-2.1.7 calls for applications for Urban Development Application grants and
Housing Development Application grants in specific neighborhoods. It is recommended
that this Policy be amended to delete references to specific grant programs and
neighborhoods.
c. Sanitary and Storm Sewers
The following objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objectives SS-1.3 and SS-2.2, and Policies SS-1.4.1, SS-2.2.1, SS-
2.2.2, and SS-2.2.3.
d. Potable Water
Objective PW-1.1.1 is impacted because it states that the land development regulations
must ensure that development and redevelopment approvals are not granted unless
adequate potable water transmission capacity is in place. No amendment is necessary to
address these issues.
e. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities
The following objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objectives PA-3.1, PA-3.2, and PA-3.3, and Policies PA-3.1.2, PA-
3.2.1, and PA-3.3.1.
f. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
The following objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objectives PR-1.4, PR-1.5, and PR-3.2, and Policies PR-1.1.3, PR-
1.4.1, PR-1.4.2, PR-1.4.3, PR-1.5.6, PR-1.5.7, PR-1.5.11, PR-1.5.12, PR-3.1.1, PR-3.1.2,
and PR-3.2.1.
27
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy PR-1.5.2 is impacted because it calls for completion of the renovation of
Bicentennial Park and development of the FEC Tract by 2002. Although this Policy
remains applicable and relevant, the date has passed. It is therefore recommended that
this Policy be amended to reflect current plans for the renovation of Bicentennial Park,
now known as Museum Park, in accordance with the Museum Park Master Plan.
Policy PR-1.5.3 is impacted because it states that the City will restore the utility of
Southside Park as a downtown neighborhood center and recreational resource. It is
recommended that this Policy be revised to state the City will continue to restore and
maintain the utility of Southside Park.
Policy PR-1.5.4 is impacted because it calls for the redevelopment of Lummus Park in
the Riverside District. It is recommended that this Policy be revised that the City shall
continue to redevelop Lummus Park in the Riverside District as appropriate.
Policy PR-1.5.5 is impacted because it calls for the creation of a specialty Fisherman's
Wharf District in the Riverside District. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to
state that the City shall continue efforts to create the Fisherman's Wharf District.
Objective PR-3.1 is impacted because it calls for developing a cultural arts district in
downtown, including completion of the performing arts center by 2001. It is
recommended that this Objective be amended to remove the date, as the center is under
construction but has been delayed, or to change the date to Fall 2006.
g•
Coastal Management Element
The following objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objectives CM-1.1 and CM-1.3, and Policies CM-1.1.5, CM-1.1.9,
CM-1.3.1, CM-1.3.2, CM-2.1.1, CM-2.1.8, CM-4.1.2, and CM-4.1.5.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy CM-1.1.2 is impacted because it states that by 1990 the City shall begin to retrofit
storm water outfalls that discharge into the Miami River. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and to state that the City shall
continue retrofitting storm water outfalls into the Miami River in accordance with water
quality improvement programs and adopted plans.
Policy CM-1.1.3 is impacted because it states that beginning in 1990, the City will begin
actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay via the Miami
River. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will continue to takes actions to reduce the level of contaminants
carried into Biscayne Bay via the River in accordance with water quality improvement
programs and adopted plans.
28
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy CM-1.1.13 is impacted because it calls for continued coordination with the
Biscayne Bay Management Plan Committee to prevent development and redevelopment
along the City's shoreline from directly discharging runoff into surface waters. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to replace the direct reference to the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan Committee with a statement such as "the City shall continue
coordination with the appropriate agencies".
Policy CM-4.1.6 states that the City will work with the South Florida Regional Planning
Council (SFRPC) on the development of a model post disaster redevelopment plan, and
shall develop its own post disaster redevelopment plan by 1992. It is recommended that
this Policy be revised to remove the reference to specific dates and the SFRPC's model
post -disaster redevelopment plan, and to state that post -disaster redevelopment activities
in the City will be conducted in accordance with adopted plans.
h. Natural Resource Conservation Element
The following Objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective NR-1.2, and Policies NR-1.1.6, NR-1.3.4, and NR-3.2.2.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy NR-1.1.2 is impacted because it states that by 1990 the City shall begin to retrofit
storm water outfalls that discharge into the Miami River. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and to state that the City shall
continue retrofitting storm water outfalls into the Miami River in accordance with water
quality improvement programs and adopted plans.
Policy NR-1.1.3 is impacted because it states that beginning in 1990, the City will begin
actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay via the Miami
River. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will continue to takes actions to reduce the level of contaminants
carried into Biscayne Bay via the River in accordance with water quality improvement
programs and adopted plans.
Policy NR-1.2.1 is impacted because it calls for continued coordination with the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan Committee to monitor surface water contamination. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to replace the direct reference to the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan Committee with a statement such as "the City shall continue
coordination with the appropriate agencies". A cross reference to Policy CM-1.1.13
should be added.
i. Capital Improvements Element
The following Goal, objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goal C-1, Objectives CI-1.2, CI-1.3, and CI-1.4, and
Policies CI-1.2.2, CI-1.2.3, CI-1.3.1, CI-1.3.3, and CI-1.3.4.
29
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
I. B. PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NATURAL, HISTORIC,
ARCHEOLOGICAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
1. Issue Description and Analysis
The City of Miami is distinguished by an abundance of natural resources and cultural
attractions that set it apart from other large U.S. cities. Its location at the southeastern
corner of the United States, subtropical climate, proximity to world famous beaches and
unique ecological resources such as Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, Biscayne
Bay, and other natural features have made it a leading tourist destination and center for
such activities as boating, diving, fishing, sunbathing and swimming. These natural
features are complemented by a range of cultural and tourist attractions, celebrated night-
life and shopping, and a variety of other attributes and attractions that draw tourists and
residents alike. The City's cultural diversity and role as a gateway to the Caribbean and
Latin America provide a cosmopolitan flair that further enhances the City's uniqueness.
Although Miami is a relatively new City, it has experienced a colorful and unique history
as it has evolved from the southern terminus of Henry Flagler's railroad and winter resort
to a leading tourism, nightlife and resort destination to an international center of trade,
tourism, finance, and commerce. The City's history is reflected in its buildings, many of
which demonstrate architectural styles evocative of their era and Miami's subtropical
climate, including Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, Craftsman, Miami Modern, and
Streamline Moderne. These buildings provide Miami with a singular visual aesthetic,
and a living documentation of its history.
Miami's history, however, extends back much further than the date of its formal
establishment. The Tequestas occupied the area as far back as the pre-Columbian era,
and archeological sites such as the Miami Circle, Miami River Rapids, and a burial site at
present day Brickell Park document their history. Unfortunately, European settlement,
disease, and other factors depleted their numbers, and by the late 1800s there were few
survivors.
Miami's natural, historical, recreational, cultural, and archeological resources are:
integral to community identity; provide important environmental, social and economic
functions; document and preserve natural and cultural heritages; and contribute to the
quality of life of existing and future residents, businesses and visitors. They are an
essential component of the City's economy and key to its tourism industry and continued
economic development. These resources are threatened, however, by a number of
factors, including: adverse development impacts; deterioration, degradation, and
demolition; and misuse or neglect. In the current wave of development and
redevelopment, it is essential that the City take strong actions to preserve these resources
and the many benefits that they provide.
The City's recreation and open spaces provide: residents and workers with the
opportunity to enjoy the City's natural resources in an urban environment; recreational
opportunities that are integral to social well being and quality of life; and are a key
30
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
component of the urban fabric and maintaining and building healthy neighborhoods. The
City of Miami has a system of over 100 parks which provide a variety of recreational
opportunities and open space functions. This system, however, faces a number of
challenges, including undeveloped or underdeveloped sites, limited public access, lack of
resources, and the need to provide additional parks. As noted in Chapter I.A., however,
the City is facing an unprecedented wave of development and redevelopment, which is
increasing the demand for recreation open spaces and increasing density Citywide. As
density increases, parks play an important role in providing urban relief and
implementing good urban design, neighborhood redevelopment and revitalization
programs.
31
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
a. Historic, Cultural and Archeological Resource Protection
The City of Miami's Historic Preservation Program is charged with protecting the City's
historic, architectural, and archeological resources through a variety of methods,
including identification, evaluation, adaptive reuse, restoration, protection, and public
awareness. In 1982, Miami passed the Historic Preservation Ordinance in order to
prevent the continued loss of historic landmarks in the rapidly changing urban
environment. In enacting the Ordinance, the City established the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) in order to assist in the identification,
designation and protection of historically significant properties. The Program is
administered through the Planning and Zoning Department.
As per this Ordinance", a property owner, the HEPB, or a neighborhood association may
nominate a site for designation as a historic property. In the case of a concentration of
historically significant properties, the HEPB may designate a historic district. In
considering a site for designation, the HEPB determines whether the property meets the
criteria for designation.
Owners of designated properties are provided with a number of incentives designed to
encourage participation, including technical assistance, development bonuses to permit
higher floor area ratios or density if historic properties are preserved, allowing uses which
would otherwise not be allowed in the zoning district, and/or increasing heights and
reducing setback and parking requirements. Properties which are also listed in the
National Register of Historic Places are eligible for a 20 percent tax credit on
rehabilitation costs. Designation can also increase the marketability and value of a
property or district.
After a property is designated, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for new
construction, alterations, additions, relocations, or demolitions in a historic property, site,
district or archeological zone. Minor improvements can be approved by the Preservation
Officer, while major improvements require approval by the HEPB. Failure to adhere to
these requirements will result in code violations, enforcement actions, and associated
penalties.
There are currently seven designated historic districts, one archeological zone, and 81
other designated historic building in the City of Miami. Figure I.B.1. identifies the
location of the City's historic properties.
Despite the successes of the City's Historic Preservation Program, the concern remains
that non -listed structures of historic significance are still endangered by demolition or
deterioration. Controversies have arisen where non -protected buildings thought to be of
historic significance were demolished as a result of development and redevelopment
activity. The City has no authority to protect structures that have not been designated,
and the time taken by the designation process can deter efforts to quickly preserve a
structure in imminent danger. The challenge of balancing the property rights of owners
" City of Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance
32
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
with the public interest of preservation remains daunting. The development of incentives
to encourage developers to work with the community in achieving preservation goals is
paramount.
33
City of Miami
Figure I.B.1
HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
LEGEND
Historic
Properties
n City of Miami
Boundary
Miami -Dade
County Ports
Highways
Major Roads
1 Water
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
b. Natural Resource Protection
The City of Miami has abundant natural resources, including the Biscayne Bay
waterfront, rivers, Biscayne Bay islands, Virginia Key, tropical flora and fauna,
greenspaces, and wetlands. These resources are a key component of the City's quality of
life, economy, and attractiveness as a tourism and business destination Ensuring their
protection is necessary in order to provide quality of life to existing and future residents,
businesses and visitors. In addition, these resources play an important role in improving
air and water quality, stormwater retention, the availability of potable water, and
providing other environmental benefits.
In the EAR Issue scoping process, preservation of the City's tree canopy emerged as an
important issue. Many City residents expressed concerns about the loss of the tree
canopy and/or well -established trees resulting from development and redevelopment
projects. Currently, developers have to secure permits in order to remove or cut trees,
and neighborhood associations can file appeals of such permits. In addition, many areas
of the City have been designated as Environmental Preservation Districts, further
protecting trees and other natural features.
In recognition of the importance of the issue and the need for providing additional
protections to the tree canopy in the current wave of redevelopment, the City is drafting a
Tree Protection Ordinance. Key components of this ordinance include requirements for
mitigation, increased penalties for illegal tree removal, requirements for the relocation of
trees away from construction sites, requirements for obtaining permits when pruning a
certain percentage of a tree, the development of a tree disposition plan for development
and redevelopment sites, and the establishment of a City Tree Trust fund. Goals,
objectives and policies supporting protection of the tree canopy should also be reflected
in the MCNP.
Preserving the quality of surface waters is an important concern for a number of reasons,
including protecting the environmental quality of watersheds, wetlands, and Biscayne
Bay. Issues regarding the degradation of the Miami River's water quality were addressed
in Chapter I.A. In addition, the City, in conjunction with such regulatory agencies as the
Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, South
Florida Water Management District, Miami River Coordinating Committee, Miami River
Commission, Biscayne Bay Management Committee, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, work to reduce point and
non -point source pollutant loading into surface waters, including the Miami River, Little
River, and Biscayne Bay. The City complies with the requirements of its National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in operating its sanitary storm sewer discharge system. In addition, the West Flagami
area of the City is designated as a secondary aquifer recharge area. Policies to maintain
low or median density development in this area are reflected in the MCNP and land
development regulations.
35
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The Biscayne Bay shoreline is another key feature of the City's natural resources
inventory. Preserving the quality of scenic visual and physical corridors to and from the
City's waterfront is enumerated in various objectives and policies. The City has in place
the Waterfront Charter Amendment12 which requires visual and in some cases physical
access to the City's Bayfront. The requirement is for 25% of the width of the land in total
to be open and unimpeded by manmade structures. In addition, the County's Biscayne
Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee13 reviews all applications for properties
abutting the Biscayne Bay shoreline. This review also requires visual and in some cases
public physical access to Biscayne Bay of twenty (20) percent of the width of the lot (up
to one hundred (100) feet maximum) on one (1) side of the parcel.
The major points of the Codes are to achieve the following objectives: (1) Preserving or
enhancing the natural, aesthetic and recreational values of the shoreline; (2) Encouraging
the best use of the water and shoreline area for the benefit of all; (3) Providing the
maximum amount of public visual and physical access to the water through walkways,
boardwalks, plazas, and observation areas along the shoreline; (4) Encouraging new
shoreline development to be oriented to the water; (5) Avoiding monotony in building
heights and width; (6) Preventing the siting of incompatible uses; (7) Encouraging native
plant materials along the shoreline to focus views to the water; (8) Creating a natural soft
edge and greenbelt -like quality along the bay shoreline; and (10) Encouraging the
integration of existing historic structures and features in new developments.
Virginia Key is a 1,055 acre natural barrier island located between Biscayne Bay and the
Atlantic Ocean. It provides the City's only ocean front beaches and includes a variety of
fragile and important ecosystems, such as coastal hammocks, coastal dunes, mangroves,
tidal marshes, and tidal flats. Approximately 250 acres are developed; the portions along
Rickenbacker causeway include private and public marine facilities, a marine stadium,
research facilities, and other uses14. Virginia Key is also home to one of Miami -Dade
County's three sewage treatment plants. Dredge from the plant is treated and dried on the
Key, which has raised concerns regarding contamination and odor. The plant is served
by a sewer line that connects the island to the northwest. Concerns about this main and
its potential for contaminating the Bay resulted in enforcement actions being brought
against the County by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in the mid-
1990s. These actions resulted in the construction of a new sewer line and other
improvements to the sewage treatment plant.
12 City of Miami Charter, Section 3(mm)
13 Chapter 33D, Code of Miami -Dade County
14 Virginia Key Master Plan, City of Miami Planning Department, June 1987
36
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
c. Recreation and Open Space
The City of Miami's Department of Parks and Recreation maintains a system of over 100
parks and park sites providing 704 acres of recreation and open space to City residents,
visitors and businesses. These parks include: 32 community/neighborhood parks
providing a variety of recreational services and facilities to community residents; two (2)
dog parks; eight (8) nature parks providing opportunities for the passive enjoyment of the
City's natural resources; six (6) special use parks, providing recreation open space and
facilities for special events; 27 mini -parks, providing open space, urban relief, and in
some cases tot lots and limited recreational facilities; joint park/school sites; and other
properties reserved for use as recreation and open space. Figure I.B.2_ indicates the
location of City park facilities.
The City's adopted Level of service standard for public recreation and open space is 1.3
acres of park space per 1,000 residents. Based on the City's 2000 population of 362,470,
471.2 acres of recreation and open space would be required to meet this standard. As is
demonstrated on Table I.B.1. below, the City would continue to meet this standard with
existing park acreage through 2025 based on current population projections, and no
deficiencies are projected.
Table I.B.1. Park Acreage Required to Meet Current and Projected Population
Year
Population (projected and
current)
Park acreage required to
meet LOS standard
2000
362,470
471
2005
368,479
479
2015
380,921
495
2025
391,912
509
As noted in Chapter I.A.1., however, the City is experiencing rapid development and
redevelopment, which is greatly increasing urban density. In a dense urban environment,
parks and public open spaces provide essential urban relief, neighborhood aesthetics, and
community benefits. In addition, the current development and redevelopment boom
could portend greater population growth than is reflected in the population projections.
For these reasons, it is recommended that the City continue to implement strategies to
ensure that public open space is provided as part of development and redevelopment
projects, and evaluate and implement parks. Neighborhood deficiencies should be
identified and addressed in neighborhood planning, development and redevelopment
efforts.
The City's park system faces a number of other challenges, including underdeveloped
and undeveloped park sites, the need for additional programmatic and operational dollars,
the need for more full service parks, and the need for additional funds for park
rehabilitation. Strategies to identify funding sources to address these needs should be
considered as well. Park/school agreements, public/private partnerships, joint
37
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
programming with non-profit agencies, and the adaptation of existing buildings for use as
recreation facilities should also be continued or considered.
The City has reasons for optimism regarding the availability of funds for park acquisition
and development. In 2001, voters passed the "Homeland Defense/Neighborhood
Improvements" bond issue in order to enhance security and improve parks throughout the
City. A number of specific parks projects have been implemented or initiated as a result
of this bond issue. In addition, funding from the bond issue is being used to implement
the Little Haiti Park project, which is intended to better address recreation open space
needs in the underserved Little Haiti neighborhood. The passage of the Miami -Dade
County's "Building Better Communities" bond issue will provide the additional funding.
The Museum Park Master Plan has been initiated to redevelop downtown Miami's
Museum Park, a 29 acre park site located between Biscayne Bay, I-395, Biscayne
Boulevard, and the American Airlines Arena. Underutilized since its previous
incarnation as part of the City's historic seaport, the site has been recognized as an ideal
location for a signature park due to its strategic downtown bayfront location. The 2001
"Homeland Defense/Neighborhood Improvements" bond issue earmarked $10,000,000
for redevelopment of the park, which is proposed to include several museums, public
open space, marine recreation facilities, and a bayside promenade. The passage of the
"Building Better Communities" bond issue provides additional funding for Bicentennial
Park projects.
As noted in the previous section, Virginia Key provides the only public beach in the City
of Miami. The Parks and Recreation Department maintains lifeguard stands at Virginia
Key Beach, and shares responsibility for its maintenance and preservation with the
Virginia Key Beach Trust. The Park and Recreation Department is currently restoring a
15 acre coastal hammock on Virginia Key. An interpretive nature trail allows the public
to access this site while mitigating human impacts.
Ensuring public access to the City's waterfront resources is an important component of
addressing the recreation and open space needs of City residents, businesses and visitors.
As noted in the previous section, the City's Waterfront Charter Amendment and County's
Shoreline Development Review Committee work to ensure public access to the City's
shoreline through development review and access requirements. The Trust for Public
Lands, in conjunction with the Miami River Commission, is planning a $25 Million, 5.5
mile greenway along the Miami River in order to improve public access to the riverfront,
create public trails and walkways, enhance parks and natural areas, improve bridges and
roadways, and restore river channel banks.'5
15 www tpl.org
38
City of Miami
Figure I.B.2
CITY OWNED
PARKS
LEGEND
PARKS
City of Miami
Boundary
Miami -Dade
County Ports
o/ Highways
Major Roads
1 Water
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts
Section 163.3191(2)(e), F.S., requires that the potential social, economic, and
environmental impacts of the identified major issues be addressed in the EAR. The
previous section of this report described specific impacts of issues involved with the
preservation of natural, historic and recreational resources in detail.
In summary, major positive social impacts of historic and natural resource protection, and
the provision of parks and open space, include: the preservation of important historic,
natural and cultural heritages; improved quality of life provided as a result of increased
cultural and recreational opportunities, and a stronger sense of community; urban relief
provided by proximity to intact natural areas, recreation open space, and the
incorporation of natural features such as trees into the urban environment; increased
opportunities for residents and visitors to learn about the area's environment and history;
and stronger neighborhoods through better design and the preservation of natural
features, open space, and significant buildings. By providing a venue for physical
activities, parks can result in a healthier population, with positive public health
implications. Moreover, parks provide an outlet for positive social interaction and
activity, which can ease the boredom and isolation that leads to crime and other social
problems. Parks are particularly important as a social and recreational outlet for youths
and special needs populations.
The positive environmental impacts of natural resource restoration and preservation are
implicit; failure to protect these resources will result in deterioration of the natural
environment and the degradation or loss of important resources. Reduced air and water
quality, increased soil contamination, and a degraded physical environment are among
the many negative impacts of results of failing to protect natural resources. In addition,
the public health is compromised by a deteriorated natural environment. Open space
plays a key role in the ecosystem by providing such functions as aquifer recharge,
wildlife habitat, and air quality. It is therefore imperative to maintain recreation and
open space as a viable land use in the City.
From an economic standpoint, Miami's natural environment and unique history is key to
the City's tourism industry, and to the continued attraction of residents, workers and
businesses to the area. They are an essential component of the City's economic
development strategies, and must therefore be preserved. Impacts to private property
rights and the cost of resource protection are potential negative impacts. A well -
developed and maintained park system is a key factor in quality of life, and is also an
important tool in attracting new businesses and residents to the City. As noted above,
parks can also play a role in crime reduction and improved public health, lessening the
negative economic impacts of crime and rising health care costs. Although there is a
public cost to acquiring, developing, and maintaining parks, these costs are somewhat
mitigated by these factors.
40
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
3. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations
Section 163.3191 (2)(g), F.S., requires that the EAR evaluate the plan objectives within
each element as they relate to the major issues and identify, where appropriate,
unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances which have resulted in problems or
opportunities with respect to the major issues. Issue I.B., "Preservation and
Enhancement of Natural, Historic, Archeological and Recreational Resources", impacts
the following Elements, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City of Miami's Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Specific recommendations to address these impacts
are made where appropriate and warranted.
a. Future Land Use Element
The following goals, objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goals LU-1 and LU-2, Objectives LU-1.5, LU-2.2,
LU-2.5, and LU-3.2, and Policies LU-1.1.3, LU-1.1.7, LU-1.1.9, LU-1.1.10, LU-1.1.11,
LU-1.4.8, LU-1.5.1, LU-1.6.11, LU-2.1.1, LU-2.2.1, LU-2.4.1, LU-2.4.2, LU-2.4.4, LU-
2.5.1, LU-2.5.2, and LU-2.5.4.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy LU-1.5.2 is impacted because it states that land use regulations and development
policies will be consistent with the County's Waterfront Charter Amendment, Shoreline
Development Review Ordinance, and rules of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
Management Area. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to add "and other
appropriate requirements regarding waterfront access and management".
Policy LU-1.6.8 is impacted because it states that the City's land development regulations
and policies to allow for the provision of open space in development projects in
residential and commercial areas. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to call
replace "allow" with "encourage and/or require, as appropriate".
Objective LU-1.7 is impacted because it calls for encouraging recreational development
within designated recreation use area, concentrating activities where the public service
capacity is available. It is recommended that this Objective be revised to call for
concentrating "recreational activities that require public facilities and infrastructure" to
areas where capacity is available.
Policy LU-1.7.1 is impacted because it calls for directing recreational activities to areas
where public facilities are available. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to call
for "recreational activities that require public facilities and infrastructure" to areas where
capacity is available.
Objective LU-2.1 states that the City will maintain, update and amplify the Miami
portion of the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey. It is recommended that this Policy
41
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
be revised to call for the City to maintain, update and continue to increase the number of
eligible properties included in the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey.
Policy LU-2.1.2 is impacted because it calls for the City's development and maintenance
of a database of information for sites in the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey. This
Policy should be amended to state that the City shall continue to maintain and update the
referenced database.
Policy LU-2.2.2 is impacted because it states that the City will work with Miami -Dade
County's Archaeologist to monitor building activities near archeological sites. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to state that the City Archaeologist will
monitor building activities near archeological sites.
Policy LU-2.2.3 states that the County Archaeologist shall be notified of construction
activities within significant archeological zones, and shall permit State and local
archeological officials with the opportunity to survey and excavate the site. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to reference the City Archaeologist instead.
Policy LU-2.2.4 states that the City shall consider adoption of civil penalties for failure to
report the discovery of an archeological site during construction. This Policy should be
deleted, as the City has no authority to protect sites that have not been designated as
historically or archeologically significant. Sites that have been designated require a
Certificate of Appropriateness. It is recommended that this Policy be deleted.
Objective LU-2.3 calls for increasing the number of nationally and locally designated
sites by five percent a year between 1996 and 2001. This Objective should be amended
to call for the City to continue in its efforts to increase the number of nationally and
locally designated sites in the City, and to develop incentives to encourage designation
and preservation, while deleting the reference to a specific percentage and time period.
Policy LU-2.4.3 states that the City owns nine historic sites and other potential
archeological sites, and that if deemed in the public interest the City will transfer the title
of these properties with restrictive covenants to ensure conservation, preservation, and
adaptive and sensitive reuse. It is recommended that this Policy should be amended to
delete the reference to the number of sites that the City owns, since it is subject to
change.
Policy LU-3.1.2 details standards, uses and guidelines for designated Regional Activity
Centers. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to encourage the provision of
public open space and parks in Regional Activity Centers.
42
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
b. Housing Element
The following Policy is impacted, but no amendment is necessary to address these issues:
Policy HO-1.2.4.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy HO-1.1.6 calls for the City to continue to encourage the restoration and adaptive
sensitive reuse of historically and/or architecturally significant housing through the
appropriate use of zoning incentives. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to
state that the City shall encourage the designation, restoration and adaptive reuse of
historically significant housing through zoning and other incentives deemed appropriate.
Policy HO-1.2.11 states that historically significant housing in the City shall be subject to
the Heritage Conservation Article of the City Code. It is recommended that this Policy
be amended to change the reference from "Heritage Conservation Article" to "Chapter 23
and other appropriate sections" of the City Code.
c. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
The following Goal, objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goal SS-2, Objectives SS-1.2, SS-2.2, SS-2.3, and SS-
2.6, and Policies SS-1.2.1, SS-1.2.4, SS-2.2.1, SS-2.2.2, SS-2.2.3, SS-2.2.4, and SS-2.3.1.
d. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element
This Element is impacted in its entirety by this issue because it addresses the protection
of the City's groundwater supply. No amendments to this Element's Goal, objectives, or
policies are necessary to address this issue.
e. Potable Water Element
Policy PW-1.2.2 is impacted because it calls for the City to participate with the County
and other municipalities receiving potable water from the County in developing a
Countywide water conservation plan. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to
also reference the City's support of and assistance to the County in the development and
implementation of the Water Supply Facilities Workplan as required by Florida Statute.
f. Solid Waste Collection Element
The following Objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective SW-1.4, and Policies SW-1.1.6, SW-1.2.4, SW-1.3.2,
SW-1.4.1, and SW-1.4.2.
43
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
g•
Ports and Aviation Element
The following Objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective PA-3.1, and Policies PA-1.1.1, PA-1.1.8, PA-2.1.1, PA-
3.1.2, and PA-3.1.3.
h. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
This issue impacts the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element in its entirety. The
following recommendations are made to address this issue.
Policy PR-1.1.2 states that the City will improve the quality and diversity of recreational
programming offered at community parks. It is recommended that a statement be added
to call for the City to investigate strategies to increase the level of programmatic funding
that is made available to City parks.
Policy PR-1.1.5 states that the majority of land on Watson Island should be retained for
recreational use. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to state that the City
shall continue to ensure that recreational lands are included in any redevelopment plans
for Watson Island.
Policy PR-1.1.6 states that new parks and park improvements will consider the needs of
pre-school aged children and the elderly within their service radii. It is recommended
that this Policy be revised to reference "persons with disabilities and other special needs
groups" and "and the broader community" as well, and to read more clearly.
Policy PR-1.1.7 states that the City will coordinate efforts with providers of social
services to the elderly and youth in order to allow their use of City recreational facilities
for recreational programs. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to reference
"other special needs groups" as well, and amplified to continue to encourage coordination
with non-profit service providers in addressing recreational needs. If these revisions are
made, Policy PR-1.1.9 can be deleted, as it would be duplicative.
Policy PR-1.1.8 states that features that increase access for handicapped persons will be
included in the design for all renovations expansions and development of park facilities.
It is recommended that this Policy be revised to call for increasing accessibility for
persons with disabilities, in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements.
Policy PR-1.2.14 states that interpretive displays, educational programs, wildlife
observations areas, and picnic areas will be encouraged in parks and opens spaces by
2005. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete the reference to the date,
and to call for such facilities to continue to be provided.
Objective PR-1.2 states that public safety and security will be provided in the City's
parks, reducing crime and accidents rates by five percent every five years between 1995
44
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
and 2015. It is recommended that the percent and dates be deleted and that the Objective
be amended to call for the reduction in crime and incident rates in the City's parks.
Policy PR-1.2.3 states that the City Police Department will establish programs to work
with neighborhood residents to create and support community watch groups. This Policy
should be revised to state that the Police Depaitinent will continue to work with
neighborhood groups on these programs, as they are established.
Policy PR-1.2.4 states that the City will establish a system of regular, uniformed police
patrols around community and neighborhood parks. This Policy should be revised to
state that the City will maintain these programs, as they have been established.
Policy PR-1.3.2 calls for the establishment of a Parks of Excellence Program. This
Policy should be revised to state that the City will maintain its Parks of Excellence
Programs.
Policy PR-1.3.8 calls for the establishment of a Parks Advisory Board to represent all
neighborhoods in order to increase the effectiveness of recreation services. It is
recommended that this Policy be revised to call for the City to periodically review and
refine the mission and charge of the Parks Advisory Board in order to ensure maximum
opportunities for public involvement and effectiveness in addressing specific recreation
open space needs.
Policy PR-1.4.1 states that the City will use developer contributions, including impact
fees, to fund the cost of public open space and recreational facilities. It is recommended
that this Policy be revised to call for the periodic evaluation of these fees in accordance
with recreation and open space needs.
Policy PR-1.4.4 established the Level of Service Standard for Recreation and Open Space
at 1.3 acres per 1,000 persons. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to call for
periodic evaluations of this standard.
Policy PR-1.5.2 is impacted because it calls for completion of the renovation of
Bicentennial Park and development of the FEC Tract by 2002. Although this Policy
remains applicable and relevant, the date has passed. It is therefore recommended that
this Policy be amended to reflect current plans for the renovation of Bicentennial Park,
now known as Museum Park, in accordance with the Museum Park Master Plan.
Policy PR-1.5.3 is impacted because it states that the City will restore the utility of
Southside Park as a downtown neighborhood center and recreational resource. It is
recommended that this Policy be revised to state the City will continue to restore and
maintain the utility of Southside Park.
Policy PR-1.5.4 is impacted because it calls for the redevelopment of Lummus Park in
the Riverside District. It is recommended that this Policy be revised that the City shall
continue to redevelop Lummus Park in the Riverside District as appropriate.
45
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy PR-1.5.8 calls for the City to expand Jose Marti Park to provide additional
opportunities for area residents, workers and businesses. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to state that the City shall maintain and, where appropriate, expand
Jose Marti Park.
Policy PR-2.1.2 states that the City will establish a procedure whereby native plant
species that do not require excessive watering or fertilizer are used in the development
and renovation of parks. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to state that the
City will maintain and enhance official procedures to utilize native species in City parks.
Objective PR-4.1 should be revised to state that the City will improve accessibility to
parks and recreation facilities by 2005. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to
change the date to 2015.
Policy PR-4.1.3 states that interpretive displays, educational programs, "wild"
observation areas, and picnic areas will be encouraged in parks. It is recommended that
this Policy be revised to replace "wild observation areas", which is a typo, with "wildlife
observation areas.
i. Coastal Management Element
This issue impacts the Coastal Management Element in its entirety. The following
recommendations are made to address this issue.
Policy CM-1.1.1 states that by 1990 the City will assess environmental hazards resulting
from past disposal activities at the Virginia Key landfill. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and state that the City shall continue
to take actions to protect and restore the natural environment of Virginia Key.
Policy CM-1.1.2 states that by 1990 the City shall begin to retrofit storm water outfalls
that discharge into the Miami River. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to
remove reference to the date and to state that the City shall continue retrofitting storm
water outfalls into the Miami River in accordance with water quality improvement
programs and adopted plans.
Policy CM-1.1.3 is impacted because it states that beginning in 1990, the City will begin
actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay via the Miami
River. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will encourage the reduction in the levels of contaminants
through coordination with the appropriate agencies.
Policy CM-1.1.4 states that the City will seek cooperative funding to reduce point and
non -sources of pollution into Biscayne Bay, and that by 1991 the City will establish plans
to reduce sources of pollution within the City boundaries. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and to state that the City will
46
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
encourage the reduction in point and non -sources of pollution into Biscayne Bay through
coordination with the appropriate agencies.
Policy CM-1.1.8 states that all development on Virginia Key will be in conformance with
the Virginia Key Master Plan. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to allow for
the revision or update of the Plan to better reflect the current vision of the City.
Policy CM-1.1.10 references the City's development of a master plan for Watson Island
by 1990. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to allow for the revision or update
of the Plan to better reflect the current vision of the City.
Policy CM-1.1.12 states that the by 1992 the City will establish marina siting
requirements. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to state that the City will
continue to implement and enforce the marina siting requirements in the land
development regulations.
Policy CM-1.1.13 is impacted because it calls for continued coordination with the
Biscayne Bay Management Plan Committee to prevent development and redevelopment
along the City's shoreline from directly discharging runoff into surface waters. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to replace the direct reference to the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan Committee with a statement such as "the City shall continue
coordination with the appropriate agencies".
Policy CM-2.1.2 calls for all City -owned waterfront property to provide shoreline access
by 1994. It is recommended that the reference to the date be deleted, and that the Policy
be reworded to call for the City to continue to provide shoreline access to City -owned
waterfront property.
Policy CM-2.1.3 states that the City will prepare an implementation Plan for the
Downtown Waterfront Master Plan by 1994, and will identify funding sources to
implement the plan by 1999. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to remove
references to the dates, and to call for the City to continue to implement projects in
accordance with the Downtown Waterfront Master Plan or other adopted plans that
impact the downtown waterfront as appropriate. Policy CM-2.1.4 can be deleted, as it is
duplicative of Policy CM-2.1.3.
Policy CM-2.1.5 is impacted because it calls for the preparation of design guidelines for
private properties along the baywalk and riverwalk by 1992. It is recommended that this
Policy be revised to call for the City to continue to implement design guidelines along the
baywalk and riverwalk in accordance with adopted plans.
Policy CM-2.1.6 calls for the City to consider the need for, and appropriateness of,
shoreline stabilization as part of the development and redevelopment of waterfront
properties. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete the reference to the
date, and to state that the City shall continue to consider the need for shoreline
stabilization as part of the development and redevelopment of waterfront properties.
47
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy CM-2.1.7 states that by 1990, the City will incorporate provisions for physical and
visual access to the shoreline. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete the
reference to the date, and to call for the City to continue to implement these provisions.
Policies CM-2.2.1 states that the City will prepare a development implementation plan
for Virginia Key by 1994, and identify funding sources by 1999. It is recommended that
the City shall continue to collaborate with the County on developing an updated Master
Plan for Virginia Key and to seek funding to implement the Plan.
Policy CM-2.2.2 states that the City will prepare a development implementation plan for
Watson Island by 1994, and identify funding sources by 1999. It is recommended that
this Policy be revised to state that the City will continue to implement adopted plans for
Watson Island, and to seek funding to implement these plans.
Policy CM-4.1.3 calls for the City to develop measures to protect City -owned historic
properties from destruction in the event of a major storm, and contingency plans for the
restoration of these sites, by 1992. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to
remove the reference to the date, and to call for the City to continue to implement
measures to protect City -owned historic properties from destruction in a major storm
event.
Objective CM-5.1 states that the City will maintain, update, and amplify the Miami
portion of the County Historic Survey. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to
call for the City to maintain, update and continue to increase the number of eligible
properties contained in the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey.
Policy CM-5.1.1 states that the City will identify potential historic districts and conduct
surveys of contributing and non-contributing buildings by 1991. It is recommended that
this Policy be revised to delete the reference to the date, and to state that the City will
continue to identify historic districts and to survey contributing and non-contributing
buildings.
Policy CM-5.1.2 states that the City shall develop and implement a computerized
database of all historic properties in the City by 1994. It is recommended that this Policy
be revised to delete reference to the date and to the number of sites, and to state that the
City shall continue to maintain this database.
Policy CM-5.1.3 states that the City has designated 50 historic sites and three historic
districts pursuant to the Heritage Conservation Article of the Zoning Ordinance. It is
recommended that this Policy be revised to state that the City has designated numerous
historic sites and districts as per Chapter 23 of the Miami City Code, and that it will
continue to designate sites and districts as appropriate and warranted.
Policy CM-5.1.5 states that by 1994, the City will include information on historic,
archeological and cultural resources in public information, economic development
promotion, and tourism materials. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to state
48
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
that the City will continue to include this information in public information, economic
development promotion, and tourism materials, and to delete reference to the date.
Policy CM-5.2.2 states that the City owns nine historic sites and other potential
archeological sites, and that if deemed in the public interest the City will transfer the title
of these properties with restrictive covenants to ensure conservation, preservation, and
adaptive and sensitive reuse. It is recommended that his policy be revised to delete the
reference to the number of sites, since it is subject to change.
j. Natural Resources Element
This issue impacts the Natural Resources Element in its entirety. The following
recommendations are made to address this issue.
Policy NR-1.1.1 states that by 1990 the City will assess environmental hazards resulting
from past disposal activities at the Virginia Key landfill. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and state that the City shall continue
to take actions to protect and restore the natural environment of Virginia Key.
Policy NR-1.1.2 is impacted because it states that by 1990 the City shall begin to retrofit
storm water outfalls that discharge into the Miami River. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to remove reference to the date and to state that the City shall
continue retrofitting storm water outfalls into the Miami River in accordance with water
quality improvement programs and adopted plans.
Policy NR-1.1.3 is impacted because it states that beginning in 1990, the City will begin
actions to reduce the level of contaminants carried into Biscayne Bay via the Miami
River. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will encourage the reduction in the levels of contaminants
through coordination with the appropriate agencies.
Objective NR-1.2 is impacted because it calls for improving the water quality of the
Miami River. No amendments to this Objective are necessary to address this issue, but a
cross reference to Objective CM-1.1 should be added.
Policy NR-1.2.1 is impacted because it calls for continued coordination with the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan Committee to monitor surface water contamination. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to add "and with appropriate agencies".
Policy NR-1.2.2 is impacted because it calls for the City to continue to implement the
Biscayne Bay Management Plan to reduce the levels of contamination in water bodies. It
is recommended that this Policy be amended to add the phrase "and other relevant plans"
after the reference to the Biscayne Bay Management Plan.
Policy NR-2.1.6 states that the City will develop and adopt a city -level water
conservation plan. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete the reference to
49
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
the date, and to call for the City to coordinate with Miami -Dade County, South Florida
Water Management District and other appropriate agencies in the implementation of
water conservation programs and plans.
k. Capital Improvements Element
The following policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to address these
issues: Policies CI-1.1.4 and CI-1.2.3.
1. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
The following Objective is impacted, but no amendments are necessary to address these
issues: Objective IC-1.1.
The following Policy is impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy IC-1.1.4 is impacted because it states that the City will continue to seek
membership on the Biscayne Bay Management Committee. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to state that the City will seek or maintain membership on committees
and agencies addressing the environmental health and water quality of Biscayne Bay.
50
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
4. Other Recommendations
In addition to the recommendations to amend existing Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) goals, objectives and policies that were made in the
previous section, it is recommended that the following additional MCNP amendments be
adopted to address the issue of natural, historic and recreational resource preservation.
a. Joint Park/School Sites
The use of school playgrounds and recreational facilities for community recreation
purposes, and of City parks to meet the recreational needs of students, is an excellent
strategy for increasing the recreational opportunities available to City residents, visitors,
and workers, and for reducing land requirements that might otherwise prevent public
schools from opening in a dense urban environment. It is therefore recommended that
objectives and policies calling for increasing the number of joint park/school agreements
between the City and Miami -Dade County Public Schools be added to the Future Land
Use, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements.
b. Park Linkages and Greenways
Add objectives and policies to the Recreation and Open Space Element encouraging
landscaped pedestrian and bicycle linkages between existing and planned park sites,
where appropriate and feasible, and supporting the Trust for Public Lands efforts to
create a Miami River greenway.
c. Tree Protection
Add objectives and policies to the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements calling for
protection of the City's tree canopy and significant trees through the implementation of a
tree protection ordinance.
51
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
I. C. PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD
INTEGRITY
1. Issue Description and Analysis
The City of Miami is comprised of a series of neighborhoods with distinct histories,
characteristics, land uses and economic functions. Some neighborhoods are exclusively
residential while others are commercial or industrial, and many include a mix of uses in
various proportions. The City's most prevalent pattern of development has been
characterized by commercial, retail, office and multi -family residential uses concentrated
along arterial roadways in "commercial strips", with lower density residential uses
concentrated on side streets behind these corridors. A hallmark of the movement toward
infill development and redevelopment is increased density and a trend toward more
mixed use development, whereby a range of neighborhood -serving residential, retail,
office and community serving uses (i.e. parks, schools) are integrated in a single
neighborhood. A major benefit of this development pattern is reduced automobile
dependence, as such neighborhoods provide the range of community -serving uses within
a walkable area. Another benefit is an increased sense of community, as opportunities for
increased business, social, and recreational interaction are provided. Indeed, this "new
urbanism" is reflective of the prevailing development patterns that existed before the
automobile. Although Miami was largely developed in the age of the automobile, it does
have the opportunity to incorporate many of the principles of new urbanism in its
redevelopment and development initiatives.
a. Neighborhood Plans
The City has long recognized the importance of neighborhoods as the fundamental
building blocks upon which great cities are built. This prioritization is evinced by a
number of factors, including the fact that the City calls its comprehensive plan the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The City has developed a number of plans for
specific neighborhoods, and the recommendations and findings of these plans have been
incorporated into the MCNP where appropriate.
b. Neighborhood Enhancement Teams
In addition to the development and implementation of specific neighborhood plans, in the
1990s the City established a Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) program in order
to bring City services and programs closer to neighborhoods. A series of NET offices
were opened in different neighborhoods throughout the City, and City staff such as
neighborhood and community police patrol officers, social and housing service officers,
and representatives of other key City departments were assigned to these offices. Each
NET office is led by an administrator who serves as the neighborhood's prime point of
contact with the City, and who implements or assists in the implementation of a number
of neighborhood specific initiatives. Every area in the City is served by a NET office. A
map showing NET areas is provided on Figure I.C.1.
52
NORTH
—
W RACIER ST:
f
47
wY
JEJ
!MAW
INTERNATIONAL
AWPORT
g.laroinfolp&d4mxdiCtlmprolilelne Nalghshd @ B 11.mxd
N W ]S1 H ST.
ST1 ST.
SW 22NO ST.
(CORAL WAY)
SW I6TN Sl
S
NTH ST
Y
NW TIVT T. "-"IT I•_.w.-II_....
NWB2Ne ST. �I '
m
NW SITU ST.
2 py11PORT EXWL l
CeINUT
VE
S1\
T GRO176,. j
AA IA TUTTLE 'CAIiSEW
2@TH ST
CAUSEWAY
ENSCAYNE
BAY
VENETIAN
CAUSEWAY
D
LRYOF NUNI W ESPASIE OCTOSER 21W1
City of Miami
Figure 1.C.1
NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT
TEAM AREAS
THE
CORRADINO
GROUP
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
c. Neighborhood Challenges and Initiatives
Miami's development and redevelopment is presenting a number of unique challenges to
its existing neighborhoods, including: the encroachment of incompatible land uses; the
lack of appropriate transitions between land uses; changing neighborhood character due
to incompatible new development; and the demolition of existing buildings, some with
perceived or real historic and neighborhood significance. As a result of these challenges,
the vast majority of issues raised by the public at the EAR-scoping meetings were
neighborhood specific. Particular areas of controversy include: the lack of appropriate
transitions between high rise and low rise development; noise, construction, traffic and
parking impacts; incompatible design; concerns about overdevelopment and increased
density; and a lack of neighborhood input in decision -making processes. In response to
concerns about overdevelopment and transitions between high rise and low rise
development, the City has adopted and is continuing to develop land development
regulations to address these issues. Other major issues related to neighborhood integrity
include: concerns about inadequate code enforcement; the prevalence of illegal units;
alleviation of slum and blight conditions; the need for improved neighborhood
infrastructure; concerns about crime; and the impacts of infrastructure projects on
surrounding neighborhoods.
Miami has implemented a number of strategies and mechanisms to protect neighborhood
integrity, including the creation of Special Districts. These districts provide an
opportunity to implement more neighborhood specific design and development
guidelines to protect and enhance unique neighborhood characteristics where in the
public interest.
In 2002, the City amended the Miami Zoning Code to create Neighborhood Conservation
Districts. The purpose of these districts is to: 1) Provide a land use or zoning tool to
preserve neighborhood character and promote compatible development; 2) Protect
neighborhoods or districts that have significant architectural and historic merit and a
distinct character, but do not qualify for historic district status; and, 3) Protect structures
that contribute to the architectural heritage of the City.
In 2001, Miami voters approved a $255,000,000 Homeland Defense/Neighborhood
Improvements Bond issue in order to enhance security, improve and provide parks, and
improve neighborhoods throughout the City. This source of funding is an important
component of the City's $765,000,000 capital improvement program, which includes the
repair of deficient roadways, 57 miles of roadway resurfacing, 19 miles of sidewalks,
park rehabilitation, flood mitigation, and public facilities. The County's 2004 "Building
Better Communities" bond issue, provides for the City to receive over $42,000,000 for
water, sewer, drainage, park, neighborhood, infrastructure, and public building projects.
These programs are providing the City with the resources to better address many of the
neighborhood -specific concerns raised during the scoping process, including improved
infrastructure, increased neighborhood security, and slum and blight reduction.
54
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City of Miami has recently embarked on a major planning initiative to address the
issues facing its existing neighborhoods in light of the current wave of development and
redevelopment. The intent of this planning initiative, known as Miami 21, is to create a
regulating plan consisting of land development regulations to responsibly accommodate
growth while maintaining neighborhood integrity through Smart Growth Principles:
neighborhood -specific design standards; appropriate transitions and linkages between and
within neighborhoods; and to encourage more walkable, mixed -use neighborhoods. It is
anticipated that Miami 21 will provide a cohesive blueprint for development and
redevelopment in the City, and serve as Miami's primary strategy for addressing the
neighborhood concerns raised during the EAR scoping process.
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts
Section 163.3191(2)(e), F.S., requires that the potential social, economic, and
environmental impacts of the identified major issues be addressed in the EAR. The
previous section of this report described specific impacts of issues involved with the
neighborhood integrity in detail.
In summary, major positive social impacts of protecting neighborhood integrity are
numerous, including: building a stronger sense of community, and increased
opportunities for community involvement; improving the quality of life of existing and
future residents, businesses, and visitors; providing more aesthetically pleasing design;
reducing negative impacts and nuisance issues raised by the intrusion of incompatible
uses into neighborhoods, and unaddressed code violations; addressing problems such as
traffic congestion and negative impacts of infrastructure through the provision of
walkable, mixed -use communities; providing more community -serving uses (i.e. parks,
schools, and community facilities) within neighborhoods; and reducing crime in
neighborhoods through programs such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED). Stronger neighborhoods, like parks, provide outlets for positive
social interaction and activity, which can ease the boredom and isolation that leads to
crime and other social problems.
From an environmental standpoint, the protection of neighborhood integrity will reduce
the negative environmental impacts associated with poor transitions between
incompatible land uses, and inefficient development patterns. Moreover, the provision
of walkable, mixed -use neighborhoods is an effective tool in reducing automobile
dependence, which has numerous benefits for the environment, including reduced sprawl
and improved air quality. Better urban design will result in a more aesthetically pleasing
urban environment, and can incorporate features that enhance and reflect South Florida's
unique natural environment. The institution of energy efficient building standards, and
the use of native, non-invasive and water conscious landscaping materials, are other ways
that good design can further environmental goals. Finally, the protection of
neighborhood integrity will include the protection of natural features within
neighborhoods, which provides environmental benefits to the City as a whole.
55
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
From an economic standpoint, strong neighborhoods are key to the provision of quality of
life to existing and future residents, which is essential to the success of the City's
economic development strategies. Moreover, protecting neighborhoods reduces the
public and private costs associated with inefficient development patterns (i.e.
infrastructure costs, reduced automobile dependence), and is key to attracting new
residents and businesses. Strong neighborhoods are necessary in order to attract and
retain these households. Moreover, strong neighborhoods play a role in crime reduction
and in addressing other social problems, lessening the negative economic impacts and
public costs associated with these issues.
3. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations
Section 163.3191 (2)(g), F.S., requires that the EAR evaluate the plan objectives within
each element as they relate to the major issues and identify, where appropriate,
unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances which have resulted in problems or
opportunities with respect to the major issues. Issue I.C., "Protection and Enhancement
of Neighborhood Integrity", impacts the following Elements, Goals, Objectives and
Policies of the City of Miami's Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Specific
recommendations to address these impacts are made where appropriate and warranted.
a. Future Land Use Element
The following objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective and Policies LU-1.1.12, LU-1.2.1, LU-1.3.11, LU-1.3.12,
LU-1.4.7, LU-1.6.5, LU-1.6.6 and LU-3.1.2.
The following Goal, objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as
noted:
Goal LU-1 is impacted because it calls for protection of the City's residential
neighborhoods. It is recommended that the word "residential" be removed, and that the
language be revised to call for protecting the integrity and quality of the City's existing
neighborhoods.
Policy LU-1.1.3 states that the City's zoning ordinance shall provide for the protection of
all areas from the encroachment of incompatible uses, adverse impacts of future land uses
on adjacent areas, and transportation policies that fragment and disrupt neighborhoods.
It is recommended that this Policy be revised to add that strategies to further protect
existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards and
buffering requirements will be incorporated into the City's land development regulations.
Policy LU-1.1.4 is impacted because it states that the City will increase its code
enforcement efforts by 10 percent a year with the intent of preserving and enhancing
neighborhood conditions. It is recommended that this Policy be amplified to state that
the City will continue to aggressively address code violations in its neighborhoods
56
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
through the implementation of ongoing and new neighborhood improvement and code
enforcement strategies and initiatives.
Policy LU-1.1.7 is impacted because it states that the land development regulations and
policies will allow for the provision of neighborhood shopping, recreation, day care,
entertainment, and other neighborhood -support activities. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to more clearly call for the development and redevelopment of well -
designed mixed -use neighborhoods that provide for the full range of residential, office,
live/work spaces, neighborhood retail, and community facilities in a walkable area, and
that are amenable to a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycles,
automobiles and mass transit.
Objective LU-1.2 is impacted because it calls for the redevelopment of blighted,
declining and threatened residential, industrial and commercial areas. It is recommended
that this Objective be amended to reflect a continuation of the redevelopment of blighted,
declining and threatened residential, industrial and commercial areas.
Policy LU-1.2.3 is impacted because it establishes the City's priorities for its residential,
commercial and industrial revitalization programs. It is recommended that this Policy be
revised to state that the City's priorities in implementing, facilitating and encouraging
redevelopment and revitalization projects shall be determined on an area specific basis in
accordance with the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, adopted
redevelopment plans, specific neighborhood and area plans, and the land development
regulations, as appropriate.
Objective LU-1.3 is impacted because it addresses encouraging commercial, office and
industrial development in existing commercial, office and industrial areas, programs to
increase the utilization and appearance of buildings, and concentrating commercial and
industrial development in areas that have the capacity to meet the increased demands.
This Objective should be amended to also encourage the development of well -designed
mixed use neighborhoods that provide for a variety of uses within a walkable area, and to
add the phrase "in accordance with neighborhood design and development standards
adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and
other initiatives".
Policy LU-1.3.1 calls for the provision of incentives for commercial redevelopment and
new construction in a number of specified neighborhoods. It is recommended that this
Policy be amended to replace references to specific neighborhoods with "designated
Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone,
the Brownfield Redevelopment Area, Commercial Business Corridors, and other targeted
areas". It should further be added that such commercial redevelopment and new
construction shall be conducted in accordance with neighborhood design and
development standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land
development regulations and other initiatives.
57
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy LU-1.3.5 calls for the creation of high intensity activity centers characterized by
mixed -use and specialty center development in a number of specified neighborhoods. It
is recommended that this Policy be revised to delete references to specific
neighborhoods, and to state that the development of such activity centers will be in
accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result
of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives.
Policy LU-1.3.10 is impacted because it calls for increasing code enforcement efforts by
10 percent per year and the enforcement and adoption of performance standards to
improve the appearance of commercial and industrial areas. It is recommended that this
Policy be amplified to state that the City will continue to aggressively address code
violations in its neighborhoods through the implementation of ongoing and new
neighborhood improvement and code enforcement strategies and initiatives.
Policy LU-1.3.14 is impacted because it calls for urban design guidelines for public and
private projects. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to state that such
guidelines should reinforce and be consistent with neighborhood character, history and
function, and in accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards
adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and
other initiatives.
Policy LU-1.4.1 is impacted because it calls for the use of special use districts, and
directing public sector regulatory, financial and promotional efforts to reinforcing the
identity and cohesiveness of downtown districts. It is recommended that "in accordance
with neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the
amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives" be added
after downtown districts.
Policy LU-1.4.10 is impacted because it calls for modifications to existing regulations to
provide greater flexibility in the design and implementation of mixed -use development
downtown and along the Miami River. It is recommended that "in accordance with
neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments
to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives" be inserted after "Miami
River".
Policy LU-1.6.9 is impacted because it states that the land development regulations will
establish mechanisms to mitigate adverse impacts of future development. It is
recommended that this Policy be revised to also call for the elimination of adverse
impacts on neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition standards
and buffering requirements.
Policy LU-3.1.1 is impacted because it calls for the City to review zoning regulations to
ensure that they provide adequate flexibility to redevelopment. It is recommended that
this Policy be amended to continue to review zoning regulations to insure that they
provide adequate flexibility to redevelopment.
58
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
b. Housing Element
The following Goals, objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goal HO-1, HO-2, objective 2.1 and policies HO-1.1.3,
HO-1.1.4, HO-1.1.8, HO-1.2.6, HO-1.2.8, HO-2.1.1, HO-2.1.3 and HO-2.1.4.
The following goal and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy HO-1.1.5 states that the City will strengthen sections of the land development
regulations intended to preserve and enhance the appearance and character of the City's
neighborhoods. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to add "and to buffer
such neighborhoods from incompatible uses through the implementation and enforcement
of transition and buffering standards".
Policy HO-1.1.7 is impacted because it calls for protecting residential neighborhoods
from large scale and/or intensive commercial and industrial development. It is
recommended that this Policy be amended to also call for providing appropriate
transitions between high rise and low rise residential developments.
Policy HO-1.2.7 states that the City will enforce and where necessary strengthen the land
development regulations to enhance the general appearance and character of City
neighborhoods. It is recommended that this Policy be amplified by deleting "where
necessary", and that "and to implement neighborhood specific design and development
standards that may be developed as a result of the amendments to the City's land
development regulations and other initiatives" be added.
Policy HO-2.1.2 is impacted because it calls for revising residential zoning district
regulations to provide flexibility for the design and development of a variety of
contemporary housing types and mixed -use development with the application of higher
density zoning. It is recommended that this Policy be revised to add "in accordance with
neighborhood specific design and development standards that might be adopted as a
result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other
neighborhood planning initiatives".
c. Solid Waste Element
The following policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to address these
issues: Policies SW-1.3.2 and SW-1.3.3.
The following policy is impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy SW-1.3.1 states that the City will continue its "Clean Neighborhoods Campaign",
and support the County's "Keep Dade Beautiful" Campaign through public awareness
and information programs. It is recommended that this Policy be amended to delete
references to specific campaigns, and to state that the City will continue to actively
support and implement neighborhood clean-up and beautification efforts.
59
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
d. Ports and Aviation Element
The Ports and Aviation Element is not impacted by this issue.
e. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element
The following objective and policies are impacted, but no amendments are necessary to
address these issues: Objective PR-1.5 and Policies PR-1.2.3 and PR-1.4.3
The following policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Policy PR-1.1.1 states that the City will develop detailed management plans for
neighborhoods with critical shortages in access to recreation open space. It is
recommended that a provision be added to ensure that neighborhood park space
deficiencies are identified and addressed in specific neighborhood planning, development
and redevelopment efforts.
Policy PR-1.6.1 is impacted because it calls for a planning process to determine the
necessary expansion of recreation and open space needs in Little Haiti. It is
recommended that this Policy be updated to reflect the current status of the Little Haiti
park planning process.
60
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
I.D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Issue Description and Analysis
The City of Miami Transportation Element is currently being updated during the City's
preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan. Specific Policies will be evaluated as part of the Transportation
Element update and amendment process that is currently underway. The assessment of
the current policies within the Transportation Element, as it relates to the EAR effort, is
summarized in this section. Transportation issues include the need for amenities to attract
more trips to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle;
transportation and land use needs to be coordinated more closely, and transportation
problems (excessive speeds, congestion, traffic noise, inappropriate roadway
classifications, negative impacts on neighborhoods) need to be addressed; many areas
lack adequate parking; policy changes within the Transportation Element (TE) to address
this issue are considered; and Transportation Control Measures (TCM) need to be
revised.
Policy changes are recommended to create incentives to encourage the use of alternative
modes of transportation. In addition, the person trip methodology needs to be revisited to
ensure that the results of the calculations accurately reflect the capacity of corridors.
2. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts
Section 163.3191(2)(e), F.S., requires that the potential social, economic, and
environmental impacts of the identified major issues be addressed in the EAR. The
social, economic and environmental impacts of Issue I.D. are addressed as follows.
Within the City of Miami there is a multimodal transportation system, however its
existing transportation system is primarily oriented to the automobile. There are a
number of persons and households, however, who do not have regular access to an
automobile, and who therefore have difficulty accessing employment, recreation and
other services (transportation disadvantaged). Unfortunately, the transportation
disadvantaged also tend to be more economically disadvantaged than the general
population and/or are members of special needs groups (i.e. the elderly, single parents)
with the greatest need for employment and services. The resulting cycle exacerbates the
very factors that contributed to their disadvantages in the first place. The provision of an
increased range of mobility alternatives will therefore increase the access of
transportation disadvantaged persons and households to employment and services, with
associated positive economic and social benefits.
The provision of an improved multi -modal transportation system will have a number of
other positive economic benefits. Employers benefit by the improved access of existing
and potential employees to the workplace, and businesses benefit from being more
accessible to their customer base. Moreover, a good transportation system can be a key
factor in attracting new employers and businesses to the area.
61
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Automobiles have a number of negative environmental impacts, including traffic
congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption. The provision of alternatives to the
automobile for local and regional trips lessens these negative environmental impacts.
Moreover, mobility alternatives are perhaps the most important factors in reducing urban
sprawl, and fostering more efficient land use patterns. Reduced land consumption
preserves more land for open space and other environmentally important uses.
3. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Impacts and Recommendations
Section 163.3191 (2)(g), F.S., requires that the EAR evaluate the plan objectives within
each element as they relate to the major issues and identify, where appropriate,
unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances which have resulted in problems or
opportunities with respect to the major issues. Issue I.D., "Transportation", impacts the
following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan's Transportation Element. Specific recommendations to address these impacts are
made where appropriate and warranted.
Transportation Element
The following Goal, objectives and policies are impacted, but no amendments are
necessary to address these issues: Goal TR-1, Objectives TR-1.2, TR-1.3, TR-1.4, TR-
1.5, TR-1.6, TR-1.7, TR-1.8 and TR-1.9, Policies TR-1.1.5, TR-1.1.6, TR-1.1.7, TR-
1.1.8, TR-1.1.9, TR-1.1.10, TR-1.1.11, TR-1.1.12, TR-1.1.13, TR-1.1.15, TR-1.1.16, TR-
1.1.17, TR-1.1.18, TR-1.1.19, TR-1.1.20, TR-1.2.1, TR-1.2.2, TR-1.3.1, TR-1.3.2,TR-
1.4.1,TR-1.4.2, TR-1.4.3, TR-1.4.4, TR-1.5.1, TR-1.5.2, TR-1.5.3, TR-1.5.4, TR-1.5.5,
TR-1.5.6, TR-1.5.7, TR-1.5.8, TR-1.5.9, TR-1.5.10, TR-1.5.11, TR-1.5.12, TR-1.5.13,
TR-1.5.14, TR-1.5.15, TR-1.6.1, TR-1.8.1, TR-1.8.2, TR-1.8.3, TR-1.9.1, Sub -Policies
TR-1.1.3.1, TR-1.1.3.2 and TR-1.1.3.3.
The following objectives and policies are impacted, and should be amended as noted:
Objective TR-1.1 is being implemented by Policies 1.1.1 through 1.1.20. See individual
Policy status.
Policy TR-1.1.1 is the County's Urban Infill Policy implemented through City's Land
Development Code, Transportation Element.; implemented through this policy —
adopting urban infill. It is recommended that the amendment includes maintenance of
transportation Levels of Service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation
Concurrency Exception area shall be in accordance with the adopted Person Trip
Methodology as stated in designated appendix.
Policy TR-1.1.2 is impacted through the Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) process and
the Downtown Development of Regional Impact's (DDRI) currently in place, but being
revisited as a part of the City's Transportation Element Update. It is recommended that
this policy will be deleted.
62
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.1 Specific level of service standards are implemented through the
Transportation Element; level of service standards are currently in place. It is
recommended that this policy will be deleted.
Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.2 Specific level of service standards are implemented through the
Transportation Element; level of service standards are currently in place. It is
recommended that this policy will be deleted and addressed as part of the Person Trip
Methodology.
Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.3 Specific Level of service standards are implemented through the
Transportation Element; level of service standards are currently in place. It is
recommended that this policy will be deleted and addressed as part of the Person Trip
Methodology.
Policy TR-1.1.3 is impacted because of the adoption of Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Highway Standards for areas outside the Urban Infill Area;
adopted by this policy and implemented as a part of TR-1.1.1. It is recommended that
this policy be amended to reference the appropriate LOS appendix.
Policy TR-1.1.4 is impacted because of studies and plans for the City of Miami. The
Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan (MDTMP) has been completed and
adopted. An evaluation of the Person Trip Methodology is underway. Miami -Dade
Transit (MDT) in cooperation with other agencies is undertaking a route -by -route
analysis of the transit system. It is recommended that this policy will be amended to
delete references to the Person Trip Methodology.
Policy TR-1.1.14 is impacted because of Intergovernmental Coordination. The County
has not increased or developed additional Metrorail Park and Ride facilities or park and
ride along express bus routes. It is recommended that this policy will be rewritten to drop
reference to "remote intercept".
Policy TR-1.7.1 is being implemented through the City's Zoning Ordinance. It is
recommended that the City develop a transit right-of-way map to use when reviewing
new projects.
4. Recommendations
Specific Policies will be evaluated as part of the Transportation Element update and
amendment process which is currently underway. Recommendations will focus on the
following general areas: revise the Person Trip Methodology; reference specific levels of
service and neighborhood studies instead of listing recommendations in objectives and
policies; strengthen TCM policies; reestablish a TDM for the Civic Center area; develop
a parking plan for downtown; continue close intergovernmental coordination to develop
and evaluate projects; focus on planning, land use, and transportation issues along
Transportation Corridors; and reevaluate transit levels of service (LOS) and headway
methodologies.
63
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
CHAPTER II. OBJECTIVE ACHIEVEMENT ANALYSIS
An important objective of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) is the
identification of successes and shortcomings in implementing Comprehensive Plan
objectives since the previous EAR, which was adopted in 1995. The following Chapter
measures the City's progress in implementing its adopted Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan goals, objective and policies.
II. A. Future Land Use Element
1. Objective LU-1.1
Objective LU-1.1 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Ensure that land and
development regulations are consistent with fostering a high quality of life in all areas,
including the timely provision of public facilities that meet or exceed the minimum Level
of service (LOS) standards adopted in the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.1, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies LU-1.1.1 through LU-1.1.12) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.1
below.
Table II.A.1. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.1.1
Development that results in
increases in density or
intensity are approved
contingent upon availability
of public facilities or
services that meet
minimum LOS standards
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
Concurrency Management
System in place, enforced
through the development
review and approval
process.
Policy LU-1.1.2 Planning
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
Concurrency Reviews in
place.
Depaitinent is responsible
for monitoring Level's of
Service and performing
concurrency reviews.
Policy LU-1.1.3: zoning
ordinance protects from
incompatible and adverse
land uses and fragmenting
established neighborhoods.
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
64
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.1. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.1 Achievement Status continued
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.1.4 Increase its
code enforcement efforts by
10% each year
Code Enforcement Chapter,
Land Development
Regulations
On -going enforcement
through code enforcement.
Due to the Quality of Life
Task Force and other
initiatives, code
enforcement goals are
being met or exceeded.
Policy LU-1.1.5 [Reserved]
Policy LU-1.1.6 Provide
curb, gutter, and street
landscaping with street and
storm sewer improvement
projects
Capital Improvements
Program
On -going through CIP and
Homeland Defense
Neighborhood Bond
Program.
Policy LU-1.1.7
Regulations and policies
that allow for neighborhood
oriented support activities.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations and MCNP
policies in place
Policy LU-1.1.8 Planning
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan —
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Ongoing through Interlocal
Agreements, Planners'
Department will coordinate
land development
regulations/policies with
County and adjacent
municipalities.
Technical Committee and
other means.
Policy LU-1.1.9 Maintain
low to moderate density
uses in the West Flagami
area.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Policy LU-1.1.10
Encourage high -density
development/redevelopment
near Metrorail and
Metromover stations
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place,
Miami -Dade County Rapid
Transit Zones in place as
per Station Area Design
Plan.
Policy LU-1.1.11 Adopt
County's designation of
Urban Infill Area
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Future Land Use Plan Map
and UTA description in
place in CIP.
Policy LU-1.1.12 Permit
schools in all land use
classifications, with
exceptions and coordinate
with Miami -Dade Public
Schools for co -location of
facilities.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations and School
Interlocal Agreement in
place.
65
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
As seen from Table II.A.1, the City has made significant progress in achieving Objective
LU-1.1 since the date of the last EAR. The City has worked to protect and even improve
the quality of life for residents, businesses and visitors alike. Policy LU-1.1.4 calls for
increased code enforcement which is being achieved through increased funding and
staffing and the new Quality of Life Task Force. Since the Task Force was established,
1,500 tickets have been issued for illegal dumping, 3,000 abandoned vehicles have been
removed, 147 cases of illegal units have been filed and 19 assisted living facilities have
been cited. It is recommended that references to percentage of increase be deleted.
Greater intergovernmental coordination as outlined in Policies LU-1.1.8 and 12 have
been achieved through various mechanisms. Lastly, the City is embarking on a total
restructuring of the Zoning Ordinance through the Miami 21 project described in Chapter
I. This will allow for a more streamlined code with emphasis on quality of life and
neighborhood oriented regulations.
2. Objective LU-1.2
Objective LU-1.2 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Promote the
redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential,
commercial and industrial areas."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective 1.2, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.2
below.
Table II.A.2. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.2.1 Defines
blighted, declining and
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Definitions in place.
threatened neighborhoods.
Policy LU-1.2.2 Affordable
Housing policies must be
consistent with Housing
Element
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Affordable housing policies
are consistent.
Policy LU-1.2.3 Sets
priorities for revitalization
programs and will continue
to seek aid
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Intergovernmental
Coordination and receipt of
federal funding for various
housing programs.
Policy LU-1.2.4 Adhere to
established policies and
plans for Community
Development Districts
Consolidated Plan
Consolidated Plan in place
and being implemented.
Policy LU-1.2.5 Develop
information programs on
redevelopment
opportunities
Economic Development
Administrative
Information programs in
place.
66
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City continues to make progress in achieving Objective 1.2 through the
implementation of various affordable housing programs and initiatives. The adopted
2004-2009 Consolidated Plan outlines the City's affordable housing strategies.16
3. Objective LU-1.3
Objective LU-1.3 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "The City will continue
to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial,
office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and
appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity
in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum
standards for Level of service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element
(CIE)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.3, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 1.3.1 through 1.3.14) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.3
below.
Table II.A.3. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.3.1 Provide
incentives for commercial
development/redevelopment
to improve the built
environment.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Ongoing through Land
Development Regulations.
Policy LU-1.3.2 Encourage
business expansion and
Economic Development
Ongoing through Economic
Development Depaittnent
programs and initiatives.
assist in obtaining business
loans and seed moneys.
Policy LU-1.3.3 [Reserved]
Policy LU-1.3.4 Work with
M-DCPS to ensure
expansion of schools near
public transit and facilitate
the expansion of job
training/job placement
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Partnerships
Interlocal Agreement with
M-DCPS in place.
programs.
Policy LU-1.3.5 Promote
high intensity mixed -use
and specialty activity
centers.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
16 Mayor Manny Diaz State of the City Address, 2004
67
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.3. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.3 Achievement Status continued
Policy LU-1.3.6 Encourage
diversification of industrial
and commercial activities
and tenants.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations, Economic
Development Incentives
and Public/Private
Partnerships.
Policy LU-1.3.7 Continue to
use Enterprise Zone and Tax
Increment Financing district
strategies to stimulate
revitalization and
employment.
Economic Development
Enterprise Zone and Tax
Increment Financing
districts in place.
Policy LU-1.3.8 Work with
State and County agencies
to direct training programs
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
Ongoing programs and
initiatives being
implemented by
Community Development
and other agencies and
Mayor's Anti -Poverty
Strategy.
and other technical
assistance, to support
minority and semi -skilled
residents.
Policy LU-1.3.9
Concentrate Community
Development efforts in
small geographic areas with
implementation of small-
area action plans supported
by neighborhood
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Economic Development
Neighborhood
Development Zones
adopted as part of City of
Miami Consolidated Plan,
Fiscal Years 2004-2009.
Policy LU-1.3.10 Increase
code enforcement efforts by
10% each year and consider
performance standards.
Code Enforcement Chapter
of Miami Code and Land
Development Regulations
Increases in code
enforcement citations with
leadership from Quality of
Life Task Force.
Policy LU-1.3.11 Provide
land use regulation
incentives for including day
care facilities near major
employment centers.
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Policy LU-1.3.12 Permit
neighborhood -based health
care facilities.
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Policy LU-1.3.13
[Reserved]
Policy LU-1.3.14 Continue
to enforce urban design
guidelines for public and
private projects.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
In place and being updated
through Miami 21
68
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City continues to make progress in achieving Objective LU-1.3 through regulatory
and financial incentives, better urban design and rehabilitation of already developed
commercial and industrial areas. In furtherance of Policy LU-1.3.2 the City supports the
business community by providing access to capital and technical assistance through a
partnership with ACCION USA and loans through the SBA. Policy LU-1.3.9 has been
initiated with success through the Community Development Department. It is
recommended that in Policy LU-1.3.10 the reference to a percentage increase be deleted.
It is more beneficial to focus on broader code enforcement initiatives in the
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
4. Objective LU-1.4
Objective LU-1.4 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Continue the growth of
Downtown Miami, expand its role as a center of domestic and international commerce,
further its development as a regional center for the performing arts and other cultural and
entertainment activities and develop an urban residential base."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.4, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 1.4.1 through 1.4.12) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.4
below.
Table II.A.4. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.4.1 Identify
special use districts and
direct resources toward
reinforcing identity and
cohesiveness
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Through the proposed
Miami 21, Neighborhood
Plans and Overlay Districts
Policy LU-1.4.2 Continue
to investigate and create
management districts,
funded by special
assessments to provide
extra services.
Special Assessment
Districts, Code of
Ordinances
Mechanism in place to
create new districts
Policy LU-1.4.3 Promote
active sidewalks on
Land Development
Regulations and overlays
Pedestrian Street and other
urban design guidelines in
place
pedestrian streets" through
land development
regulations.
Policy LU-1.4.4 Support
Miami -Dade County in
construction of a regional
performing arts center.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element and
other agreements
Construction of Performing
Arts Center is ongoing with
opening in 2006
69
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.4. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.4 Achievement Status continued
Policy LU-1.4.5 [Reserved]
Policy LU-1.4.6 Stimulate
growth of seaport -related
services west of Omni.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element and
Community
Redevelopment Area
Community
Redevelopment Area
Policy LU-1.4.7 Enforce
regulations to ensure that
high quality retail signage
is consistent with the
design/development
objectives for downtown.
Land Development
Regulations
Signage requirements
through Land Development
Regulations in place
Policy LU-1.4.8 Continue
to encourage rehabilitation
and sensitive, adaptive
reuse of historic properties
and older structures in
downtown, and exempt
from DRI fees.
Comprehensive
Development Plan/Historic
Preservation
Ongoing implementation of
historic preservation
programs
Policy LU-1.4.9 Continue
to promote
rehabilitation/adaptive
reuse of
vacant/underutilized spaces
and provide incentives for
rehabilitation downtown.
Comprehensive
Development Plan/Historic
Preservation and Land
Development Regulations
Incentives for downtown
redevelopment in place
through DDA and other
programs
Policy LU-1.4.10 Continue
to develop modifications to
existing regulations to
provide greater flexibility
for mixed -use
developments downtown
and along the Miami River.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land development
Regulations
Ongoing
Policy LU-1.4.11 Continue
to streamline the
application procedures for
Major Use Special Permits.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land development
Regulations
In process through EAR
Policy LU-1.4.12 Continue
to implement Downtown
DRI Dev. Order for
downtown and SEO/PW
West and seek approvals in
a timely manner
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land development
Regulations
Ongoing
70
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City continues to make progress in achieving Objective LU-1.4 and its policies
through the efforts of the Downtown Development Authority and the City districts which
have been created and "marked", as well as through the City's Community
Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Department, and Economic
Development Department. Several assessment districts are in place for maintenance and
security purposes. Rehabilitation of existing structures and infilling of existing vacant or
underutilized parcels is ongoing. Policy LU-1.4.11 is in process. Policy LU-1.4.12 is
being implemented.
5. Objective LU-1.5
Objective LU-1.5 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Land development
regulations will protect the city's unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and
cultural heritage."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.5, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.5 below.
Table II.A.5. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.5 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.5.1
Miami Comprehensive
In place.
Development orders will be
consistent with the GOP's
contained in the Natural
Neighborhood Plan
Resource Conservation and
Coastal Management
Elements.
Policy LU-1.5.2 Land use
Miami Comprehensive
In place.
regulations and
Neighborhood
development policies will
Plan/Intergovernmental
be consistent with the intent
Coordination Element and
and purpose of Waterfront
Land Development
Charter Amendment,
Regulations
Shoreline Development
Review Ordinance, and the
rules of the Biscayne Bay
Aquatic Preserve
Management Area.
The City continues to make progress in achieving Objective LU-1.5.
71
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
6. Objective LU-1.6
Objective LU-1.6 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Regulate the
development or redevelopment of real property within the city to insure consistency with
the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.6, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies LU-1.6.1 through LU-1.6.11) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.6
below.
Table II.A.6. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.6 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.6.1 The
"Interpretation of the
Future Land Use Plan Map"
section establishes the
activities and facilities
allowed within each land
use.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use Element and Future
Land Use Plan Map
In place.
Policy LU-1.6.2 [Reserved]
Policy LU-1.6.3 Planning
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Procedural and
ongoing duties.
Department shall review all
proposals to amend the
zoning ordinance and land
development regulations,
and shall report to the PAB
and City Commission.
Policy LU-1.6.4 Proposals
to amend the zoning
ordinance and requiring a
Future Land Use Plan Map
amendment shall require a
concurrency review.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
In place.
Policy LU-1.6.5 Continue
to use special district
designations for
accomplishing specific
development objectives.
Land Development
Regulations
In place and
ongoing.
Policy LU-1.6.6 Continue
to enforce signage
regulations.
Land Development
Regulations
In place and
ongoing.
Policy LU-1.6.7 [Reserved]
72
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.6. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.6 Achievement Status continued
Policy LU-1.6.8
Regulations and policies
will allow for providing
open space in development
projects.
Land Development
Regulations
In Place.
Policy LU-1.6.9 Land
development regulations
will establish mechanisms
to mitigate the potentially
adverse impacts of future
development.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
In Place.
Policy LU-1.6.10 Land
development regulations
and policies will allow for
safe and convenient on -site
traffic flow and vehicle
parking.
Land Development
Regulations/Zoning
In Place
Policy LU-1.6.11 Land
development regulations
and policies will insure that
areas designated
conservation are protected.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
In Place
The City has made progress in achieving Objective LU- 1.6.
7. Objective LU-1.7
Objective LU-1.7 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Encourage recreational
development within designated recreation use areas, concentrating activities where the
capacity of existing public facilities can serve development meeting adopted LOS
standards." In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-1.7, an
analysis of the extent to which its supporting policy (policy 1.7.1) has been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.4 below.
Table II.A.7. Land Use Element Objective LU-1.7 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-1.7.1 Land
development regulations
will direct recreational
activities where facilities
and services are available.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
and Land Development
Regulations
Policies in place.
73
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective LU-1.7. Due to the scarcity of
vacant land for new recreational facilities existing facilities must be optimized.
8. Objective LU-2.1
Objective LU-2.1 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Maintain, update and
amplify the City of Miami portion of the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey, which
identifies and evaluates the city's historic, architectural and archeological resources. (See
Coastal Management Objective CM-5.1.)
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-2.1, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.8 below.
Table II.A.8. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-2.1.1 Continue
Historic Preservation
In place and ongoing.
to identify potential historic
districts and conduct
surveys.
Section
Policy LU-2.1.2 Continue
Historic Preservation
Database and Website in
to develop and implement a
database of all sites in the
Section
place.
Miami -Dade County
Historic Survey listing
properties of historic,
architectural or
archeological significance.
The City has made significant progress in achieving Objective LU-2.1. Potential sites
continue to be identified and the survey is updated through a database.
9. Objective LU-2.2
Objective LU-2.2 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Protect archeological
resources within the city from destruction and loss."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-2.2, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 2.2.1 through 2.2.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.9 .
74
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.9. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-2.2.1 Pursue
designations of significant
archeological zones under
the Historic Preservation
Article.
Land Development
Regulations
In Place
Policy LU-2.2.2 Continue
to cooperate with the
Miami -Dade County
Archaeologist in
monitoring building
activity.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
The City has hired an
archaeologist to monitor
building activity and
continues to interface with
the County Office of
Historic Preservation
Policy LU-2.2.3
Requirement, as part of the
permit application, that
Miami -Dade County
Archaeologist is notified of
construction schedules in
archeological zones, and to
permit archeological
officials to survey and
excavate.
Land Development
Regulations and
Intergovernmental
Coordination
See LU-2.2.2
Policy LU-2.2.4 Consider
the need to adopt an
ordinance levying civil
penalties for not reporting
the discovery of an
archeological site during
construction.
Land Development
Regulations
No ordinance is in place for
levying fines.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective LU-2.2. Policy LU-2.2.3 shall be
amended to reflect that the City, although still coordinating with Miami -Dade County,
has assumed jurisdiction for archeology and has hired an archeologist. Policy LU-2.2.4 is
recommended for deletion since it is no longer applicable. All designated/identified sites
around the City require a Certificate of Appropriateness. If a site is not designated there
are no penalties.
10. Objective LU-2.3
Objective LU-2.3 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Encourage the
preservation of all historic and architectural resources that have major significance to the
city by increasing the number of nationally and locally designated sites by five percent
each year for the period 1996-2001."
75
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-2.3, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 2.3.1 and 2.3.2) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.10 below.
Table II.A.10. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-2.3.1 Continue
Historic and Environmental
HEPB shall continue to
to review nominations to
the National Register of
Preservation Board (HEPB)
review nominations
Historic Places through the
Certified Local
Government Program.
Policy LU-2.3.2 67 historic
Historic and Environmental
Properties designated
sites and five historic
districts are so designated.
Preservation Board (HEPB)
Another 26 sites (or
groups) and six districts are
potentially worthy of
designation. Of these, the
City will designate 10
individual sites and two
districts by 2001.
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective LU-2.3. This Objective should
be modified to state the objective to continually increase for the next cycle instead of a
percentage increase. Policies LU-2.3.1 and .2 are still relevant and being implemented as
the City continues to nominate and designate new sites. LU-2.3.2 should be modified to
designate additional sites by 2015.
11. Objective LU-2.4
Objective LU-2.4 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Objective LU-2.4:
Increase the number of historic structures that have been preserved, rehabilitated or
restored, according to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
(See Coastal Management Objective CM-5.2.)"
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-2.4, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 2.4.1 and 2.4.4) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.11.
76
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.11. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-2.4.1 Encourage
the conservation,
rehabilitation, restoration
and adaptive reuse of
historic and architecturally
significant housing
resources through low
interest loans offered
through City agencies.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Housing Element
Ongoing policy.
Policy LU-2.4.2 Continue
to utilize the U.S. Secretary
of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation as the
minimum standards for
preservation of historic
properties.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use/Historic Preservation
In place and ongoing.
Policy LU-2.4.3 City owns
nine historic sites and other
potential archeological
sites. If title is transferred,
transfers will include
restrictive covenants.
Administrative through
covenants
Procedures in place.
Policy LU-2.4.4 The City
will work with other local
governments that have title
to properties of major
historic or architectural
significance to ensure the
conservation, preservation
and adaptive and sensitive
reuse of such properties.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
In Place
The City has made progress in achieving Objective LU-2.4. This is met and done through
the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process. Policies LU-2.4.1 through .4 have
been implemented and are still relevant. Several hundred properties per year receive a
COA. A database was put in place as of January 2004 listing said properties.
12. Objective LU-2.5
Objective LU-2.5 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Increase public
awareness of the historical, architectural, archeological resources and cultural heritage of
the city, and public policy and programs to protect and preserve this heritage, through
public information and education programs."
77
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-2.5, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 2.5.1 through 2.5.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.12
below.
Table II.A.12. Land Use Element Objective LU-2.5 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-2.5.1 Continue
to develop publications
relating to historic
preservation and the city's
historic resources.
Historic Preservation
Section
Historic Preservation
Section has ongoing
program to update
publications and website.
Policy LU-2.5.2 Maintain a
historic marker program for
designated properties and
other key areas.
Historic Preservation
Section
In Place.
Policy LU-2.5.3 [Reserved]
Policy LU-2.5.4 Continue
to provide information on
the city's historic,
architectural and cultural
heritage for a variety of
purposes.
Historic Preservation
Section
In Place and Ongoing.
Objective LU-2.5 has been implemented and its policies are still relevant. Public
awareness brochures were created in 2003 and a website was developed —
www.historicpreservationmiami.com.
13. Objective LU-3.1
Objective LU-3.1 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "Promptly review and
act on petitions for land use plan amendments and rezoning of property in Urban Infill
Areas or Urban Redevelopment Areas to facilitate redevelopment."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-3.1, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.13.
78
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.13. Land Use Element Objective LU-3.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-3.1.1 Review
Land Development
Revisions to zoning
zoning regulations to
determine adequate
flexibility to promote
redevelopment with a mix
of uses in Urban Infill
Regulations
ordinance in place.
Areas or Urban
Redevelopment Areas and,
if not, revise.
Policy LU-3.12 Create
Miami Comprehensive
In Place and utilized for
Regional Activity Centers
Neighborhood Plan and
Buena Vista.
in Urban Infill Areas and
Land Development
Urban Redevelopment
Regulations
Areas and define.
The City has achieved the Objective 3.1 through implementation of the policies.
14. Objective LU-3.2
Objective LU-3.2 of the Future Land Use Element is as follows: "The City shall
establish formal procedures for coordinating City planning and operating functions that
are directly related to the City's comprehensive plan with the Miami -Dade County
School Board, Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department, Miami -
Dade County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division, Miami -Dade County
Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), the Seaport Department
(Port of Miami), Aviation Department (Miami International Airport), the Miami -Dade
County Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Miami -Dade County Shoreline
Development Review Committee, Miami -Dade Transit, the South Florida Regional
Transportation Authority, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the South Florida
Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida
Depaitinent of Environmental Regulation, the Florida Depaitinent of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, the Division of Historical Resources, Department of State,
adjacent local governments, and any other state, local or federal agency whose
cooperation is required to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective LU-3.2, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (policies 3.2.1 and 3.2.2) have been implemented
was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.A.14.
79
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.A.14. Land Use Element Objective LU-3.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy LU-3.2.1 By 2005,
establish by interlocal or
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
In Place.
other formal agreement
Plan/Intergovernmental
with appropriate
jurisdictions joint processes
for collaborative decision
making
Coordination
Policy LU-3.2.2 Continue
Miami Comprehensive
Agreement In Place.
defined implementation
Neighborhood
activities in association
Plan/Intergovernmental
with the Interlocal
Coordination
Agreement for Public
School Facility Planning In
Miami -Dade County,
effective February 27,
2003.
The City has achieved Objective 3.2. Intergovernmental coordination efforts are in place
through a multitude of agreements and policies.
15. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Land Use Element are addressed in Chapter I of this
report. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a result of this
analysis.
Policy LU-1.1.4 should be amended to delete reference to 10%.
Policy LU-1.3.10 should be amended to delete reference to 10%.
Policy LU-2.2.3 shall be amended to reflect that there is a City archaeologist.
Policy LU-2.2.4 is recommended for deletion since it is no longer applicable.
Objective LU-2.3 should be modified to state the objective of an increase for the next
cycle instead of a percentage increase.
Policy LU-2.3.2 should be amended to designate additional districts by 2015.
80
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. B. Housing Element
1. Objective HO-1.1
Objective HO-1.1 of the Housing Element is as follows: "Provide a local regulatory,
investment, and neighborhood environment that will assist the private sector in increasing
the stock of affordable housing within the city at least 10 percent by 2005."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-1.1, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies HO-1.1.1 through 1.1.11) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided in Table II.B.1.
below.
Table II.B.1. Housing Element Objective HO-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-1.1.1 Defines
affordable (moderate-
income) housing in
accordance with HUD,
promotes equal access to
housing, enforces fair
housing ordinances.
HUD policies and standards
Definitions and policies in
place. Need one definition
for City.
Policy HO-1.1.2
Continue/expand affordable
housing programs,
participation in federal
housing programs and
county Documentary Stamp
Surtax Program.
Community Development
and Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Housing Element
City must get fair share of
Documentary Stamp
Surtax.
Policy HO-1.1.3 Continue
plans/programs that
encourage new or
rehabilitated residential
structures and ensure
public/private coordination
to increase neighborhood
attractiveness.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Land Development
Regulations and
partnerships
In place.
Policy HO-1.1.4 Tax
Increment Financing
districts will continue to be
used.
Land Development
Regulations
Ongoing.
81
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.B.1. Housing Element Objective HO-1.1 Achievement Status continued
Policy HO-1.1.5 Continue
to enforce and strengthen
land development
regulations intended to
preserve and enhance
appearance and character of
neighborhoods.
Land Development
Regulations
In place with ongoing code
enforcement.
Policy HO-1.1.6 Continue
to encourage the
restoration/adaptive and
sensitive reuse of historic/
architecturally significant
housing through zoning
incentives.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Historic Preservation
and Land Development
Regulations
In place but review and
strengthening of policies
needed to encourage
increased numbers.
Policy HO-1.1.7 Continue
to control, through
restrictions, large scale
and/or intensive
commercial/industrial
development which may
negatively impact any
residential neighborhood.
Land Development
Regulations/Zoning
Large Scale Development
Committee, MUSP and
other development review
procedures in place.
Policy HO-1.1.8
Protect/enhance existing
viable neighborhoods, by
retaining residential zoning.
Land Development
Regulations
In place and ongoing.
Policy HO-1.1.9 Encourage
high -density residential
development/redevelopment
near Metrorail and
Metromover stations,
consistent with the Station
Area Design/Development
Plan.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Future
Land Use Plan Map and
Land Development
Regulations
City Station Area
Design/Development Plans
and Miami -Dade County
Rapid Transit Zone
encourage higher intensity
uses near stations
Policy HO-1.1.10 Continue
to develop
policies/procedures which
aid in assembling land for
major residential projects,
and develop informational
programs.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations and
Community Development
Policies
Land Development
Regulations for
development size
requirements to be
strengthened
Policy HO-1.1.11
[Reserved]
82
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective HO-1.1. Policies continue to be
relevant but must be strengthened and modified. Policy HO-1.1.1 should be modified to
have one definition of affordable. Policy HO-1.1.2 has been implemented through
savings and financial literacy programs for residents, maximizing use of Earned -Income
Tax Credit and the City's Home Ownership Project. Policies HO-1.1.3 and .5 - .10 are
currently being implemented through the Zoning Ordinance which is being rewritten so
that there is a focus on quality of life and neighborhood integrity. It is recommended
that Policy HO-1.1.2 be revised to state that the City shall work with the County and
State to ensure that it receives its fair share of Documentary Stamp Surtax funding.
2. Objective HO-1.2
Objective HO-1.2 of the Housing Element is as follows: "Conserve the present stock of
low and moderate -income housing within the city and reduce the number of substandard
units through rehabilitation, reduce the number of unsafe structures through demolition,
and insure the preservation of historically significant housing through identification and
designation."
In order to further evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-1.2, an analysis
of the extent to which its supporting policies (Policies HO-1.2.1 through HO-1.2.11) have
been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table IL2.
below.
Table II.B.2. Housing Element Objective HO-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-1.2.1 Defines
low-income housing in
accordance with HUD
standards and regulations.
HUD definitions
In place but need one
definition for the City.
Policy HO-1.2.2
Continue/expand low and
moderate -income housing
programs to prevent net
loss of those housing types.
Land Development
Regulations Community
Development/Housing
Programs In Place and
Home Ownership Project.
Policy HO-1.2.3 Provide
for low and moderate-
income, low density
housing in scattered site
locations instead of
concentrating them.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan,
Community Development
and Intergovernmental
Coordination with Miami -
Dade County
Programs in place and
ongoing.
83
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.B.2. Housing Element Objective HO-1.2 Achievement Status continued
Policy HO-1.2.4 Continue
to assist non-
profit/community-based
organizations to develop
and provide low and
moderate -income housing
projects as an alternative to
public sector housing.
Public/Private and
Private/Private Partnerships
City will continue to assist
to partner non-profit
organizations with for —
profit developers.
Policy HO-1.2.5 Defines
substandard housing.
Land Development
Regulations
In place.
Policy HO-1.2.6 Use code
enforcement to prevent
illegal conversion of S-F
residences into M-F units.
Land Development
Regulations
Code enforcement in place
and Quality of Life Task
Force.
Policy HO-1.2.7 Continue
to enforce/strengthen
zoning ordinance to
preserve/enhance
appearance and character of
neighborhoods.
Land Development
Regulations
Regulations, policies in
placed and through code
enforcement.
Policy HO-1.2.8 Increase
code enforcement efforts
where there are substandard
units and require timely
remediation.
Land Development
Regulations
Code Enforcement has been
increased with assistance
from Quality of Life Task
Force.
Policy HO-1.2.9 Monitor
conditions of public
housing within the city.
Community Development
and Intergovernmental
Coordination with Miami -
Dade County
Enforcement of minimum
housing standards.
Policy HO-1.2.10 Demolish
all structures determined to
be structurally unsafe.
Land Development
Regulations, Code
Enforcement/unsafe
structures
Regulations in place.
Policy HO-1.2.11
Historically significant
housing will be
identified/subjected to
Heritage Conservation
Article and zoning
ordinance.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Regulations in place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective HO-1.2 through Land Development
Regulations and code enforcement. In order to meet the intent of Policy HO-1.2.2 the
City is taking a proactive role in promoting home ownership through obtaining federal,
84
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
state and county monies and its own Home Ownership Project to expand low and
moderate income resident's housing opportunities. Policy HO-1.2.4 is being met because
the City is actively seeking to partner non-profit organizations with for -profit developers.
Policies HO-1.2.6 through .9 are being met due to increased code enforcement activities,
with assistance from the Quality of Life Task Force, to maintain neighborhood integrity.
It is recommended that new policies calling for additional initiatives to promote
homeownership and homeownership opportunities in the City be added.
3. Objective HO-1.3
Objective HO-1.3 of the Housing Element is as follows: "Facilitate the private and public
sector provision of housing in non -isolated residential areas for community -based
residential facilities and foster care facilities (including those funded by the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)."
In order to further evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-1.3, an analysis
of the extent to which its supporting policies (Policies HO-1.3.1 through HO-1.3.4) have
been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table
II.B.3. below.
Table II.B.3. Housing Element Objective HO-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-1.3.1 Group
homes, foster care facilities
and Adult Congregate
Living Facilities (ACLF's)
are permitted in all
residential areas at
applicable residential
densities.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Permitted uses in Land
Development Regulations
Policy HO-1.3.2 Prevent
concentrations of group
homes, foster care facilities,
and Adult Congregate
Living Facilities.
Land Development
Regulations
Policies in place.
Policy HO-1.3.3
[Reserved]
Policy HO-1.3.4
[Reserved]
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective HO-1.3. Policies are
implemented through the Land Development Regulations.
85
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
4. Objective HO-1.4
Objective HO-1.4 of the Housing Element is as follows: "The City will continue to
participate in a regional effort to provide adequate shelter for the homeless."
In order to further evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-1.4, an analysis
of the extent to which its supporting policies (Policies HO-1.4.1 through HO-1.4.6) have
been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table
II.B.4. below.
Table II.B.4. Housing Element Objective HO-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-1.4.1 The City,
along with other agencies,
will participate in a
coordinated plan to address
homelessness in South
Florida.
Intergovernmental
Coordination, Interagency
Agreements and Social
Programs
South Florida Regional
Planning Council and Dade
County Homeless Trust
Policy HO-1.4.2
[Reserved]
Policy HO-1.4.3 Assist in
providing temporary
emergency shelter facilities
for homeless families and
children.
Public/Private partnerships
In place and ongoing.
Policy HO-1.4.4 Permit
temporary crisis
intervention facilities and
short-term transitional
facilities (aimed at the
homeless) proximate to
services and economic
opportunities.
Land Development
Regulations
Regulations in place.
Policy HO-1.4.5
Continue/expand efforts to
acquire/administer
federal/state financial aid
for homeless assistance.
Community Development
In place and ongoing.
Policy HO-1.4.6 Provide
regulations for, and permit
the siting of, homeless
shelters to prevent a net
loss of shelter capacity.
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
86
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective HO-1.4. The City continues to work
closely with the Federal Interagency Council on Homelessness, the South Florida
Regional Planning Council and the Dade County Homeless Trust. It should be noted that
the City has experienced a decrease in the overall homeless population by 20%. With
respect to Policy HO-1.4.6, the City should continue to work with the County toward a
more equitable distribution of homeless shelters/programs throughout Miami -Dade
County.
5. Objective HO-1.5
Objective HO-1.5 of the Housing Element is as follows: "Provide for assistance to
displaced occupants where public redevelopment programs require relocation."
In order to further evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-1.5, an analysis
of the extent to which its supporting policy (Policy HO-1.5.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.B.5. below.
Table II.B.5. Housing Element Objective HO-1.5 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-1.5.1 Continue
Partnerships and Social
City, County and State
to provide for assistance for
replacement housing,
proximate to services and
employment, for occupants
displaced by public
redevelopment projects.
Programs
programs in place
The City has made some progress in achieving this Objective HO-1.5. This Objective and
Policy remain relevant, particularly with the current explosion of redevelopment
opportunities throughout the City.
6 . Objective HO-1.6
Obj ective HO-1.6 of the Housing Element is Reserved as is Policy HO-1.6.1.
Note: For consistency there is no Table II.B.6
7. Objective HO-2.1
Objective HO-2.1 of the Housing Element is as follows: "Achieve a livable downtown
with a variety of urban housing types for persons of all income levels."
In order to further evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective HO-2.1, an analysis
of the extent to which its supporting policies (Policies HO-2.1.1 through HO-2.1.9) has
87
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table
II.B.7. below.
Table II.B.7. Housing Element Objective HO-2.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy HO-2.1.1 Continue
to protect/enhance existing
viable neighborhoods by
retaining existing zoning.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Miami 21 being drafted
Policy HO-2.1.2 Continue
to revise residential zoning
regulations to provide
greater flexibility for
design, development and
mixing of uses.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Ongoing revisions and
Miami 21 being drafted
Policy HO-2.1.3 Continue
to assure that support
services, institutions and
amenities are available to
existing neighborhoods.
Land Development
Regulations and
concurrency
Ongoing. Policies and
procedures in place
Policy HO-2.1.4 Continue
to promote new, high
quality, dense urban
neighborhoods along the
Miami River, in Central
Brickell and Southeast
Overtown/Park West
through Special District
zoning.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Accomplished through
Special District overlays
Policy HO-2.1.5 Continue
to encourage adaptive reuse
of commercial space for
residential use by
eliminating unnecessary
residential requirements.
Land Development
Regulations/Zoning
Zoning Ordinance amended
to allow for adaptive reuse.
88
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.B.7. Housing Element Objective HO-2.1 Achievement Status continued
Policy HO-2.1.6 Continue
to target available
governmental housing
assistance programs and
funds to assist with
development of affordable
housing in existing
neighborhoods and
redevelopment districts.
Community Development
Administrative procedures
to target funding programs
Policy HO-2.1.7 Continue
public/private partnerships
to apply for federal grants
for the Southeast
Overtown/Park West,
Lummus Park, River
Land Development
Regulations and
partnerships
In place and ongoing
Quadrant and West Brickell
areas, to develop housing as
a part of mixed -use
projects.
Policy HO-2.1.8 Continue
to expand the areas where
new commercial
Land Development
Regulations
In place and ongoing.
development may receive
FAR bonuses for Housing
Trust Fund contributions
Policy HO-2.1.9
[Reserved]
Objective HO-2.1 continues to be implemented through its policies. Neighborhood
integrity is protected through existing Land Development Regulations and will be under
the Miami 21. The new code will also allow greater flexibility where warranted for better
design, mixing of uses and adaptive reuses while promoting quality neighborhoods
throughout the City.
8. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Housing Element are addressed in Chapter I of this
report. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a result of this
analysis.
Policy HO-1.3.2 should be amended to include spacing requirements between facilities.
89
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policy HO-1.4.6 should be amended to state that the City should continue to work with
the County toward a more equitable distribution of homeless shelters/programs
throughout Miami -Dade County.
90
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. C. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element
1. Objective SS-1.1
Objective SS-1.1 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "All residences
and businesses within the city that have been approved are served by sanitary sewers, and
the City will continue to replace and repair aging segments of the system as required, and
will coordinate with Miami -Dade County on the extension of, or increase in the capacity
of, treatment facilities to meet future needs."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-1.1, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-1.1.1 through 1.1.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table below.
Table II.C.1. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-1.1 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-1.1.1 Continue to
implement plans to extend
sewerage system to all
approved areas.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan,
development review and
Intergovernmental
Coordination with M-D
Water and Sewer
Department
Ongoing planning with M-
D Water and Sewer
Depaittnent.
Policy SS-1.1.2 Complete
sanitary sewer projects in
the Capital Improvement
Program as scheduled.
Capital Improvement
Projects Schedule
Projects completed.
Policy SS-1.1.3 Monitor
progress on sanitary sewer
related capital improvement
projects on an annual basis
as part of implementation
procedures.
Capital Improvements
Projects and procedural
Ongoing on an annual
basis.
Policy SS-1.1.4 Continue to
support the County's
actions to expand
wastewater treatment
facility capacity as
expressed in Department's
201 Plan.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with M-D
Water and Sewer
Depatttnent
Ongoing.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-1.1. Through continued
coordination with M-DWASD and due to the bond issue, infrastructure projects are more
numerous and on target. One area of the City which does not have sewers, and is the
subject of land use and political debates, is the South Grove, which accounts for
91
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
approximately 3% of the area of the City. Policy SS-1.1.4 should be amended to reflect
the Department's 2001 Plan, not the 201 Plan.
2. Objective SS-1.2
Objective SS-1.2 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "Ensure that
the practice of wastewater management is consistent with the protection and preservation
of natural resources."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-1.2, an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-1.2.1 through 1.2.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C2.
below.
Table II.C.2. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-1.2 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-1.2.1 Support
and encourage the County's
adherence to policies
concerning wastewater
discharge, in various forms,
to ensure that federal
drinking water standards
Intergovernmental
Coordination
M-D Water and Sewer
Department and DERM
monitor wastewater.
are met.
Policy SS-1.2.2 Eliminate
M-D Water and Sewer
Depaitinent action by
infiltration remediation
Ongoing M-D Water and
Sewer Department project.
infiltration of storm waters
into sanitary sewer system,
or overflow of wastewater
into storm sewer system.
Policy SS-1.2.3 Cooperate
with DERM to identify and
eliminate any illegal
connections of sanitary
sewers.
Intergovernmental
Coordination and
enforcement
Ongoing enforcement
actions.
Policy SS-1.2.4 Ensure,
with the County, that the
wastewater treatment
facility on Virginia Key
does not degrade the
natural environment or
limit public access to
recreate.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Intergovernmental
Coordination with M-
DWASD and DERM)
Ongoing environmental
review.
92
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-1.2. The coordination efforts with
both M-DWASD and DERM are ongoing and working to eliminate wastewater discharge
and infiltration while promoting a healthy natural environment.
3. Objective SS-1.3
Objective SS-1.3 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "The City's
land development regulations will ensure that approval of development or redevelopment
will not occur until there is adequate wastewater transmission capacity to serve that
development."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-1.3.1 through 1.3.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.3.
below.
Table II.C.3. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-1.3 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-1.3.1 LOS
standard for transmission
capacity is 100 gallons per
capita per day.
Land Development
Regulations/Concurrency
Concurrency LOS
implemented.
Policy SS-1.3.2 All sanitary
sewer network
improvements shall be
compatible with the LOS
standard adopted in Policy
SS-1.3.1.
Capital Improvements
within Capital
Improvements Element,
Land Development
Regulations and
Intergovernmental
Coordination With M-
DWASD
Consistency between
Capital Improvements
Program and LOS.
Policy SS-1.3.3 Work with
County to jointly develop
methodologies/procedures
for biannually updating
estimates of system demand
and capacity.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Ongoing review.
Policy SS-1.3.4 Enforce
policy that requires City
permits for development
/redevelopment occurring
outside of City's boundaries
which by gravity connects
to the City's sewer
transmission network.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with adjacent
municipalities and M-
DWASD
Policy in place.
93
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-1.3. Policy SS-1.3.4 should be
deleted or modified due to the fact that M-DWASD has overall responsibility for the
sewer collection and transmission system and would be the permitting agency. System
demand coordination of development impacts should be handled by M-DWASD.
4. Objective SS-1.4
Objective SS-1.4 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "The City of
Miami's sanitary sewer collection system is a valuable and costly element of the urban
infrastructure, and its use is to be maximized in the most efficient manner "
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy SS-1.4.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.4. below.
Table II.C.4. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-1.4 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-1.4.1 Ensure that
Land Development
In Place through
development/redevelopment
Regulations and
development review
is consistent with sanitary
Development review
process and M-DWASD
sewer collection system
capacity. (See Sanitary and
process
permitting
Storm Sewers Policy SS-
2.5.1.)
The City has achieved this Objective SS-1.4.
5. Objective SS-2.1
Objective SS-2.1 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "In accordance
with the 1986 Storm Drainage Master Plan and subsequent updates, the City will address
the most critical drainage problems. The City's goals for retrofitting subcatchment areas
within the city will meet or exceed the 5-year frequency, 24-hour duration standard while
utilizing water quality design criteria. The City will confer with local agencies, namely the
Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM)
when retrofitting City projects to incorporate design criteria and best management
practices (BMPs)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-2.1.1 through 2.1.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.5.
94
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.C.5. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.1 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.1.1 Adhere to
1986 Storm Drainage
Master Plan and subsequent
updates.
Land Development
Regulations and Code
requirement
Regulations in place
through Development
Review Process
Policy SS-2.1.2 Continue to
monitor progress on all
storm sewer related capital
improvement projects on an
annual basis.
Capital Improvements
Schedule
Ongoing through updated
work schedule
Policy SS-2.1.3 Issuance of
development permit shall
require compliance with
drainage LOS standard of a
one -in -five-year storm
event while considering
water quality.
Land Development
Regulations through
development review
process
In Place through code
requirements
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-2.1. The 1986 Storm Drainage
Master Plan was updated in 1999. Through the Capital Improvement Plan and process
storm sewer related projects are monitored.
6. Objective SS-2.2
Objective SS-2.2 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "The practice
of stormwater management within the city will be designed to reduce pollutant -loading
rates to surface waters." In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective
SS-2.2 an analysis of the extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-2.2.1
through 2.2.6) have been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is
provided on Table II.C.6. below.
Table II.C.6. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.2 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.2.1 Retrofit
Capital Improvements Plan
Outfall retrofits ongoing.
storm water outfalls that
discharge into Miami River
and its tributaries, the Little
and code requirements
River, Biscayne Bay design
to minimize pollutant
discharges. (See Policies
NR-1.1.2 and CM-1.1.2.)
95
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.C.6. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.2 Achievement
Status continued
Policy SS-2.2.2 To reduce
the level of contaminants
Public Works budget
Increase Public Works
budget for street sweeping.
carried into waterways
encourage increasing the
frequency/extent of street
sweeping. (See Policy SW-
1.3.3.)
Policy SS-2.2.3 Continue to
seek cooperative
agreements and funding
support from DERM,
SFWMD, USACOE, and
any other state and federal
agencies to protect surface
water quality.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Procedures in place.
Policy SS-2.2.4 Require
that "best
practices"be used in the
design/construction of
stormwater management
systems.
Administrative procedures
Procedures have been
changed to use "best
management practices".
Policy SS-2.2.5 Continue to
enforce South Florida
Building Code
requirements for the on -site
retention of the first inch of
storm water runoff. (See
Policy NR-2.1.2.)
Land Development
Regulations and
development review
procedures
Development review
procedures in place.
Policy SS-2.2.6 Consider
the inclusion of stormwater
quality control structures in
projects for major road
improvements and
commercial parking areas.
Capital Improvements
Projects
Updated to include
requirement.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-2.2. Through the Capital
Improvement Plan, the South Florida Water Management District, and a 5-year plan to
improve water quality and commitments from the private sector (Adopt a Waterway), the
City will install filters on storm drains, enhance the cleanup of bordering streets and
perform a structural analysis of sewer lines. Initially the City will start with the
restoration and maintenance of Wagner Creek. This cleanup will complement the
dredging of the Miami River. Policy SS-2.2.2 will be implemented by the Clean Up
Miami Campaign which maintains street sweepers, litter and graffiti buster teams. Policy
96
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
SS-2.2.5 should be amended to delete South as the code name has changed. Policy SS-
2.2.6 is implemented through Land Development and DERM regulations requiring the
storage of the first inch of stormwater runoff.
7. Objective SS-2.3
Objective SS-2.3 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "As the City
implements the storm water management improvements specified in the 1986 Storm
Drainage Master Plan, it will ensure that stormwater management contributes to the
conservation of ground water as a future potable water supply."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-2.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy SS-2.3.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.7. below.
Table II.C.7. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.3 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.3.1 Promote
infiltration of storm water to
surficial or artesian aquifers
to prevent further saltwater
intrusion.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM,
M-DWASD and SFWMD
Environmental Regulations.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-2.3. The 1986 Storm Drainage
Master Plan as updated in 1999 promotes to the conservation of ground water.
8. Objective SS-2.4
Objective SS-2.4 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "All areas of
the city are now served by storm drainage facilities, and the City will continue to
coordinate the replacement, repair, extension, and capacity increases of the system
consistent with development and redevelopment needs."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-2.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy SS-2.4.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.8. below.
Table II.C.8. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.4 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.4.1 As per
Chapter 53.5, City has
authority for construction
of utility system, issuance
of bonds and setting rates.
Bonding Authority
Bond issuance for Capital
Improvements Projects.
97
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has achieved Objective SS-2.4 through the Capital Improvement Plan funded by
bonds and other means which will support the enhancement of the storm water utility
system.
9. Objective SS-2.5
Objective SS-2.5 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "The City of
Miami's storm drainage system is a valuable and costly element of the urban
infrastructure, and its use is to be maximized in the most efficient manner to serve this
fully developed community."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-2.5 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy SS-2.5.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.9. below.
Table II.C.9 Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.5 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.5.1 Ensure
development/redevelopment
are consistent with storm
drainage system capacity.
(See Policy SS-1.4.1.)
Development Review
process
Development Review and
enforce of code
requirements.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SS-2.5 through mandates that
proposed development/redevelopment does not meet or exceed drainage system capacity
LOS.
10. Objective SS-2.6
Objective SS-2.6 of the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element is as follows: "The City of
Miami's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System discharges to the surface waters of the
United States. These discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. The City shall meet the requirements of the Permit when operating its
drainage facilities."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SS-2.6 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SS-2.6.1 and SS-2.6.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.C.10.
98
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.C.10. Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element Objective SS-2.6 Achievement
Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SS-2.6.1 Comply
Intergovernmental
Environmental regulations
with NPDES permit
Coordination through
in place.
conditions.
jurisdictional permitting
Policy SS-2.6.2 Drainage
Miami Comprehensive
Land Development
system shall meet the
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Regulations for stormwater
following criteria:
Development Regulations
are consistent with Miami
• Stormwater
and development review
Comprehensive
management
program elements
shall be consistent
with Miami
Neighborhood Plan.
Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan.
• Stormwater projects
and activities shall
be consistent with
current local/state/
federal regulations.
Stormwater projects shall
be implementable.
The City has achieved Objective SS-2.6 and must be in compliance with all federal
regulations concerning discharges to surface waters.
11. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Sanitary and Storm Sewers Element are addressed in
Chapter I of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a
result of this analysis.
Policy SS-1.1.4 should be amended to reflect M-DWASD's 2001 Plan and any
subsequent updates, not the 201 Plan.
Policy SS-1.3.4 should be deleted or modified due to the fact that M-DWASD has overall
responsibility for the sewer collection and transmission system and would be the
permitting agency. System demand coordination of development impacts should be
handled by M-DWASD.
Policy SS-2.2.5 should be amended to delete South.
99
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. D. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
1. Objective AR-1.1
Objective AR-1.1 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element is as follows:
"Ensure that stormwater management practices contribute to conservation of groundwater
as a future potable water supply."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective AR-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies AR-1.1.1 through AR-1.1.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table MD. 1.
below.
Table II.D.1. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Objective AR-1.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy AR-1.1.1 Through
projects identified in the
1986 Storm Drainage
Master Plan and updates,
promote infiltration of
storm water to surficial or
artesian aquifers to prevent
saltwater intrusion.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements
Element/Capital Projects
and Intergovernmental
Coordination with SFWMD
and DERM
Capital Improvements
Schedule, listing of projects
complete and projects
completed by M-D County
and SFWMD.
Policy AR-1.1.2 Coordinate
with and support local, state
and federal agencies to
achieve regional aquifer
recharge protection
objectives.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Intergovernmental
Coordination procedures in
place.
Policy AR-1.1.3 Continue
to support SFWMD efforts
to monitor the water levels
at salinity control structures
to prevent against saltwater
intrusion and protect the
aquifer recharge areas and
cones of influence of
wellfields. (See Policy NR-
2.1.3.)
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Procedures and policies in
place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective AR-1.1. The 1986 Storm Drainage
Master Plan was updated in 1999 and a high level of coordination has been achieved to
protect the aquifer recharge areas.
100
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
2. Objective AR-1.2
Objective AR-1.2 of the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element is as follows:
"The City will use its land use and development regulations to ensure that land uses for
areas within the City of Miami deemed to be aquifer recharge areas by the South Florida
Water Management District, maintain adequate recharge for the aquifer."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective AR-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy AR-1.2.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.D.2. below.
Table II.D.2. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Objective AR-1.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy AR-1.2.1 Maintain
low to moderate density
uses in the West Flagami
area to protect the
secondary aquifer recharge
area. (See Policy LU-1.1.9.)
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations limit densities
and uses through zoning.
The City has achieved Objective AR-1.2.
3. Recommendations
There are no recommended amendments to the Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Element.
II. E. Potable Water Element
1. Objective PW-1.1
Objective PW-1.1 of the Potable Water Element is as follows: "Land development
regulations will ensure that approval of development or redevelopment will not be
granted unless and until there is adequate potable water transmission capacity to serve
that development."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PW-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy PW-1.1.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.E.1. below.
101
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.E.1. Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PW-1.1.1 Cooperate
Concurrency Management
Ongoing and in place.
with County to jointly
and Intergovernmental
develop
Coordination with M-
methodologies/procedures
for biannually updating
estimates of system demand
and capacity. (See NR-
DWASD
2.1.4.)
The City has achieved Objective PW-1.1. This is met through the City's Land
Development Regulations and specifically the Concurrency LOS standards and
requirements. Policy PW-1.1.1 continues to be relevant for estimating current and future
needs.
2. Objective PW-1.2
Objective PW-1.2 of the Potable Water Element is as follows- "Ensure adequate levels of
safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city. (See Natural Resource
Conservation Objective NR-2.1.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PW-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PW-12.1 through PW-1.2.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.E.2.
Table II.E.2. Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PW-1.2.1 Ensure
potable water supplies meet
the LOS standards for
transmission capacity of
200 gallons per capita per
day. (See Policies NR-2.1.5
and CI-1.2.3.)
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Concurrency Management
System
Concurrency Management
System in place and
implemented.
Policy PW-1.22 Cooperate
and participate with other
agencies in developing a
countywide water
conservation plan. (See
Policy NR-2.1.7.)
Intergovernmental
Coordination with
SFWMD, DERM and M-
DWASD
Updated conservation
provisions in Land
Development
Regulations/Code
Requirements.
Policy PW-1.2.3 [Reserved]
Policy PW-1.2.4 [Reserved]
102
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has achieved Objective PW-1.2.
3. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Potable Water Element are addressed in Chapter I of
this report. There are no additional recommendations in this Chapter.
II. F. Solid Waste Collection Element
1. Objective SW-1.1
Objective SW-1.1 of the Solid Waste Collection Element is as follows: "The City will
continue to provide solid waste collection services to city residents and businesses in a
manner that ensures public health and safety, and a clean urban environment."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SW-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SW-1.1.1 through SW-1.1.7) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.F.1.
below.
Table II.F.1 Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SW-1.1.1 Solid
waste collection services
shall maintain an LOS
standard of 7
lbs./person/day (1.28 tons/
person/year.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and Concurrency
Management System
Land Development
Regulations and
Concurrency Management
System.
Policy SW-1.1.2
Commercial structures and
high density residential
areas may be served by
either the Solid Waste
Department or private
sector providers. The LOS
standard and all regulations
must be met.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and Concurrency
Management System
Land Development
Regulations and Code
Requirements.
Policy SW 1.1.3 Maintain
solid waste collection
equipment to meet public
needs according to standard
adopted in Policy SW-1.1.1.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Capital Budget
Capital Budget.
Policy SW 1.1.4 Ensure
compliance with its
"Garbage and Trash
Ordinance," Chapter 22.
Land Development
Regulations and City Code
Compliance with
Ordinance ongoing.
Policy SW-1.1.5 LDR's
Land Development
Code requirement in place.
103
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
will be consistent with
collection services in
accordance with the
adopted LOS.
Regulations and
consistency with Level of
service
Policy SW-1.1.6 Prioritizes
the allocation of funds for
the provision of solid waste
services.
Capital Improvements
Schedule
Capital Budget.
Policy SW-1.1.7 Requires
promoters of major public
events to reimburse the City
for garbage collection
services required.
Land Development
Regulations
Service fees collected.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SW-1.1. The City collects
approximately 184,000 tons/year which includes 5,000 tons of recycled material and 626
tons of compost.
2. Objective SW-1.2
Objective SW-1.2 of the Solid Waste Collection Element is as follows: "Although the
City has no authority governing solid waste transfer and disposal, it will continue to
support Miami -Dade County efforts intended to ensure that transfer stations and disposal
sites are sufficient to meet the needs of city residents according to the service standards
adopted in Policy 1.1.1."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SW-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SW-1.1.1 through SW-1.1.5) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.F2.
below.
Table II.F.2. Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SW-1.2.1 Jointly
develop, with the County,
methodologies and
procedures to biannually
update estimates of system
demand and capacity.
Intergovernmental
Coordination and
Concurrency Management
System procedures
Biannual update demand
and capacity.
104
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.F.2. Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.2 Achievement Status
continued
Policy SW-1.2.2 Support
County's policy to
implement the Solid Waste
Disposal and Resources
Recovery Management Plan
and those projects identified
in Bond Series A and B.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with Miami -
Dade Solid Waste
Department
In place .
Policy SW 1.2.3 Explore
the development of resource
recovery/cogeneration
activities and with County,
consider
programs/procedures that
decentralize disposal and
reduce the volume.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with Miami-
Dade Solid Waste
Depaitinent
Resource recovery and co -
generation activities in
place at County Facilities.
Policy SW 1.2.4 Support
County's efforts to identify
generators of hazardous
waste, to develop and
enforce procedures for
proper collection/disposal
of hazardous waste. Support
the County's program to
enforce proper disposal and
meet all standards and
regulations. Support
temporary storage/ transfer
facilities. Reduce incidence
of improper
handling/disposal. (See
Policy NR-1.1.8)
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM
Policies and procedures in
place and enforced through
Land Development
Regulations and Code
Enforcement.
Policy SW-1.2.5 Encourage
County to utilize "amnesty
days" .for low volume
generators.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Procedural and
programmatic.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SW-1.2. Policy SW-1.2.1 should be
amended to delete the reference to Miami -Dade County Department of Public Works,
Division of Solid Waste and to insert Miami -Dade County Department of Solid Waste.
Policy SW-1.2.2 should be amended to delete Bond Series A and B. Under Policy SW-
1.2.3 resource recovery/cogeneration activities have been implemented under a County
agreement with Montenay Corp. Policy SW-1.2.4 is implemented by the Miami -Dade
Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM).
105
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
3. Objective SW-1.3
Objective SW-1.3 of the Solid Waste Collection Element is as follows: "It shall be the
City's policy that solid waste collection procedures shall be conducted in a manner that
will reduce the quantity of litter, trash and abandoned personal property on city streets."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SW-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SW-1.3.1 through SW-1.3.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.F.3.
below.
Table II.F.3. Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SW-1.3.1 Continue
"Clean Neighborhood"
campaigns and support
"Keep Dade Beautiful"
program through awareness
programs.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Code
Enforcement and Solid
Waste Department
Programmatic and Public
Information dissemination.
Policy SW-1.3.2 Ensure
streets and yards remain
clean and attractive.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Solid Waste and Public
Works Department and
Code Enforcement.
Policy SW 1.3.3 Encourage
increased street sweeping
frequencies to reduce
pollution to surface waters
and eliminate litter. (See
Policy SS-2.2.2.)
Public Works Capital
Budget
Increase Public Works
budget for street sweeping
activities.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SW-1.3. Through the "Clean
Neighborhood" and "Keep America Beautiful" Programs, the new Quality of Life Task
Force and increased code enforcement and street sweeping activities there has been a
reduction in trash, litter and pollution.
4. Objective SW-1.4
Objective SW-1.4 of the Solid Waste Collection Element is as follows: "Although the
City has no authority governing solid waste transfer and disposal, it will continue to
support and cooperate with Miami -Dade County efforts to encourage the recycling of
solid waste materials and reduce the volume of waste set aside for collection and
disposal."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective SW-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies SW-1.4.1 through SW-1.4.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.F.4.
106
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.F.4. Solid Waste Collection Element Objective SW-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy SW-1.4.1 Encourage
the use of recyclable
packaging materials.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Public Information
City and County Public
Information programs
Policy SW-1.4.2 Evaluate
development of reuse
and/or recycling programs
and make recommendations
to change procedures
governing disposal.
Solid Waste policies
Programmatic
Policy SW-1.4.3 Encourage
residents to reduce volume
of yard and tree trimmings
and promote composting.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Solid Waste public
information programs
Dissemination of
information on yard waste
and composting and
decrease in volume of
waste
The City has made progress in achieving Objective SW-1.4 through its coordination
efforts with the County.
5. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Solid Waste Element are addressed in Chapter I of this
report. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a result of this
analysis.
Policy SW-1.2.1 should be amended to change Miami -Dade County Department of
Public Works, Division of Solid Waste to Miami -Dade County Department of Solid
Waste.
Policy SW-1.2.2 should be amended to delete Bond Series A and B.
107
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. G. Transportation
1. Objective TR-1.1
Objective TR-1.1 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "All arterial and collector
roadways under County and State jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will
operate at levels of service established by the respective agency. All other City streets
will operate at levels of service that are consistent with an urban center possessing an
extensive urban public transit system and characterized by compact development and
moderate -to -high residential densities and land use intensities, and within a transportation
concurrency exception area (TCEA). The City will monitor the levels of service of all
arterial and collector roadways to continue to develop and enhance transportation
strategies that promote public transit and minimize the impacts of the TCEA."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.1.1 through TR-1.1.20
(misnumbered)) have been implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is
provided on Table II.G.1. below.
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.1.1 Adopts
designation of the City,
with exceptions for certain
islands, as within the Urban
Infill Area. This allows for
intensification of
development. LOS
standards shall be as set
forth in Policies TR-1.1.2
and TR-1.1.3. (See LU-
1.1.11.)
County's Urban Infill
Policy implemented
through City's Land
Development Code
Transportation Element
Implemented through this
policy — adopting urban
infill.
Policy TR-1.1.2 Defines
person -trip methodology for
measuring of LOS.
Development/expansions
contingent upon compliance
with LOS standards., with
modifications described in
subparagraphs 1.1.2.1
through 1.1.2.3.
Implemented through the
Major Use Special Permits
(MUSP), some Class II
Permits, and the Downtown
DRI's.
Currently in place, but
being revisited as a part of
the City's Transportation
Element update.
Policy TR-1.1.3 [Reserved]
108
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.1.3 As required
by 163.3180(10) F.S., City
adopts the FDOT minimum
standards for Florida
Interstate Highway System.
Adoption of FDOT
Highway Standards — for
areas outside the Urban
Infill Area.
Adopted by this policy and
implemented as a part of
TR-1.1.1
Policy TR-1.1.4 As part of
the EAR and subsequent
amendments, update the
Transportation Element and
revise the Transportation
Corridors document from
the 1989 Miami
Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan.
Implemented by studies and
plans for the City of Miami.
• Miami Downtown
Transportation
Master Plan
(MDTMP) has been
completed and
adopted.
• An evaluation of the
Person Trip
Methodology is
underway.
• Miami -Dade Transit
(MDT) in
cooperation with
other agencies is
undertaking a route -
by -route analysis of
the transit system.
Policy TR-1.1.5 Support the
County's efforts to increase
the efficiency and enhance
the safety of the existing
thoroughfare network.
Implemented by
Intergovernmental
Coordination Policies.
Active in MPO.
City representative for
MPO and TPC. Adopted
TCM ordinance — need
enforcement of ordinance.
Policy TR-1.1.6 Coordinate
with the County on
expansion of the bus transit
system and formulation of
bus system policies, and
encourage the Dade County
to adopt LOS.
Implemented by
Intergovernmental
Coordination Policy
through implementation of
People's Transportation
Plan.
Local neighborhood
circulators within the City
of Miami have been
implemented as a part of
the MDPTP. The County
has adopted new density
standards as a part of the
TOD Standards.
Policy TR-1.1.7 Seek to
restore existing one-way
streets to two-way operation
to improve access, reduce
trip length and vehicular
speeds, particularly in the
very high density areas.
MDTMP recommendation
to implementing agencies.
No streets have been
converted to two-way
streets. The MDTMP made
several recommendations
which have been forwarded
to the County and FDOT.
109
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.1.8 Require
adequate vehicular parking
Miami Parking Authority
should implement with
each new facility or retrofit
existing garages.
In process
facilities with energy
efficient lighting.
Policy TR-1.1.9 Require
new development to
implement transportation
control measure provisions
in accordance with Section
14-182, which promotes
increased vehicle
occupancy and transit
ridership.
TCM Ordinance enforced
through MUSP process.
The City's TCM Ordinance
is adequate.
Policy TR-1.1.10 Upon
completion of the EAR,
amend the Transportation
Element to facilitate
implementing EAR
recommendations and
depict existing/planned
future major parking
Implemented through T.E.
update.
Implementation concurrent
with EAR.
facilities on appropriate
maps.
Policy TR-1.1.11 Continue
to relocate and/or extend
streets that do not fit the
developed street grid
system of downtown.
Implemented by the CIP by
funding recommendation
MDTMP adopted — funding
needs to be allocated and
project placed in TIP.
the MDTMP.
Policy TR-1.1.12 Through
MPO, encourage County to
improve downtown
connections to the
expressway system.
Implemented through
Intergovernmental
Coordination Policy and
continued coordination to
get studies undertaken.
The I-395 Project
Development &
Environment (PD&E) and
Port Truck Tunnel are both
under study.
Policy TR-1.1.13 New
development in downtown
shall contribute its fair share
toward the mitigation of
regional roadway impacts
as required by the DRI
Development Orders.
Impact fees.
Rewritten to indicate that
development contributes
transportation impact fees
and transit impact fees.
110
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.1.14
Through MPO continue to
participate in the
formulation of traffic
circulation policies and
support efforts to use of
remote parking.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
County has not increased or
developed additional
Metrorail Park and Ride
facilities or park and ride
along express bus route.
Rewrite to drop reference
to "remote intercept".
Policy TR-1.1.15 Through
Section 14-182
"Transportation Control
Measures", manage the
downtown parking supply.
TCM Ordinance.
City needs to develop a
parking plan for Downtown
Miami.
Policy TR-1.1.16 Through
Section 14-182
"Transportation Control
TCM Ordinance.
City needs to develop a
parking plan for Downtown
Miami in coordination with
the Miami Parking
Authority.
Measures", pursue the
development of public and
private peripheral parking
garages near the
expressway and arterial
entrances to downtown to
reduce congestion.
Policy TR-1.1.17
Coordinate with South
Florida Commuter Services
and FDOT to
support/encourage City
employee participation in
the Downtown Miami
Transportation Management
Initiative, established to
increase alternative modes
of transport.
TCM Ordinance through
the Downtown DRI's and
the MUSP.
City has active TMI for
Downtown - should be
strengthened.
City needs to encourage
TCM enforcement.
City of Miami needs to
encourage TMD strategies
for City employees.
Policy TR-1.1.18 Work
with MDTA to increase the
number of bus routes that
participate in the Bike and
Ride Program.
City Intergovernmental
Coordination Policies.
City needs to coordinate
with MDT.
111
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.1. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.1.19 Prior to
Will be implemented
Has not been implemented
submitting the EAR, amend
through TE update.
prior to EAR process but
the Transportation Element
will be part of current TE
to incorporate
recommendations of the
update.
Downtown Transportation
Master Plan, particularly
those relating to the Buena
Vista Yards RAC.
Policy TR-1.1.20 Prior to
Implemented through the
The implementation
submitting the EAR,
identify funding
MPO's UPWP, the State
Work Program, individual
measure shows the limited
funds available for local
mechanisms for
departmental budgets and
transportation studies.
studies/plans/programs and
physical improvements to
the RAC.
PTP Work Plan.
Note: Renumber policies to reflect 21 policies.
2. Objective TR-1.2
Objective TR-1.2 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "At the time of all
development reviews, the City will determine rights -of -way and corridors needed for
existing transportation networks and ensure those rights -of -way will be designated and
reserved prior to development."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.2.1 and TR-1.2.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.2.
below.
Table II.G.2. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.2.1 Maintain
City's Street and
Thoroughfare Plan; City's
Implementation on an on -
going basis as development
occurs.
and enforce, and revise as
necessary, the minimum
right-of-way requirements.
Zoning Ordinance.
Policy TR-1.2.2 Continue to
maintain a comprehensive
public rights -of -way
improvements program for
City streets that have high
levels of pedestrian activity.
City's Street and
Thoroughfare Plan; City's
Implementation on an on -
going basis as development
occurs.
Zoning Ordinance; Capital
Improvement Program.
112
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
3. Objective TR-1.3
Objective TR-1.3 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City's transportation
system will enhance safe person -trip and vehicular movements and minimize collision
potential for all modes of transportation through design. Beginning January 1, 2004, the
City will implement the prioritized Capital Improvements Program including sidewalk
and curb replacements, and street resurfacing and reconstruction."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.3.1 and TR-1.3.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.3.
below.
Table II.G.3. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.3.1 Continue to
City's adoption of
Adopted Design Standards.
provide an adequate,
properly designed, safe
acceptable design standards
in Land Development
system for controlling
traffic by adhering to
adopted design standards
and procedures.
Code.
Policy TR-1.3.2 Annually
City coordination with
On -going effort
coordinate with the County
to support monitoring
locations of high accident -
frequency and identify
design improvements.
County and State.
Incorporate such
improvements into the
City's Capital Improvement
Element.
4. Objective TR-1.4
Objective TR-1.4 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City's street network
will be utilized to protect and enhance the character of the city's residential
neighborhoods and neighborhood commercial centers through coordination with the Land
Use Plan and adopted Neighborhood plans and recommendations. Prior to the 2005
EAR, the Transportation Element will be amended to reflect proposed measures for
neighborhood protection and enhancement such as neighborhood traffic management and
traffic calming plans."
113
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.4.1 through TR-1.4.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.4.
below.
Table II.G.4. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.4.1 Seek
agreements with the County
to ensure that transportation
improvements: do not
intrude into or fragment
neighborhoods and protect
interregional and intrastate
roadway functions.
Being implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination between
Miami Dade County,
FDOT and the City of
Miami.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.4.2 Develop a
streetscape design program.
Being implemented through
individual neighborhood
plans coordinate with the
Capital Improvement
Element.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.4.3 Street
improvements will seek to
eliminate dirt shoulders and
provide
curb/gutters/sidewalks to
improve the physical
appearance and quality of
neighborhoods.
Implemented through the
Capital Improvement
Element and the Public
Works Department.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.4.4 Define
characteristics and
standards for "Urban
Streets" The first ones
designated are: Biscayne
Boulevard, Grand Avenue,
Calle Ocho, Coral Way and
N.E. 2 Avenue. Additional
streets may be designated.
Implemented through
neighborhood plans in
coordination with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendations in this
policy have been
implemented. No
additional streets have been
nominated.
5. Objective TR-1.5
Objective TR-1.5 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City of Miami's
continued development requires the provision of effective public transit and paratransit
services that serve existing and future land uses, the provision of safe and convenient
public transit passenger transfer terminal facilities, the appropriate coordination of public
transit with existing and future land uses, and the accommodation of the special needs of
the City of Miami's population, many of whom are transportation disadvantaged.
114
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Therefore, the City of Miami will support Miami -Dade County, which is the sole
authorized operator of public transit in Miami -Dade County, in the provision of these
essential public transit services. Prior to the 2005 EAR, the City will amend the
Transportation Element to include Miami -Dade Transit's updated Transportation
Development Plan as it relates to the City. (See Natural Resource Conservation Policy
NR-3.2.2.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.5 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.5.1 through TR-1.5.15) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.5.
below.
Table II.G.5. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.5 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.5.1 Through
the MPO continually
encourage the County to
facilitate exchanges
between modes of transit at
intermodal terminals.
Implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.5.2 Conduct
land use and zoning
analyses around Metrorail
stations in conjunction with
the County to determine if
land use and zoning
changes should be
implemented.
Implemented through the
Land Use Element and
various neighborhood
plans.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.5.3 Use land
development regulations to
assist the UM/Jackson
Memorial Hospital to meet
demands of Civic Center
expansion and help solve
accessibility and parking
Implemented through the
Land Use Element, the
City's Parking Authority
and through a future TMA
for the Civic Center Area.
The City needs to actively
seek the reestablishment of:
1) a TMA in the Civic
Center Area; 2) CCTMO or
other similar management
group to replace function
problems. And through the
Board of Directors of the
Civic Center Transportation
Management Organization,
encourage the increase in
Metrorail ridership
Policy TR-1.5.4 Encourage
the County to provide a
Metrorail transit station to
serve the River Quadrant
area.
Implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination
No longer a policy
115
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.5. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.5 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.5.5 [Reserved]
Policy TR-1.5.6 Through
the MPO assist the County,
in the completion of
Metrorail Phase II by
directing development
where it will support the
densities.
Implemented through the
Land Use Element, the
Transportation Element and
Intergovernmental
Coordination.
The East/West Corridor
(phase II Metro Rail) will
be restudied in the near
future.
Policy TR-1.5.7 Through
the MPO request that the
County include appropriate
public transit systems to
connect: Bayside to Flagler
Street, Seaport to
Metromover, Airport to
downtown, Bayshore Drive
to Metromover, Metrorail
Phase II in west Omni to
Metromover, and Miami
Beach to downtown.
Implemented through the
Land Use Element, the
Transportation Element and
Intergovernmental
Coordination.
The City has participated in
the Bay Link Study and
should participate in the
future East/West Corridor
Study.
Policy TR-1.5.8 Prior to
2005 EAR submittal, ensure
a stronger interface between
the development/
redevelopment of activity
centers and the
transportation system.
Implemented through the
policies of the Land Use
Element and codified in the
Land Development code
Guidelines will be
recommended through the
update of the
Transportation Element,
which is ongoing.
Policy TR-1.5.9 Through
MPO, encourage the
County to approve the use
of private jitneys where
there is a public need.
Implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination.
The MPO completed a
jitney study in 2003.
Policy TR-1.5.10
Encourage residential
development near large
employment centers and
investigate opportunities for
mixed -use developments.
Implemented thorough
Land Development
Regulations.
Ongoing
116
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.5. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.5 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.5.11 Through
"Transportation Control
Measures" seek to require
new large-scale
development to
adopt/enforce measures to
reduce more single -
occupant passenger car trips
and encourage the use of
multiple -occupant vehicles.
Provide support for
transportation demand
initiatives undertaken by
new developments.
Implemented though
policies in the
Transportation Element.
Policies to strengthen the
provisions set forth herein
are being developed as part
of the ongoing
Transportation Element
update.
Policy TR-1.5.12 Support
the County in achieving
Regional objective to
increase transit ridership by
30 percent of total person
trips By the 2005 EAR
submittal, coordinate with
MDTA to develop the
appropriate data collection
needs to support the City's
person -trip capacity Level
of service measurements.
Implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination.
MDT is currently
performing an analysis of
the transit system, which
will enable Miami to
establish a baseline for
measuring growth.
Policy TR-1.5.13 Annually
coordinate with the County
to update of the Five Year
Transit Development
Program to address transit
needs.
Implemented through
intergovernmental
coordination.
Ongoing.
Policy TR-1.5.14 Prior to
submitting the 2005 EAR,
amend the Transportation
Element to incorporate the
updated MDT Transit
Development plan and its
programmed improvements.
Implemented through the
Transportation Element.
The Transportation
Element is currently being
modified to reference a list
of TDP projects that can be
amended.
117
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.5. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.5 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.5.15 Prior to
Implemented though the
The Transportation
submitting the 2005 EAR,
amend the Transportation
Transportation Element.
Element is currently being
modified to reference a list
Element to incorporate the
of LRTP projects that can
updated Metropolitan
be amended.
Planning Organization Long
Range Transportation Plan
and its programmed
improvements.
6. Objective TR-1.6
Objective TR-1.6 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City shall through its
Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, annually coordinate and communicate its
transportation plans and its public transit planning for transportation disadvantaged
people, with those of Miami -Dade County. The City will annually monitor programs
sponsored by the State of Florida and seek opportunities for coordination with other local
municipalities."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.6 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy TR-1.6.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.6. below.
Table II.G.6. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.6 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.6.1 Annually
Implement through
Ongoing.
review and coordinate the
intergovernmental
City's transportation
planning with FDOT's
coordination.
Five -Year Transportation
Plans and MPO's Long
Range Transportation Plan
Update.
7. Objective TR-1.7
Objective TR-1.7 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City shall, through its
Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, annually meet with Miami -Dade County to
coordinate the protection of existing and designation of future public transit corridors
within Miami, to ensure that public transit expansion and improvement may be
facilitated."
118
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.7 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy TR-1.7.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.7. below.
Table II.G.7. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.7 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.7.1 Ensure that
adequate public rights -of-
way are preserved for
transportation purposes,
including needs for mass
transit.
Implemented through the
Land Development
Regulations.
The City needs to develop a
transit right-of-way map to
use when reviewing new
projects.
8. Objective TR-1.8
Objective TR-1.8 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "Prior to the 2005 EAR,
the transportation system and the information provided in the Transportation Element
shall be coordinated with the goals, objectives and policies of the Land Use element,
including coordination with the land use, map, population densities, housing,
employment patterns, projected development and redevelopment, urban infill, and other
similar characteristics of land use that have an impact on transportation.."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.8 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies TR-1.8.1 through TR-1.8.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.8.
below.
Table II.G.8. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.8 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.8.1 Continue to
Implemented through the
Ongoing.
assure provision of an
Development Review
adequate, properly designed
and safe system for
controlling vehicular
accessibility to major
thoroughfares.
Process.
Policy TR-1.8.2 Amend
Implemented through
Currently underway.
Transportation Element to
updating the Transportation
reflect changes to Land Use
Element.
Element every five years.
119
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.G.8. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.8 Achievement Status
continued
Policy TR-1.8.3 Utilize a
Implemented through the
Currently underway.
long range planning horizon
Transportation Element.
of a minimum of 20 years in
Transportation Element to
be consistent with MPO
Long Range Transportation
Plan.
9. Objective TR-1.9
Objective TR-1.9 of the Transportation Element is as follows: "The City shall seek to
achieve consistency and coordination between the Port of Miami and the Miami
International Airport plans and the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective TR-1.9 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy TR-1.9.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.G.9. below.
Table II.G.9. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.9 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy TR-1.9.1 Annually
Implemented through
Ongoing.
coordinate with the Port of
intergovernmental
Miami and Miami
International Airport to
ensure consistency between
the MMCNP and the port
and airport master plans.
coordination.
10. Recommendations
Specific Policies will be evaluated as part of the Transportation Element update and
amendment process which is currently underway. Recommendations will focus on the
following general areas: Rewrite the Person Trip Methodology; Reference specific levels
of service and neighborhood studies instead of listing recommendations in objectives and
policies; Strengthen TCM policies; Reestablish a TDM for Civic Center area; Develop a
parking plan for downtown; Continue close intergovernmental coordination to develop
and evaluate projects; focus on planning, land use, and transportation issues along
transportation corridors; and reevaluate transit levels of service (LOS) and headway
methodologies.
120
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. H. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities
Port of Miami
1. Objective PA-1.1
Objective PA-1.1 of the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element is as follows:
"The City of Miami, through its land development regulations, shall coordinate land use
in areas of the city adjacent to the Port of Miami with the transportation related activity
which occurs within the port to ensure compatibility and complementary land uses and
activities."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PA-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PA-1.1.1 through PA-1.1.8) has been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.H.1
below.
Table ILH.1. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-1.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PA-1.1.1 Encourage
facility improvement which
further land development,
coastal management and
conservation goals and
objectives of Miami and
port development goals of
the Port.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and Intergovernmental
Coordination with Port
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations,
Intergovernmental
Coordination with Port and
consistency between plans.
Policy PA-1.1.2 Ensure that
adequate amount of
commercial/industrial land
be available for planned
af port activity,
expansions afree trade
and establishRegulations/ZoningFederal
zone" near the Port.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Future
Land Use Plan Map, Land
Development
Community and Economic
Development Plans in
place, Intergovernmental
Coordination with State and
Governments,
Future Land Use Plan Map
and Zoning.
Policy PA-1.1.3 Seek
concurrence from County to
agree that all
parking/roads/ancillary
transportation facilities
required to accommodate
new terminals will be
constructed within the Port.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Intergovernmental
Coordination with Miami -
Dade County Seaport
Port Master Plan, Land
Development
Regulations/Zoning.
Policy PA-1.1.4 Seek
concurrence from County to
agree that all non -
transportation related land
uses will not be permitted
within, but adjacent to Port.
Interlocal Agreement
Interlocal Agreement
limiting Port land uses
121
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.H.1. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-1.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy PA-1.1.5 All surface
transportation
improvements providing
access to the Port must be
compatible with the needs,
goals and objectives of the
City as related to the
development greater
downtown, and
improvements will be
financed by County, state
and federal funds.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Element
Port Master Plan,
consistency between City
and County Plans, MPO
and input from DDA.
Policy PA-1.1.6 Port shall
prepare guidelines for
construction, renovation
and landscaping of its
facilities, and guidelines
must comply with all City
requirements.
Port Master Plan and
consistency with Miami
Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
g
Port Master Plan.
Policy PA-1.1.7 Cooperate
with the County to mitigate
adverse structural/non-
structural impacts upon
adjacent natural resources
and land uses.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and M-
D County Comprehensive
Plan, Land Development
Regulations and
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Land Development
Regulations including
DERM, SFWMD and
USACOE.
Policy PA-1.1.8 Cooperate
with the County to protect
and conserve natural
resources.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Land Development
Regulations including
Environmental Regulations.
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective PA-1.1. The first part of PA-
1.1.2 is not likely to be implemented due to the increasing pressure to develop residential
and public cultural facilities in the downtown area. The City cannot ensure that
commercial/industrial land will be available exclusively for port uses. On a positive note
a free trade area has been established in the Wynwood neighborhood. Policies PA-1.1.3
and .4 are not included or discussed in the Port of Miami Master Plan which sets the
parameters for Port development within the Port of Miami. Policy PA-1.1.5 is realized
due to the regional nature of the facility and through the MPO. Policies PA-1.1.6, .7 and
.8 are realized through the Port of Miami Master Plan and Land Development and DERM
Regulations.
122
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Miami International Airport
2. Objective PA-2.1
Objective PA-2.1 of the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element is as follows:
"The City of Miami, through its land development regulations, shall coordinate land use
in areas of the city adjacent to Miami International Airport with the transportation related
activity which occurs within that facility to ensure compatible and complimentary land
uses and activities."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PA-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PA-2.1.1 through PA-2.1.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.H2_
below.
Table ILH.2. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-2.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PA-2.1.1 Encourage
facility improvements
which further land
development, coastal
management and
conservation goals and
objectives of the City and
the development goals of
MIA.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and Intergovernmental
Coordination
Consistency between
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Miami -Dade County
Comprehensive Plan
Policy PA-2.1.2 All surface
transportation
improvements providing
access to MIA and
impacting transportation
within the City must be
compatible with the needs,
goals and objectives of the
City and such
improvements will be
financed by County, state
and federal funds.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Element and Airport Master
Plan
Consistency between
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Element and Airport Master
Plan
Policy PA-2.1.3 Ensure that
zoning protects existing
aviation flight paths.
FAA Clearance Letter
In Place
The City has achieved Objective PA-2.1. There is consistency between the goals of the
City and MIA and coordination between the City and County through the MPO.
123
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Port of Miami River
3. Objective PA-3.1
Objective PA-3.1 of the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element is as follows:
"The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations, shall help protect the Port
of Miami River from encroachment by non water -dependent or water -related land uses,
and shall regulate its expansion and redevelopment in coordination with the City's
applicable coastal management and conservation plans and policies."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PA-3.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PA-3.1.1 through PA-3.1.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.H.3.
below.
Table II.H.3. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-3.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PA-3.1.1 Encourage
the
establishment/maintenance
of water-dependent/water-
related uses along the River,
and discourage
encroachment by
incompatible uses
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations.
Policy PA-3.1.2 Encourage
the development/expansion
of the Port of Miami River
consistent with the Coastal
Management and
Conservation Elements.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Internal consistency within
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan Land
Use and Coastal
Management and
Conservation Elements
Policy PA-3.1.3 Encourage
development of compatible
land uses in the vicinity of
the Port of Miami River to
mitigate potential adverse
impacts upon adjacent
natural resources and land
uses.
Land Development
Regulations
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations in place
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PA-3.1 and its supporting policies.
These policies encourage maintaining or establishing water -dependent or related uses
along the waterfront. The 1992 Miami River Master Plan and other subsequent plans
realized that the downtown area, or lower river, (east of NW 7th Avenue) would more
wisely be utilized for residential and entertainment/cultural uses. The area between NW
124
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
7th and NW 27thAvenues (middle river) would be a mix of residential and commercial
industrial marine uses. And, the area west of NW 27th Avenue, or upper river would
retain the marine -dependent or related character. There is still much ongoing debate as to
the form the Miami River waterfront will take. Therefore, Policy PA-3.1.1 should be
amended to reflect an adopted vision.
4. Objective PA-3.2
Objective PA-3.2 of the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element is as follows:
"The City of Miami shall coordinate the surface transportation access to the Port of
Miami River with the traffic and mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map
series."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PA-3.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy PA-3.2.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.H.4.. below.
Table ILH.4. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-3.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PA-3.2.1 Through
the Transportation Element,
coordinate intermodal
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Transportation Department,
MPO, FDOT, CSX
surface and water
transportation access
serving the Port of Miami
Element
River.
The City will continue to review Objective PA-3.2. The policy should be amended to
encourage support by the City, the County and the MPO.
5. Objective PA-3.3
Objective PA-3.3 of the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element is as follows:
"The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with
those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami -Dade County's Port of Miami."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PA-3.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy PA-3.3.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.H.5.
125
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.H.5. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Objective PA-3.3
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PA-3.3.1 Shall
Miami Comprehensive
support the functions of the
Neighborhood
Ongoing
Port of Miami River
Plan/Intergovernmental
consistent with the future
Coordination Element and
goals and objectives of the
Economic Development
Comprehensive Plan,
particularly with respect to
the unique characteristics.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PA-3.3.
6. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element are
addressed in Chapter I of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are
being made as a result of this analysis.
Policy PA-1.1.2 should be amended because, due to the increasing pressure to develop
residential and public cultural facilities in the downtown area, the City cannot ensure that
commercial/industrial land will be available exclusively for port uses.
Policies PA-1.1.3 and .4 should be considered for deletion.
Policy PA-3.1.1 should be amended to encourage water related/water dependent uses
along the upper river, based on the Miami River plans, rather than along the entire river.
126
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. I. Parks, Recreation and Open Space
1. Objective PR-1.1
Objective PR-1.1 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Increase public access to all identified recreation sites, facilities and open spaces
including the Miami River and beaches and enhance the quality of recreational and
educational opportunities for all age groups and handicapped persons within the city's
neighborhoods."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-1.1.1 through PR-1.1.14) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table ILL 1
below.
Table II.I.1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.1.1 Continue to
develop plans for
neighborhoods where there
is a critical shortage of
public recreational services,
identify deficiencies,
determine projected costs
and funding sources to
mitigate.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements Element and
Park Master Plan
Parks Capital
Improvements.
Policy PR-1.1.2 Continue to
improve quality/diversity of
recreational programs
offered, increase staff and
hours of operation where
necessary and fiscally
practicable, and encourage
staff to be certified.
Capital Improvements and
Capital Budget
Increase General Fund
allocation for parks and
certification of more staff.
Policy PR-1.1.3 Consider
the impact of future
development that increases
residential densities on the
quality/delivery of parks.
Establish mechanisms to
mitigate the adverse
impacts of such
development.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Concurrency
Level of service Standards
and Parks Impact fees.
127
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table 11.1.1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.1.4 Increase
recreational opportunities
on Virginia Key through
redevelopment and the
Virginia Key Master Plan.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Virginia Key Master Plan
Virginia Key Master Plan.
Policy PR-1.1.5 On Watson
Island, retain a majority of
its land use as recreational
as designated in the Watson
Island Master Development
Plan.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Watson Island Master
Development Plan
Watson Island Master
Development Plan.
Policy PR-1.1.6 All
new/renovated/expanded
park plans will contain a
provision for providing for
the special needs of
preschool age children and
the elderly.
Capital Budget and
Administrative
Programmatic.
Policy PR-1.1.7 Establish a
program to coordinate
actions with nonprofit
providers of social services
to the elderly and youth.
Public/Private Partnerships
and Social Service
Programmatic.
Policy PR-1.1.8
Handicapped access will be
included in the designs for
all new/renovated/expanded
park facilities.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations,
Capital Budget and ADA
ADA requirements in
design criteria.
Policy PR-1.1.9 Establish a
program to coordinate
actions with nonprofit
social service agencies to
permit special
recreation/education
programs for the
handicapped.
Administrative/Legislative
changes
Programmatic.
128
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table 11.1.1. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.1.10 If
ownership of park
facilities/public open spaces
is transferred or converted
to non -recreational uses, a
formal justification for will
be prepared. There will be
no net loss of recreational
opportunities to affected
residents.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Capital
Budget and Administrative
Policy of No Net Loss.
Policy PR-1.1.11 Require
non -water dependent or
related
development/redevelopment
to maintain public access to
the coastal and Miami River
shorelines. (See Policy CM-
2.1.1).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and Design Guidelines
Waterfront Charter
Amendment and Shoreline
Development Review.
Policy PR-1.1.12 All City
owned, waterfront property,
including the Miami River,
will provide for public open
spaces to provide access to
the shoreline.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Capital Budget
Land Development
Regulations
Policy PR-1.1.13
Incorporate provisions for
public physical and/or
visual access to the
shoreline in its waterfront
zoning regulations. (See
Policy CM-2.1.7).
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations and review
through Waterfront Charter
Amendment and Shoreline
Development Review
Policy PR-1.1.14
Interpretative
displays/educational
programs/wildlife
observation locations/picnic
areas will be encouraged in
parks and open spaces by
2005.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
Programmatic
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.1. A parks master plan is
needed to set goals for both the capital and programmatic challenges that are faced.
Neighborhood Management Plans should be done. Policy PR-1.1.2 could be modified to
129
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
encourage provision of full service parks. In Policy PR-1.1.3 the City should strive to
better determine the impacts of new developments on parks. Policies PR-1.1.4 and .5
should be revised to better reflect the City's current vision for both Virginia Key and
Watson Island. An additional recommendation would be to update or write master plans
for both. Because of budget constraints focus is mainly directed to youth and elderly
programs as enumerated in Policies PR-1.1.6 and .7. Policy PR-1.1.9 has yet to be fully
attained. Public access and open space along the waterfront are being realized (but could
be improved) in conjunction with the City's greenway program and land development
regulations for waterfront development. Policy PR-1.1.14 should be amended to be
required by 2015.
2. Objective PR-1.2
Objective PR-1.2 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Increase public safety and security within the City's parks, reducing crime and accident
rates by at least five percent each five years 1995-2015."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-1.2.1 through PR-1.2.6) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.2.
below.
Table II.I.2. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.2.1 Equip all
Community parks with
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Capital Budget
Procurement/GSA.
adequate/energy efficient
night lighting.
Policy PR-12.2 Increase
hours of operation for parks
and enhance programs to
encourage a greater public
presence.
Operating Budget and
programmatic
Operational.
Policy PR-1.2.3 Police
Department will work with
neighborhood residents to
create/support crime watch
groups to assist in park
safety/crime prevention.
Parks/Police and Public
Partnerships and
Interagency Coordination
Operational.
Policy PR-1.2.4 Establish a
system of regular police
patrols/presence in and
around parks.
Interagency Coordination
Procedural coordination
between Police and Parks.
130
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.I.2. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.2
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.2.5 Maintain
Risk Management and
Inspections.
an adequate number of
trained staff and conduct
safety inspections of
equipment and structural
facilities on a regular basis.
Inspectors
Policy PR-1.2.6
Park Department public
Public
Disseminate information on
proper safety procedures in
parks.
outreach/information.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.2. Police crime statistics should
be reviewed to verify reduction of crime in parks as there has been throughout the City as
a whole. The Park Ranger should be expanded through the Police Department. Having a
Park Ranger at Margaret Pace Park has been beneficial.
3. Objective PR-1.3
Objective PR-1.3 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Increase the efficiency of park operations, while improving the quality of recreation
services and strengthening the financial support of the parks and recreation service
system."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-1.3.1 through PR-1.3.8) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.3.
below.
Table II.I.3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.3
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.3.1 The City's
Miami Comprehensive
Priority for operation and
operating budget and CIE
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
maintenance of existing
will give priority to quality
Improvements Element and
facilities.
of programs in/physical
condition of existing park
facilities and meeting
existing deficiencies, before
constructing new facilities.
operating budget
131
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table ILL3. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.3
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.3.2 Establish a
"parks of excellence"
program for selected
community parks where
staff support/operations
focused on high quality
programs leading to
competitive athletes.
Programmatic
Programmatic.
Policy PR-1.3.3 A
projection/analysis of
costs/funding sources
associated with
park/recreation related
projects exceeding $50,000,
will be made available prior
to decision to appropriate
funds.
Procedural/Administrative
Financial Impact Analysis
for projects over $50,000.
Policy PR-1.3.4 Implement
management/maintenance
alternatives designed to
minimize
Parks operations and
maintenance
Implement operation and
maintenance procedural
efficiencies.
operating/maintenance
costs, while not reducing
the extent/quality of
programs or affecting
physical conditions.
Policy PR-1.3.5 Implement
public/private partnerships
with CBO's and Merchant
Associations to provide for
maintenance/enhancement
of public spaces.
Public/Private Partnerships
Agreements for "Adopt-a-
public space".
Policy PR-1.3.6 [Reserved]
Policy PR-1.3.7 [Reserved]
Policy PR-1.3.8 Establish a
permanent parks advisory
board.
Legislative
Parks Advisory Board.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.3. Policy PR-1.3.1 should be
implemented by maintaining consistency between the Depaitment's Capital Program and
the City's CIP. Policies PR-1.3.2, .3 and .4 are still relevant and should be maintained.
Policy PR-1.3.5 could be better implemented by more program sponsors. Currently, some
sponsorships are formal agreements while others are informal. A Parks Advisory Board
132
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
was established as referenced in Policy PR-1.3.8 but it is recommended that it is
sunsetted or revisited to better define its role. It could become an ad hoc board appointed
by district to encourage more public involvement/participation.
4. Objective PR-1.4
Objective PR-1.4 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Ensure that future development and redevelopment pay an equitable, proportional share
of the cost of public open space and recreational facilities required to maintain adopted
LOS standards."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-1.4.1 through PR-1.4.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.4.
below.
Table II.I.4 . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.4
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.4.1 Continue to
use developer contributions,
including development
impact fees, to help fund
public open
space/recreational facilities
to serve new
development/redevelopment.
Impact fees
Impact fees in place but
require review and update.
Policy PR-1.4.2 Periodically
revise all fees related to
impact of new
development/redevelopment
to reflect increases in the
cost of providing open
space/recreational facilities.
Impact fees
Impact fees in place but
require review and update.
Policy PR-1.4.3 Consider
special assessment districts
to help fund local open
space and recreational
facilities projects.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Code of Ordinances
Increase utilization of
Special Assessment
Districts.
Policy PR-1.4.4 The LOS
Standards for Recreation and
Open Space will be 1.3 acres
of public park space/1000
residents.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
LOS Standards
In place but encouraged to
be reviewed as part of the
Parks Master Plan.
133
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.4. This Objective and its
supporting policies should be more strictly enforced. Pertaining to Policy PR-1.4.2, the
fees have not been increased to reflect the cost of providing services. Policy PR-1.4.3 is
still relevant. Policy PR-1.4.4 should be amended to encourage the review of different
types of open space to meet the needs of the community as part of the Parks Master Plan.
5. Objective PR-1.5
Objective PR-1.5 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Develop and enhance the quality of parks and open spaces within the city's downtown
and other neighborhoods in a manner that addresses the needs of city residents, workers
and visitors, and strengthens the city's economic development."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.5 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-1.5.1 through PR-1.5.12) has been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table ILLS.
below.
Table II.I.5 . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.5
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.5.1 [Reserved]
Policy PR-1.5.2 By 2002,
complete the renovation of
Bicentennial Park and
development of the FEC
Tract, in accordance with
the Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements Element and
Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan
In process
Policy PR-1.5.3 Work to
restore the Southside Park
as a downtown
neighborhood
center/recreational resource.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Parks Master Plan
In process.
Policy PR-1.5.4 Redevelop
Lummus Park to provide an
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Parks Master Plan
In process
activity/program center for
history, riverfront activities
and recreational facilities
for visitors/residents.
134
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.I.5 . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.5
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.5.5 Create a
specialty "Fishermen's
Wharf' cafe district and
marine services center
along N.W. North River
Drive on the Miami River.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations.
Land Development
Regulations, Overlay
District.
Policy PR-1.5.6 As depicted
in the Waterfront Master
Plan and in the CIE, provide
a continuous network of
public parks/major
attractions along the
downtown waterfront.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements Element,
Land Development
Regulations Waterfront
Master Plan
Waterfront Master Plan in
process.
Policy PR-1.5.7 As
specified in the Waterfront
Charter Amendment and
Zoning Ordinance, all new
development/redevelopment
along the downtown
waterfront or in SD's are
required to provide
waterfront setback and/or
shoreline walkways (See
Policy CM-2.1.8).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development
Regulations/Zoning
Ordinance and Waterfront
Charter Amendment
In place.
Policy PR-1.5.8 [Reserved]
Policy PR-1.5.8 Expand the
Jose Marti Park to provide
additional recreational
opportunities for
residents/workers/visitors.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Parks
Master Plan, Capital
Budget
Ongoing through Parks
Master Plan.
Policy PR-1.5.9 [Reserved]
Policy PR-1.5.10 Continue
to encourage development
of urban street promenade
linkages.
Land Development
Regulations/Pedestrian Path
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Ongoing in conjunction
with development.
Policy PR-1.5.11 Continue
to work toward improving
landscaping/pedestrian-
oriented amenities along
major boulevards to create
distinctive images and
unifying elements between
downtown districts.
Capital Budget and
Economic Development
Ongoing in conjunction
with development and
DDA.
135
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.I.5 . Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.5
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-1.5.12 Continue
Public/Private Partnerships
Art in Public Places and
to work toward
and Miami -Dade County
partnerships.
enhancement of public
Art in Public Places
spaces (entrances, plazas,
lobbies, courtyards and
atriums) and gateways into
downtown through artwork.
funding
Using the "Art in Public
Places" allocation and
encourage private
organizations to construct
civic monuments.
Note: Renumber policies to reflect 13 policies.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.5. Several parks have been
recently redeveloped such as Margaret Pace Park and there are master plans for others,
including the new Little Haiti Park. Spring Garden Point Park is an example of a
successful public/private partnership to create a new neighborhood park along the Miami
River. Policies PR-1.5.2 and .5 have not yet been amended but should be by 2015.
6. Objective PR-1.6
Objective PR-1.6 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows: "Plan
and implement new park districts in designed areas of the city where additional parks
may be necessary to ensure sufficient active and passive recreation opportunities are
made available to city residents within such designated neighborhoods."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-1.6 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy PR-1.6.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table ILL6. below.
Table II.I.6. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-1.6
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-1.6.1 Commence
a planning process to
Economic Development,
Capital Budget and
Needs assessment
completed. Funds for
determine the necessary
Procedural
purchase and/or eminent
expansion of
recreation/open space needs
within Little Haiti; and
include an implementation
plan/schedule.
domain available.
136
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-1.6. This is being implemented
through the purchase of lands, design and construction of the Little Haiti Park.
7. Objective PR-2.1
Objective PR-2.1 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Improve the aesthetic qualities of parks and recreation facilities and preserve unique
natural landscape features of neighborhood parks."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-2.1.1 through PR-2.1.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.7.
below.
Table II.I.7. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-2.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-2.1.1 Continue to
Miami Comprehensive
Policies in place.
preserve unique native plant
communities within
Neighborhood Plan/Parks,
Natural Resources and
parks/designate parks with
Conservation Elements and
significant vegetative
features Environmental
Future Land Use Plan Map
Preservation
Districts/designate them as
Conservation areas on
Future Land Use Map.
Policy PR-2.1.2 Establish
Miami Comprehensive
Land Development
official procedure whereby
Neighborhood
Regulations and procedural.
native plant species that do
Plan/Conservation Element
not require excessive
watering/fertilizer and not
sensitive to insect
infestation will be utilized
in public parks.
and Chapter 18A
137
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.I.7. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-2.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy PR-2.1.3 Designate
Miami Comprehensive
State and local policies in
as scenic transportation
Neighborhood
place for scenic corridors.
corridors segments of
Plan/Conservation and
Main Highway and Coral
roadways having significant
vegetative
features/encourage
development of bicycle and
pedestrian paths along such
corridors/encourage
provision of sufficient land
areas that encourage the
flow of bicycle/pedestrian
traffic.
Transportation Elements
Way are such corridors.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-2.1.
8. Objective PR-3.1.
Objective PR-3.1 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows: "The
city will continue to develop a clearly defined and functioning cultural arts district within
the downtown area, and a world -class cultural performing arts facility is being built
within the city and will be completed by the year 2001."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-3.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-3.1.1 and PR-3.1.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.8.
138
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table ILL8. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-3.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-3.1.1 Permit and
Miami Comprehensive
In place with ongoing
encourage the development
Neighborhood
construction.
of a cultural arts district
downtown as specified in
Plan/Conservation Element,
Land Development
Downtown Master
Regulations, Downtown
Plan/continue to support
Master Plan and Chapter
development of such a
district.
18A
Policy PR-3.1.2 Support
Comprehensive
Construction ongoing to be
Miami -Dade County in
Neighborhood and
completed in 2006.
construction of the new
Downtown Master Plans
downtown Performing Arts
and Intergovernmental
Center, in conformity with
the Downtown Master Plan
and with appropriate shares
of state/county/private
sector funding.
Coordination
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-3.1. The Objective should be
modified to reflect a completion date of August 2006. Policy PR-3.1.1 remains relevant
but it is recommended that Policy PR-3.1.2 be deleted as construction has commenced.
9. Objective PR-3.2
Objective PR-3.2 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows:
"Promote an increase in the number of small performing arts theaters within selected
residential/commercial areas of the city."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-3.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy PR-3.2.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.9. below.
Table ILL9. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-3.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-3.2.1 Encourage
through land development
regulations mixed use
structures to include small
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
capacity theaters.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-3.2.
139
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
10. Objective PR-4.1
Objective PR-4.1 of the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element is as follows: "Public
accessibility to existing park and recreational facilities will be improved by 2005."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective PR-4.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies PR-4.1.1 through Pr-4.1.3) has been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.I.10.
below.
Table II.I.10. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Objective PR-4.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy PR-4.1.1
Handicapped accessibility
improvements shall be
provided/appropriately
located with respect to
recreational facilities.
Capital Improvements
Element and Capital
Budget for Parks
Ongoing upgrades at
facilities to meet ADA
requirements.
Policy PR-4.1.2 Bicycle
parking facilities shall be
provided.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Parks
Budget
Bicycle Racks provided.
Policy PR-4.1.3
Interpretative
displays/educational
programs/wild observation
areas/picnic areas will be
encouraged at parks.
Parks Master Plans
Programmatic ad in place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective PR-4.1 but it should be modified to
reflect a new date of 2015. Policy PR-4.1.1 should be maintained as relevant. A survey is
being done on all public facilities for ADA accessibility. Policies PR-4.1.2 and .3 shall be
maintained.
11. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element are
addressed in Chapter I of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are
being made as a result of this analysis.
New Policy to encourage the development of a Parks Master Plan setting goals for both
capital and programmatic improvements.
Policy PR-1.1.2 should be amended to encourage provision of full service parks.
140
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Policies PR-1.1.4 and .5 should be revised to better reflect the City's current vision for
both Virginia Key and Watson Island.
Policy PR-1.1.14 should be amended to either delete the date or be a requirement by
2015.
Objective PR-1.2 amend to delete reference to percent and time frame.
Policy PR-1.2.3 amend to include expanding the Park Ranger program to all City parks.
Policy PR-1.3.8 should be revisited to better define the Parks Advisory Board role.
Policy PR-1.4.2, should be amended to require biannually review of fee schedule.
Policy PR-1.4.4 should be amended to call for periodic evaluation of this standard.
Policies PR-1.5.2 should be amended to reflect current plans for Museum Park.
Objective PR-1.6 correct designed to designated.
Objective PR-3.1 should be amended to either remove the date, as the performing arts
center is under construction but has been delayed, or to change the date to Fall 2006.
Policy PR-3.1.2 should be deleted as construction has commenced.
Objective PR-4.1 should be amended to state by 2015.
141
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. J. Coastal Management Element
1. Objective CM-1.1
Objective CM-1.1 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Preserve and
protect the existing natural systems including wetlands and beach/dune systems within
Virginia Key and those portions of Biscayne Bay that lie within the City's boundaries;
and improve water quality within the Miami River, its tributaries, and the Little River."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-1.1.1 through CM-1.1.13) has been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.1.
below.
Table II.J.1. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation
Status
Policy CM-1.1.1 Assess
Miami Comprehensive
Plan formulated
environmental hazards, in
Neighborhood
through DERM.
cooperation with
Plan/Intergovernmental
environmental agencies, as
Coordination Element and
a result of past disposal
activities at Virginia Key
landfill. An action plan to
reduce/eliminate hazards
will be formulated by 1992.
DERM regulations
(See Policy NR-1.1.1).
Policy CM-1.1.2 By 1990,
retrofit storm water outfalls
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Environmental
Regulations
that discharge into the
Plan/Intergovernmental
Miami River/tributaries,
Little River and Biscayne
Bay. All will be retrofitted
Coordination and Natural
Resources Elements and DERM,
SFWMD and Public Works
by 1999. Storm sewers will
be designed/constructed to
retain grease and oil and
minimize pollutant
regulations
discharges. (See Policies
NR-1.1.2 and SS-2.2.1).
142
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.1. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-1.1.3 Beginning
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination and Natural
Resources Elements and DERM,
SFWMD and Public Works
regulations
Environmental
Regulation.
in 1990, reduce the level of
contaminants carried into
Biscayne Bay via the Miami
River/tributaries/ Little
River, and by 1995 reduce
level of contaminants by at
least 20 percent. (See Policy
NR-1.1.3).
Policy CM-1.1.4 Seek
cooperative
agreements/funding support
from DERM, SFWMD,
USACOE, and to reduce
point and non -point sources
of pollution into Biscayne
Bay. By 1991, establish
plans, to reduce point and
non -point sources of
pollution within the City's
boundaries.
Intergovernmental Coordination
and agreements with
environmental agencies
Funding in place.
Policy CM-1.1.5 Within the
coastal zone, or along the
Miami and Little Rivers, no
land uses which represent a
significant source of
pollution to surface waters
will be permitted, unless
measures to eliminate the
threat of contamination are
implemented.
Land Development and
Environmental Regulations
Land Development
and Environmental
Regulations in place.
Also, through Code
Enforcement.
Policy CM-1.1.6 Adhere to
DERM standards and
require DERM approvals in
its permitting procedures of
fuel storage facilities in the
coastal zone or near major
canals.
Interagency permitting and
DERM Regulations
Regulations in place.
143
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.1. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-1.1.7 Regulate
development on Virginia
Key and the wetland areas
of Coconut Grove to ensure
no net loss of functional
wetlands. Priority given to
water dependent land
uses/development that
enhances the natural
environment/ensure
adequate physical public
access to Virginia Key.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan//Land Use
and Natural Resources Elements
and Land Development
Regulations
In place. Virginia Key
Master Plan.
Policy CM-1.1.8 All
development on Virginia
Key will be in conformance
with the Virginia Key
Master Plan 1987.
Virginia Key Master Plan and
Land Development Regulations
In place but must be
updated.
Policy CM-1.1.9 Criteria
will ensure that
development/redevelopment
within the coastal zone will
not adversely affect the
natural environment or lead
to a net loss of public
access.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Coastal
Management Element and Land
Development Regulations
Land Development
Regulations and
Waterfront Charter
Amendment.
Policy CM-1.1.10 By 1990,
develop master plan for
Watson Island with all
development/redevelopment
in conformance. Ensure
land uses/activities will not
have an adverse impact on
Biscayne Bay and priority
given to water dependent
and water related land uses,
and to development that
increases physical/visual
public access to bay and
shoreline.
Watson Island Policy Plan
Watson Island Policy
Plan developed in
1996.
144
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.1. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-1.1.11 All City-
owned property within
coastal zone that may have
significant/unique natural
resources will be designated
Environmental Preservation
Districts, and consider
designating private
properties the same.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and Land
Development Regulations
Has all property been
designated
Environmental
Preservation
Policy CM-1.1.12 By 1992,
establish marina siting
Comprehensive
Neighborhood/Intergovernmental
Marina siting
requirements
requirements, for new and
renovated, which at a
minimum, meet
Coordination
complete.
DERM/DEP standards.
Live -aboard vessels will not
be permitted unless there
are adequate upland
facilities.
Policy CM-1.1.13 Continue
DERM, Intergovernmental
Intergovernmental
to work with the Biscayne
Coordination, City and County
Coordination.
Bay Management Plan
Budgets
Committee to support
provisions of the committee
to prevent discharging
storm water runoff into
surface waters and to get
support for infrastructure
improvements to support
development of Virginia
Key and Watson Island.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-1.1 though a number of its
supporting policies require modification or deletion. Policy CM-1.1.1 requiring an
assessment and action plan of environmental hazards on Virginia Key has been
completed and is therefore should remove reference to the date and state that the City
shall continue to take actions to protect and restore the natural environment of Virginia
Key. Policy CM-1.1.2 requiring retrofitting of all storm water outfalls by 1999 has not
been satisfied. A number of projects have been completed and the City, along with the
SFWMD and private sector, has embarked on a 5-year plan to improve water quality.
Policies CM-1.1.3 and .4 seeking reductions in pollutants and contaminants remain
relevant and are ongoing. Therefore, these policies should be modified to remove
references to dates of completion. Policy CM-1.1.8 should be modified to recommend
145
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
that the 1987 Virginia Key Master Plan be revised or rewritten to better reflect the City's
current vision for the Key. Policy CM-1.1.10 should be modified to recommend that the
1996 Watson Island Policy Plan be revised or rewritten to better reflect the City's current
vision for the Island. Policy CM-1.1.12 has been satisfied by the completion of DERM's
marina siting plan.
Objective CM-1.2
Objective CM-1.2 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "The city will
continue to follow and enforce the South Florida Building Code, which establishes
construction standards that minimize the impacts of man-made structures on beach and
dune systems."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy CM-1.2) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.2. below.
Table II.J.2. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-1.2.1 Increase
inspection/code
enforcement efforts for
coastal area construction.
Land Development
Regulations, Code
Enforcement, Budget
Increase budget for code
enforcement efforts.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-1.2. It continues to be relevant
but should be modified to delete "South". Policy CM-1.2.1 is being implemented through
increased code enforcement made possible by the Quality of Life Task Force.
3. Objective CM-1.3
Objective CM-1.3 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "In order to
enhance the built environment of the coastal area, redevelop and revitalize blighted,
declining or threatened coastal areas."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-1.3.1 through CM-1.3.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.3.
146
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.3. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-1.3.1 Continue
Miami Comprehensive
In Place
to adhere to policies
Neighborhood Plan/Land
regarding designation
Use Element
Neighborhood
Development Zones (NDZ)
in appropriate coastal areas.
Policy CM-1.3.2 Through
Land Development
Code enforcement is more
increased code enforcement
Regulations and procedural
localized through the Office
structures with deteriorated
conditions will be reported
to the unsafe structures
board to force
improvements or facilitate
demolition.
of Code Enforcement.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-1.3. Its implementing policies
continue to be relevant and require no changes.
4. Objective CM-1.4
Objective CM-1.4 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows- "Ensure that land
development regulations and policies for the coastal zone are consistent with the City's
ability to provide the capital facilities required to maintain adopted LOS standards and
those needed to maintain or enhance the quality of life within the Coastal zone of the city.
(See Capital Improvements Objective CI-1.2)"
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy CM-1.4.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.4. below.
Table II.J.4. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-1.4.1 The
coastal zone will adhere to
LOS standards as
adopted/amended in CIE,
more specifically Policy CI-
1.2.3.
Capital Neighborhood Plan
In Place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-1.4. Its implementing policy is
still relevant and should be retained.
147
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
5. Objective CM-2.1
Objective CM-2.1 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Prevent the net
loss of, and, where feasible, increase, physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay
and the city's shoreline."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-2.1.1 through CM-2.1.8) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.5.
below.
Table II.J.5. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-2.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-2.1.1 Require
non -water
dependent/related
development/redevelopment
to maintain public access to
the shoreline (See Policy
PR-1.1.11.).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations,
Waterfront Charter
Amendment and Shoreline
Development Review
In Place.
Policy CM-2.1.2 By 1994,
all City -owned, waterfront
property will provide for
access to the shoreline.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Coastal
Management Element
Regulations in place.
Policy CM-2.1.3 By 1994,
prepare implementation
plan for the Downtown
Waterfront Master Plan,
and, by 1999, identify
funding sources, using a
mix of public/private sector
financing.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan
Downtown Waterfront
Master Plan.
Policy CM-2.1.4 By 1991,
prepare implementation
plan for bay and river walks
proposed in Downtown
Master Plan, by 1994,
identify funding sources. By
1999, the river walk along
City owned property will be
completed, and, the bay
walk along City owned
property will be completed
as specified in
implementation plan.
Land Development
Regulations and Downtown
Waterfront Master and
Miami River Corridor Plans
Miami River Plan
completed in January 1992.
Riverwalk not completed
by 1999.
148
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.5. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-2.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-2.1.5 By 1991,
prepare design guidelines
for the bay and river walks
along privately owned
property. By 1994,
guidelines will be
incorporated into design
review process governing
waterfront developments.
Land Development
Regulations and Downtown
Master Plan and design
guidelines
Guidelines completed.
Policy CM-2.1.6 By 1992,
consider the need for,
requiring shoreline
stabilization as part of
development/redevelopment
of waterfront properties.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Natural
Resources and DERM as
part of parks and shoreline
stabilization and
rehabilitation
Completed at Kennedy,
Bayfront and Margaret
Pace Parks.
Policy CM-2.1.7 By 1990,
incorporate provisions for
public physical/visual
access to the shoreline in
waterfront zoning
regulations (See Policy PR-
1.1.13.).
Land Development
Regulations
Land Development
Regulations in place.
Policy CM-2.1.8 As
specified in the Waterfront
Charter Amendment and
Zoning Ordinance all new
development/redevelopment
along the Downtown
waterfront is required to
provide special setbacks;
and/or in Special Districts
require publicly accessible
shoreline walkways, in
conformance with the
established standards. (See
Policy PR-1.5.7).
Land Development
Regulations, Waterfront
Charter Amendment and
Shoreline Development
Review
In Place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-2.1. Some of its supporting
policies continue to be relevant while others have been satisfied or require revision.
Revise or delete dates as necessary. Delete Policies CM-2.1.3, .4 and .5 as they have been
completed. Delete Policies CM-2.1.6 and .7 as policies are being realized. Public access
and open space plans for the waterfront are being realized in conjunction with the City's
greenway program and land development regulations for waterfront development.
149
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
6. Objective CM-2.2
Objective CM-2.2 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Ensure increased
physical public access to Virginia Key and Watson Island through their appropriate
development or redevelopment."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-2.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-2.2.1 through CM-2.2.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.6.
below.
Table II.J.6. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-2.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-2.2.1 By 1994,
prepare development
implementation plan for
Virginia Key. By 1999,
identify funding sources.
Virginia Key Master Plan
Virginia Key Master Plan
Completed June 1987.
Policy CM-2.2.2 By 1994,
prepare development
implementation plan for
Watson Island. By 1999,
identify funding sources.
Watson Island Policy Plan
Watson Island Policy Plan
Completed 1996.
The City has made some progress in achieving Objective CM-2.2. It will be realized as
the development plans for Virginia Key and Watson Island are implemented. Dates
should be deleted in both policies and as stated previously both plans should be revised or
rewritten to reflect the current visions of the City.
7. Objective CM-3.1
Objective CM-3.1 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Allow no net loss
of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-3.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy CM-3.1.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.7.
150
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.7. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-3.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-3.1.1 Encourage
water dependent uses along
the shoreline.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and District Overlays
Land Development
Regulations and guidelines
in place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-3.1.
8. Objective CM-4.1
Objective CM-4.1 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Minimize the
potential for loss of human life and the destruction of property from hurricanes."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-4.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-4.1.1 through CM-4.1.10) has been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.8.
below.
Table II.J.8. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-4.1.1 Enforce
building code standards that
protect against the
destruction of structures by
hurricanes.
Land Development
Regulations and Florida
Building Code
In Place.
Policy CM-4.1.2 Ensure
that all
development/redevelopment
conforms to proper
elevation requirements in
the Coastal High Hazard
Area, ("V" zone) by the
FEMA on FIRM except on
Virginia Key, where a
CCCL has been established.
Land Development
Regulations, Florida
Building Code, FEMA,
FIRM
In Place.
Revisions to FEMA maps
October 2004.
Policy CM-4.1.3 By 1992,
provide for protection of
City -owned historic
properties from destruction
in a major storm, and
contingency plans for each
site's restoration.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use Plan, Hazard
Mitigation Plan
In place.
151
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.8. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-4.1.4 After a
major storm, existing
building standards/land
uses/development
regulations in the Coastal
High Hazard Area will be
reviewed, and modifications
made to reduce future risk
prior to approval of long
term, post disaster
redevelopment plans.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Hazard Mitigation Plan and
Florida Building Code.
Policy CM-4.1.5 Each
proposed land use/land
development regulation
change within the Coastal
High Hazard area will
require an analysis of
potential impact on
evacuation times and shelter
needs.
Land Development
Regulations,
Intergovernmental
Coordination and FDOT
In Place.
Policy CM-4.1.6 Work with
the SFRPC to develop a
model post -disaster
redevelopment plan. By
1992, the City will prepare
its own redevelopment plan.
SFRPC, Miami -Dade
County and City
Post Disaster Plan in Place.
Policy CM-4.1.7
Incorporate into
Comprehensive Plan
relevant recommendations
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Hazard Mitigation Plan
Revised Plan
of interagency hazard
mitigation reports.
Policy CM-4.1.8 Work in
cooperation with
regional/state agencies to
adopt plans/policies that
protect public/ private
property/human lives from
effects of natural disasters.
Intergovernmental
Coordination and Hazard
Mitigation
In Place
152
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.8. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-4.1.9 Work in
Miami Comprehensive
In Place
cooperation with
Neighborhood Plan and
regional/state agencies in
the preparation of advance
plans for evacuation of
coastal residents.
Emergency Management
Policy CM-4.1.10 Adhere
Emergency Operations Plan
to "Emergency Operations
procedures and Homeland
In Place and In Compliance
Plan for Civil Defense in
Defense
War and Natural
Emergencies" and "The
Emergency Procedures
Manual" and update
manuals on an annual basis.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-4.1. Delete reference to date in
Policy CM-4.1.3. Policy CM-4.1.5 requirement to analyze land use or land development
regulation changes on evacuation times is not being done and should be mandated by
ordinance. Policy CM-4.1.6 has been satisfied and is therefore no longer needed.
9. Objective CM-4.2
Objective CM-4.2 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "The City will
adhere to and cooperate with the County in executing evacuation procedures as well as
annually update information and procedural brochures for the public; these brochures will
contain information on evacuation procedures and routes, and will be distributed to city
residents at local businesses and government agencies."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-4.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policy CM-4.2.1 through CM-4.2.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.9.
below.
Table II.J.9. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-4.2.1 The fire
Interagency and
In Place
and police departments will
Intergovernmental
continue to work with the
Coordination, Emergency
County and regional
emergency agencies to
update/revise coordinated
peacetime
emergency/evacuation
plans.
Management Plans
153
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.9. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.2 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-4.2.2 Annually
City and County
Public Awareness In Place
update/distribute brochures
for public awareness and
information programs that
educate as to the need for
evacuation/evacuation
routes/procedures.
Emergency Management
Policy CM-4.2.3 Provide
City and County
In Place
evacuation route markers as
part of a Countywide
coordinated program.
Emergency Management
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-4.2.
10. Objective CM-4.3
Objective CM-4.3 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Ensure that public
capital expenditures within the coastal zone do not encourage private development that is
subject to significant risk of storm damage. (See Capital Improvements Objective CI-
1.4.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-4.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-4.3.1 and CM-4.3.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.10.
below.
Table II.J.10. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-4.3.1 Public
Miami Comprehensive
In Place.
expenditures for capital
Neighborhood Plan and
facilities in coastal high
hazard area will be limited
to those required to
eliminate existing LOS
deficiencies/maintain
adopted LOS standards in
non -high hazard
areas/improve hurricane
evacuation time/reduce the
threat to public health and
safety from storm events.
Capital Budget
(See Policy CI-1.4.1).
154
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.10. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-4.3 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CM-4.3.2 Public
Miami Comprehensive
In Place.
expenditures for capital
Neighborhood Plan and
facilities in the coastal zone
intended to further goals
and objectives will be
limited to those projects that
do not measurably increase
the risk to public health and
safety from storm damage.
Capital Budget
(See Policy CI-1.4.2.).
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-4.3.
11. Objective CM-5.1
Objective CM-5.1 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Maintain, update
and amplify the City of Miami portion of the Miami -Dade County Historic Survey, which
identifies and evaluates the City's historic, architectural and archeological resources. (See
Land Use Objective LU-2.1.)"
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-5.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-5.1.1 through CM-5.1.5) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.11.
155
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.J.11. Coastal Management Element Objective CM- 5.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-5.1.1 By 1991,
identify potential historic
districts and conduct further
surveys of contributing/
noncontributing buildings
(See Policy LU-2.1.1).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan,
Historic Preservation
Surveys and Historic
Preservation website
completed.
Policy CM-5.1.2 By 1994,
develop/implement a
computerized database of
information for all 3,358
sites in the Miami -Dade
County Historic Survey.
Show all properties of
historic/architectural/
archeological significance;
together with priority
ranking (See Land Use
Policy LU-2.1.2).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use and Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements
Database and website in
place.
Policy CM-5.1.3 50 historic
sites and three historic
districts as designated
pursuant to Heritage
Conservation Article. 26
sites (or groups of multiple
sites) and six districts have
been identified as potentially
worthy of designation. Of
these, by 1994, designate 25
individual sites and four
districts (Policy LU-2.3.2.).
Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board (HEPB)
In Place and ongoing.
Policy CM-5.1.4 Continue to
review nominations to the
National Register of Historic
Places through Certified
Local Government Program
(See Policy LU-2.3.1).
Historic and Environmental
Preservation Board (HEPB)
HEPB shall continue to
review nominations.
Policy CM-5.1.5 By 1994,
include city's historic/
architectural/cultural/heritage
in public information/
economic development
promotion/tourism materials
(See Policy LU-2.5.4.).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Economic Development
Brochures and website
have been completed.
156
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-5.1. Its supporting policies are
still relevant with certain modifications. Regarding Policies CM-5.1.1 and .2, potential
sites continue to be identified and the survey is updated. Revise to delete dates as these
policies are ongoing. Policies CM-5.1.3 and .4 are still relevant and being implemented
as the City continues to nominate and designate new sites and districts. Policy CM-5.1.5
is implemented therefore the year should be deleted. Public awareness brochures were
created in 2003 and a website was developed — www.historicpreservationmiami.com.
12. Objective CM-5.2
Objective CM-5.2 of the Coastal Management Element is as follows: "Increase the
number of historic structures that have been preserved, rehabilitated or restored,
according to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. (See Land
Use Objective LU-2.4.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CM-5.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CM-5.2.1 and CM-5.2.2) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.J.12.
below.
Table II.J.12. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-5.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CM-5.2.1 Continue
U.S. Secretary of the
Procedures in place and
to utilize the U.S. Standards
for Rehabilitation as
minimum standards for
preservation of historic
properties. To receive
public financial support
from the City, designated
privately owned structures
must meet these standards
Interior as updated
ongoing.
(See Policy LU-2.4.2.).
Policy CM-5.2.2 The City
Depaittnent of Economic
Procedures in place.
owns nine historic
Development/Asset
sites/other potential
archeological sites. If in the
public interest to transfer
title of these properties,
such transfers will include
restrictive covenants to
ensure
protection/preservation of
such properties (See Policy
Management
LU-2.4.3).
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CM-5.2.
157
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
13. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Coastal Management Element are addressed in
Chapter I of this report. All recommendations to update or delete dates may be found in
Chapter I. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a result of this
analysis.
Policy CM-1.1.1 has been completed therefore should remove reference to the date and
state that the City shall continue to take actions to protect and restore the natural
environment of Virginia Key.
Policies CM-1.1.2, .3 and .4 are ongoing therefore reference to dates should be deleted.
Policies CM-1.1.8 and .10 should be modified to recommend revising or rewriting both
Master Plans.
Policy CM-1.1.12 has been completed and should be modified to state that the City will
continue to implement and enforce the marina siting requirements in the land
development regulations.
Objective CM-1.2 should be amended to delete reference to South.
Policies CM-2.1.3, .4, and .5, may be deleted as they have been completed.
Policies CM-2.6 and .7 may be deleted as are being realized.
Policies CM-2.2.1 and .2 amend to delete dates and continue to work with the County to
develop Master Plans.
Policy CM-4.1.3 delete reference to date.
Policy CM-4.1.6 has been satisfied - delete.
Policies CM-5.1.1 and .2 revise to delete dates.
Policy CM-5.1.5 may be deleted due to implementation.
158
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. K. Natural Resource Conservation Element
1. Objective NR-1.1
Objective NR-1.1 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "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."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies NR-1.1.1 through NR-1.1.8) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.1
below.
Table II.K.1 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-1.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-1.1.1 By 1990,
assess environmental
hazards because of past
activities at Virginia Key
landfill. Assessments will
be made with
County/State/Federal
environmental agencies,
and by 1992, formulate
action plan to
reduce/eliminate hazards
(See Policy CM-1.1.1.).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination, DERM and
DER
In Place.
Policy NR-1.1.2 By 1990,
reduce quantity of storm
water discharges into
Miami River/tributaries,
and into Biscayne Bay. By
1994, have at least 10
stormwater outfalls
retrofitted (See Policies SS-
2.2.1 and CM-1.1.2.).
Capital Improvements
Program and DERM,
SFWMD and Public Works
Regulations
Number of outfalls
retrofitted.
Policy NR-1.1.3 Beginning
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element,
DERM and SFWMD
Environmental Regulations
in place.
in 1990, take actions to
reduce the contaminants
carried into Biscayne Bay
via Miami and Little Rivers.
By 1995, reduce these
contaminants by at least 20
percent (See Policy CM-
1.1.3.).
159
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.K.1 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-1.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy NR-1.1.4 Continue
to participate in the State
funded SWIM program to
reduce point and non -point
sources of pollution into
Biscayne Bay.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element,
DERM, SFWMD and DER
Participation ongoing.
Policy NR-1.1.5 Regulate
development on Virginia
Key to ensure no net loss of
functional wetlands/beaches
and dune systems are not
degraded or
disrupted/wildlife habitats
and native species will be
protected.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and DERM
Virginia Key Master Plan.
Policy NR-1.1.6 Ensure that
development/redevelopment
within the coastal zone will
not adversely affect the
natural environment or lead
to net loss of public access
to the city's natural
resources.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Environmental Regulations.
Policy NR-1.1.7 Increase
code enforcement to
prevent illegal disposal of
hazardous waste into
natural resources.
Code Enforcement and
DERM
Code enforcement has
increased.
Policy NR-1.1.8 Work with,
and support the County's
efforts to identify
generators of hazardous
waste, to develop/enforce
procedures for proper
collection/disposal of
hazardous waste. Support
County's development of a
temporary storage facility in
a non -populated area (See
Policy SW-1.2.4.).
Intergovernmental
Coordination and DERM
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM
is ongoing.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-1.1. Policy NR-1.1.1 requiring an
assessment and action plan of environmental hazards on Virginia Key has been
160
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
completed and is therefore no longer relevant. Policy NR-1.1.2 requiring retrofitting of
all storm water outfalls by 1999 has not been satisfied. A number of projects have been
completed and the City, along with the SFWMD and private sector, has embarked on a 5-
year plan to improve water quality. Policy NR-1.1.3 seeking reductions in contaminants
remains relevant and is ongoing. The references to dates in Policies NR-1.1.2 and .3
should be deleted. Policy NR-1.1.8 is implemented by DERM.
2. Objective NR-1.2
Objective NR-1.2 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "Improve
the water quality of, and ensure health safety within, the Miami River, its tributaries and
the Little River."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies NR-1.2.1 through NR-1.2.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.2
below.
Table II.K.2 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-1.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-1.2.1 Continue
to work with Biscayne Bay
Management Plan
Committee to
encourage/support DERM
in monitoring contaminants
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element and
DERM
Inspections with DERM.
within these water bodies
and ensure the City is kept
informed of environmental
conditions.
Policy NR-1.2.2 Continue
to implement the Biscayne
Bay Management Plan to
reduce the level of
contaminants in these water
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element and
DERM
In place and ongoing with
DERM.
bodies and improve the
water quality.
Policy NR-1.2.3 Participate
in state/federally funded
programs to remove
abandoned/repair leaking
underground fuel storage
tanks on City -owned
properties.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element and
DER
Inspections are ongoing.
161
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-12.
3. Objective NR-1.3
Objective NR-1.3 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "Maintain
and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies NR-1.3.1 through NR-1.3.8) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.3
below.
Table II.K.3. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-1.3
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-1.3.1
Continue/expand use of
scenic
corridor/Environmental
Preservation District
designation.
City and County Public
Works and FDOT
Ongoing.
Policy NR-1.3.2 Identify
City -owned land with
significant native vegetative
features/wildlife habitats,
and designate those as
Environmental Preservation
Districts.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Natural
Resources and
Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements and
DERM
Ongoing.
Policy NR-1.3.3 Continue
designating private
properties with
significant/unique resources
as Environmental
Preservation Districts.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Natural
Resources
Ongoing.
Policy NR-1.3.4 Review
development/redevelopment
to determine adverse
impacts on adjacent areas
with significant native
vegetative
features/wildlife/marine
life, and establish
regulations that
reduce/mitigate impacts.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, Land
Development Regulations
and DERM
In Place.
162
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.K.3. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-1.3
Achievement Status continued
Policy NR-1.3.5
Ensure that off -site
mitigation for
disruption/degradation of
significant natural resources
occurs in an orderly/sound
manner, so as to maximize
Land Development
Regulations and DERM
Inspections.
benefits to overall natural
system.
Policy NR-1.3.6 Deny use
of intrusive exotic plant
species/encourage use of
native plant species, and
those that do not require
excessive use of
fertilizers/watering/not
prone to insect
infestation/disease, and no
invasive root systems.
Land Development
Regulations and Chapter
18A
In Place
Policy NR-1.3.7 Permit
applications for all boating
facilities located on city
shorelines shall be
evaluated in the context of
cumulative impacts on
manatees/marine resources.
Land Development
Regulations,
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM
In Place. DERM has
jurisdictional authority.
Policy NR-1.3.8 Slow/idle
speed zones shall be
adopted and enforcement
improved in areas
frequented by manatees.
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
and DERM
In Place
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-1.3. Policies NR-1.3.4 through .8
are implemented by City and County regulations (Chapters 18A (Landscape Ordinance)
and 24 (Environmental Protection).
4. Objective NR-2.1
Objective NR-2.1 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "Ensure
adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city (See
Potable Water Objective PW-1.2.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies NR-2.1.1 through NR-2.1.8) have been
163
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.4
below.
Table II.K.4. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-2.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-2.1.1 In periods
of regional water shortage,
support SFWMD
policies/regulations
regarding water
conservation.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with SFWMD
and DERM
Procedures in place.
Policy NR-2.1.2 Continue
to enforce building code
requirements for retention
of the first inch of storm
water runoff (See Policy
SS-2.2.5.).
Land Development
Regulations and DERM
Land Development and
DERM Regulations in
place.
Policy NR-2.1.3 Support
SFWMD efforts to monitor
the water levels at the
salinity control structures to
prevent against further
saltwater intrusion and
protect the aquifer recharge
areas/cones of influence of
wellfields from
contamination (See Policy
AR-1.1.3.).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Aquifer
Recharge and
Intergovernmental
Coordination Elements,
Land Development
Regulations and SFWMD
SFWMD procedures in
place. Protect recharge
areas/cones of influence
through Land Use and
Zoning restrictions.
Policy NR-2.1.4 Potable
water network is an
interconnected, countywide
system. Public Works and
Planning will cooperate
Intergovernmental
Coordination procedures
with M-DWASD
Procedures in place.
with MDWASAD to jointly
develop
methodologies/procedures
for biannually updating
estimates of system
demand/capacity, and
ensure sufficient capacity
exists (See Policy PW-
1.1.1.).
164
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.K.4. Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-2.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy NR-2.1.5 Ensure
potable water supplies meet
LOS standards for
transmission capacity as set
forth in Capital
Improvements Element.
(See Policies PW-1.2.1 and
CI-1.2.3).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use and Capital
Improvements Elements
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/LOS
standards in place.
Policy NR-2.1.6 By 1995,
develop/adopt an acceptable
city -level water
conservation plan that lists
specific measures to be
taken. Such as, low volume
water fixtures, xeriscape
and information in new
developments and
renovations.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and M-
DWASD
Regulations in place
through M-DWASD,
DERM, SFWMD and
Chapter 18A.
Policy NR-2.1.7 Cooperate
and participate with the
County and other
municipalities in developing
an acceptable countywide
water conservation plan
(See Policy PW-1.2.2).
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM
and M-DWASD
Agreement in place.
Policy NR-2.1.8 By 1990,
adopt an emergency water
conservation ordinance
consistent with the existing
County and SFWMD
emergency water
conservation ordinance and
policies.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with M-
DWASD, DERM, and
SFWMD
In place.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-2.1. Policies NR-2.1.6 and .8
have been implemented and therefore may be deleted.
5. Objective NR-3.1
Objective NR-3.1 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "Improve
the monitoring of air quality within areas perceived to have the highest potential for air
quality problems."
165
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-3.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy NR-3.1.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.5 below.
Table II.K.5 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-3.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-3.1.1 By 1991,
working with
county/state/federal
environmental agencies,
increase the number of air
quality monitoring stations
to ensure accurate
monitoring in areas most
likely to have problems.
Intergovernmental
Coordination with DERM,
DEP and EPA
Increase in number of
stations.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-3.1. Policy NR-3.1.1 should be
modified to delete reference to the date and be revised to be ongoing.
6. Objective NR-3.2
Objective NR-3.2 of the Natural Resource Conservation Element is as follows: "Prevent
the degradation of ambient air quality within the city."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective NR-3.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies NR-3.2.1 through NR-3.2.5) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.K.6
below.
Table II.K.6 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-3.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy NR-3.2.1 Establish
vehicular transportation
patterns that reduce
concentrations of pollutants
in areas having ambient air
quality problems.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Element
Traffic studies with County
and FDOT
166
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.K.6 Natural Resource Conservation Element Objective NR-3.2
Achievement Status continued
Policy NR-3.2.2 Support the
Miami -Dade County CDMP
elements that encourage use
of Metrorail/Metromover by
directing high density new
development/redevelopment
nearest
Metrorail/Metromover
stations, and those policies
that do not foster the
proliferation of employment
centers in suburban areas
(See Objective TR-1.5 and
associated policies.).
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Land
Use Element and Land
Development Regulations
In place with County's
Rapid Transit District for
Metrorail corridor
Policy NR-3.2.3 Work with
County transportation
planning agencies to
Intergovernmental
Coordination with MPO
and Transportation
Depaitinent
In place through MPO,
subcommittees and
Transportation Department
continue to increase the
quality of mass transit
services.
Policy NR-3.2.4 Work with
the appropriate
federal/state/regional/county
agencies to ensure that
owners of buildings and
facilities with unacceptable
levels of asbestos
(according to EPA/State
Standards) in ambient air
test remove/treat/seal
asbestos -containing
Land Development and
Environmental Regulations,
DER and DERM
In Place. Building
Department Inspectors
must work with owners.
materials.
Policy NR-3.2.5 Monitor
developers to ensure
treatment of exposed
construction areas by
mulching/spraying/grass
coverings to minimize air
pollution.
Land Development and
Environmental Regulations
In Place
The City has made progress in achieving Objective NR-3.2. Implementation of these
policies require continued coordination with Miami -Dade Transit, DERM and FDOT.
167
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
7. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Natural Resource Conservation Element are addressed
in Chapter I of this report. All recommendations to update or delete dates may be found
in Chapter I. In addition, the following recommendations are being made as a result of
this analysis.
Policy NR-1.1.1 date should be deleted.
Policies NR-1.1.2 and .3 dates should be deleted.
Policies NR-2.1.6 delete date and call for the City to coordinate with the Miami -Dade
County, South Florida Water Management District and other appropriate agencies in the
implementation of water conservation programs and plans.
Policy NR-2.1.8 delete and call for the City to comply with and assist in the enforcement
of all applicable State and local water conservation ordinances and policies.
Policy NR-3.1.1 modify to delete reference to date and be revised to be ongoing.
168
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. L. Capital Improvements Element
1. Objective CI-1.1
Objective CI-1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element is as follows: "The Capital
Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan will provide for the sound fiscal
planning of capital facility needs and assess the financial capacity of the City to
undertake capital improvement projects."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CI-1.1.1 through CI-1.1.14) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.L.1
below.
Table II.L.1 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.1 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CI-1.1.1 The CIE and
CIP reflect how capital
facilities needs are addressed.
Both the CIE and CIP will be
revised on an annual basis to
reflect changes in the
economic/social/public fiscal
environment.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements Element and
Capital Improvements
Program
In Place. Procedural on
an annual basis
Policy CI-1.1.2 All capital
expenditures in excess of
$5,000 per project must appear
within the CIE and CIP, with
exceptions for public
emergencies or unforeseeable
contractual obligations.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvements Element and
Capital Improvements
Program
Procedural
Policy CI-1.1.3 Adopt a Capital
Budget that corresponds to the
first year of the CIE and CIP.
Administrative requirement
In Place
169
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.L.1 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CI-1.1.4 As capital
projects are incorporated into
the CIE and CIP, consideration
will be given to eliminate
public hazards and LOS
shortfalls, impacts of proposed
capital projects, fiscal capacity
to meet future spending needs,
economic/social benefits to be
generated, environmental
impacts, public facility
requirements of new
development/redevelopment,
consistency between capital
projects and the GOP's set
forth in the MCNP and,
coordination between proposed
projects and those
projects/programs of
federal/state/county agencies
and the SFWMD.
Administrative by
Ordinance
Ongoing. Departmental
budgets go into CIP
Policy CI-1.1.5 Priority will be
given to the
maintenance/repair/replacement
of existing public capital
facilities.
Capital Improvements
Program
Operation and
Maintenance of existing
facilities given priority.
Policy CI-1.1.6 All bond
authorizations must be in
conformance with capital
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan/Capital
Improvement Element and
Finance procedures
Finance Department is in
conformance with the
City of Miami -Homeland
Defense Neighborhood
Improvement Bond.
facilities needs/programs/
expenditure requirements as
expressed in the CIE.
Policy CI-1.1.7 Continue to
seek the advice of debt counsel
to ensure the proper timing of
debt issuance and efficient
management.
Regulatory/Administrative
procedures
Ongoing
Policy CI-1.1.8 Debt issuance
timing/size/amortization
schedules will be planned
/executed to maintain level
repayment and minimize
fluctuations in ad valorem tax
rate.
Regulatory
In place and ongoing.
Process/Procedural
170
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.L.1 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.1 Achievement Status
continued
Policy CI-1.1.9 Assure that the
City obtains the most
competitive interest rate in
municipal markets.
Finance Department
Ongoing
Policy CI-1.1.10 Avoid
issuance of short term
financing in the form of Bond
Anticipation Notes/Revenue
Anticipation Notes, unless
there is a compelling
need/extraordinary
circumstance for such.
Procedural
Policy in place
Policy CI-1.1.11 Ratio of net
direct general obligation
debt/assessed valuation of
taxable property will not
exceed 25% of the Charter -
mandated limit of 15% of the
Finance Department
In Code
assessed valuation, or 3.75% of
assessed valuation.
Policy CI-1.1.12 Total debt
service payments as a
percentage of the Combined
General Fund/Enterprise
Fund/Debt Service Fund
expenditures shall not exceed
15%.
Finance Department
In Code
Policy CI-1.1.13 Capital
projects financed through the
issuance of general obligation
bonds shall have an expected
useful life commensurate with
the period of the financing.
Finance Depaitinent
In Code
Policy CI-1.1.14 Direct net
general obligation/special
obligation debt shall be
maintained at below $1,000 per
capita.
Finance Depaitinent
In Code
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CI-1.1. The dollar and percentage
figures in Policies CI-1.1.2, .11, .12 and .14 shall be verified and will be revised, if
necessary.
171
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
2. Objective CI-1.2
Objective CI-1.2 of the Capital Improvements Element is as follows: "Through the
implementation section of the Capital Improvement Element of its Comprehensive Plan,
the City will ensure that future land development regulations and policies, and previously
issued land development orders are consistent with the City's ability to provide the capital
facilities required to maintain adopted LOS standards and those needed to maintain or
enhance the quality of life within the city (See Objective CM-1.4.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-1.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CI-1.2.1 through CI-1.2.3) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table ILL2
below.
Table II.L.2 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.2 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CI-1.2.1 Impact of
proposed land development
regulations and policies on
LOS/public capital facilities
needs/financial ability to
provide required facilities
will be assessed before
proposals are adopted.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan,
Concurrency, LOS
Economic Benefit Analysis
Policy CI-1.2.2 All
development orders
authorizing changes in
permitted land uses will be
contingent upon existing
public facilities providing
service at or above the
adopted LOS standard.
Development orders may be
granted if capital
improvements that
eliminate a service
deficiency are programmed
within one year/in the
Capital Budget.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan,
Concurrency, LOS
In Place
Policy CI-1.2.3 States LOS
Standards for public
facilities in the City of
Miami.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
LOS
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CI-1.2.
172
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
3. Objective CI-1.3
Objective CI-1.3 of the Capital Improvements Element is as follows- "Ensure that future
development and redevelopment pay an equitable, proportional share of the cost of public
facilities required to maintain adopted LOS standards."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-1.3 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CI-1.3.1 through CI-1.3.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.L.3
below.
Table II.L.3 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.3 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CI-1.3.1 Continue to
use developer contributions,
including impact fees, to
help fund the cost of public
facilities needed to serve
new
development/redevelopment.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan and
Land Development
Regulations
Impact fees in place
Policy CI-1.3.2 Periodically
revise all impact fees related
to new
development/redevelopment
to reflect increases in costs.
Land Development
Regulations and Code of
Ordinances
Impact fees in place.
Policy CI-1.3.3 Consider
special assessment districts.
Land Development
Regulations
Regulations in place.
Policy CI-1 3 4 Ensure that
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Procedures in place to
reflect new property
information in a timely
manner
increased property values
are accurately reflected on
the County Tax Assessor's
property tax rolls in a timely
manner.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CI-1.3. Policy CI-1.3.1 and .2 should
be revisited as developer contributions and impact fees do not offset the impacts of new
development.
4. Objective CI-1.4
Objective CI-1.4 of the Capital Improvements Element is as follows: "Ensure that public
capital expenditure within the coastal zone does not encourage private development that
is subject to significant risk of storm damage (See Coastal Management Objective CM-
4.3.)."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-1.4 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies CI-1.4.1 and CI-1.4.2) have been
173
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.L.4
below.
Table II.L.4 Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.4 Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy CI-1.4.1
Miami Comprehensive
No new capital facilities.
Expenditures for capital
Neighborhood Plan and
facilities in the coastal high
Capital Improvements
hazard area limited to
eliminating existing LOS
deficiencies/maintaining
adopted LOS standards in
non -high hazard
areas/improving hurricane
evacuation time/reducing
the threat to public health
and safety from storm
events (See Policy CM-
Program
4.3.1.).
Policy CI-1.4.2
Miami Comprehensive
Expenditures for capital
Neighborhood Plan, Capital
No new capital facilities.
facilities in the coastal zone
Improvements Program and
intended to further the
Capital Budget
GOP's objectives of the
Plan will be limited to those
projects that do not increase
risk to public health/safety
from storm damage (See
Policy CM-4.3.2.).
The City has made progress in achieving Objective CI-1.4.
5. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Capital Improvements Element are addressed in
Chapter I of this report. There are no additional recommendations in this Chapter.
174
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
II. M. Intergovernmental Coordination Element
1. Objective IC-1.1
Objective IC-1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is as follows: "To
establish formal procedures for coordinating City planning and operating functions that
are directly related to the City's comprehensive plan with the Miami -Dade County School
Board, Miami -Dade County Water and Sewer Authority Department, Miami -Dade
County Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division, Miami -Dade County
Depatttnent of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), the Seaport Department
(Port of Miami), Aviation Department (Miami International Airport), the Miami -Dade
County Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Miami -Dade County Shoreline
Development Review Committee, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the
South Florida Water Management District, the Florida Depatttnent 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."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective IC-1.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies IC-1.1.1 through IC-1.1.5) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.M.1
Table II.M.1 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective CI-1.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy IC-1.1.1 An
intergovernmental
coordination officer, will
identify contact persons
either within the Planning
Administrative
In Place
Depatttnent or other
departments that will serve
as liaison with state and
local agencies listed in
Objective 1.1 herein.
Policy IC-1.1.2 By 1990,
the Planning and Law
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
In Place
Departments will explore,
evaluate, prepare
appropriate legislation,
cooperative arrangements to
implement interlocal
policies for sanitary sewers;
solid waste; ports, aviation
and related facilities; traffic
circulation; mass transit
elements.
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
175
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.M.1 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective CI-1.1
Achievement Status continued
Policy IC-1.1.3 Continue to
seek membership on the
MPO and parallel
membership on the TPC to
express its policies on land
use and transportation.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
In Place. Miami has seat on
MPO and subcommittees
Policy IC-1.1.4 Continue to
Miami Comprehensive
Membership
seek membership on the
Neighborhood Plan
Biscayne Bay Management
Committee to express its
policies pertaining to
Biscayne Bay.
Policy IC-1.1.5 Encourage
Miami Comprehensive
Chapter 20 would require
County to
Neighborhood
amending
review/evaluate/recommend
Plan/Intergovernmental
County Charter changes a)
Coordination, Chapter 20
to standardize information
Code of Miami -Dade
and b) to allow the Board of
County
County Commissioners to
waive votes of resident
property owners, so that
small enclaves lying
between municipalities can
be annexed.
The City has made progress in achieving Objective IC-1.1. Policies IC-1.1.2, .3 and .4
have been implemented and are therefore no longer relevant. Chapter 20, Code of Miami -
Dade County has not been amended in order to meet the intent of Policy IC-1.1.5.
2. Objective IC-2.1
Objective CI-2.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is as follows: "To
establish a planning coordination mechanism to ensure that consideration 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."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-2.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policies (Policies IC-2.1.1 through IC-2.1.4) have been
implemented was conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.M.2
176
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.M.2 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective CI-2.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy IC-2.1.1 Request
from the County and
adjacent municipalities
copies of comprehensive
plans and plan amendments
submitted to DCA, and be
formally notified of all
public hearings related to
the adoption of
comprehensive plans and
plan amendments. The City
of Miami will reciprocate.
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Procedural and in place for
documents such as
Evaluation and Appraisal
Report
Policy IC-2.1.2 Support the
County in the establishment
of a technical advisory
committee, to
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Intergovernmental
Coordination
In place through the
Planners' Technical
Committee
review/evaluate/reconcile
discrepancies and to
recommend compromise
solutions, to share
information and help
evaluate the impacts of
proposed land development
and transportation policies.
Policy IC-2.1.3 Support the
SFRPC in developing
informal mechanisms that
coordinate land
development and
transportation policies
among local governments;
and to establish mediation
mechanisms (See Policy IC-
3.1.1.).
SFRPC as ombudsman
In Place
Policy IC-2.1.4 By 1990,
encourage the SFRPC to
conduct a regional
review/evaluation of the
Florida High Speed Rail
Transportation franchise
proposals.
SFRPC, Miami -Dade,
Broward and Palm Beach
Counties
Tri-Rail in place
177
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The City has made progress in achieving Objective IC-2.1. Policies IC-2.1.1, .2 and .3 are
still relevant and should be retained. Policy IC-2.1.4 has been completed and should be
deleted.
3. Objective IC-2.2
Objective IC-2.2 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is as follows:
"Coordinate with state, region, and Miami -Dade County in establishing levels of service
standards for public facilities, infrastructure and services and reconcile differences by
1990."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective CI-2.2 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy CI-2.2) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.M.3 below.
Table II.M.3 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective CI-2.2
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy IC-2.2.1 By 1990,
reconcile the LOS standards
for county arterials and
transportation corridors to
meet state requirements.
Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood
Plan/Transportation
Element, County and
FDOT
In Place
The City has achieved Objective 2.2 and its supporting policy and therefore may be
deleted.
4. Objective IC-3.1
Objective IC-3.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is as follows:
"Maximize the use of informal, cooperative agreements as mechanisms for
intergovernmental conflict resolution within Miami -Dade County and minimize the use
of litigation."
In order to evaluate the City's success in achieving Objective IC-3.1 an analysis of the
extent to which its supporting policy (Policy IC-3.1) has been implemented was
conducted. A summary of this analysis is provided on Table II.M.4.
178
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Table II.M.4 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective IC-3.1
Achievement Status
Policy Summary
Implementation Measure
Implementation Status
Policy IC-3.1.1 Exhaust all
efforts to solve
intergovernmental conflicts
through informal
mechanisms before seeking
remedies through the
judicial system (See Policy
Ombudsman
In Place
IC-2.1.3.).
The City has achieved Objective IC-3.1.
5. Recommendations
Recommended amendments to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element are
addressed in Chapter I of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are
being made as a result of this analysis.
Policies IC-1.1.2, .3 and .4 are implemented and may be deleted.
Policy IC-2.1.4 has been completed and should be deleted.
Policy IC-2.2.1 has been completed and should be amended to assure continued
consistency.
179
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
CHAPTER III. COMMUNITYWIDE ASSESSMENT
An important requirement for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is a comparison of
how conditions in the community have changed between the date of the previous EAR
and present. The following topics are addressed in this Chapter: population growth and
changes in land area, as per S. 163.3191 (2)(a), F.S.; the extent of vacant land, as per S.
163.3191 (2)(b), F.S.; the location of development in relation to location of development
as anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, as per S. 163.3191 (2)(d), F.S.; the extent to
which those services with Level of service standards outlined in the Comprehensive Plan
do not meet the standards, and an analysis and evaluation of the City's ability to fund
new or expanded infrastructure necessary to correct the deficiencies, and to provide for
future growth at acceptable levels of service, as per S. 163.3191 (2)(c), F.S; the success
and failure of coordinating residential development and public school planning, as per S.
163.3191 (2)(k), F.S.; and relevant changes in growth management laws (State
Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, the minimum criteria
contained in Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and the Strategic Regional Policy
Plan for South Florida) since the date of the previous EAR for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, as per S. 163.3191 (2)(f), F.S.
180
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
A. Population Changes, Vacant Land, Changes in Land Area, and Location of
Development in Relation to Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
Between 1990 and 2000, growth in Miami -Dade County has been primarily
accommodated by suburban expansion and has not occurred within the City limits.
While Miami -Dade County's population increased from 1,937,094 to 2,253,362 (16.3%)
between 1990 and 2000, the City's population only increased from 358,548 to 362,470
(1 1%) 17
By all projections, growth will continue to occur in the region; Table I.A.1 below outlines
projected population growth by 2005, 2015, and 2025 for Miami -Dade County and the
City of Miami. These projections, however, are based on the prevailing trends. The
depletion of the land supply and implementation of such initiatives as urban infill,
downtown redevelopment, and Eastward Ho! will direct more of this growth back to
urban centers, such as the City of Miami. Recent data indicates that this is occurring; as
is discussed in Chapter I.A., the City is currently experiencing an unprecedented wave of
development and redevelopment. For these reasons, it is anticipated the City of Miami
may receive a greater share of the County's population growth.
Table III.A.1. Projected Population Growth in the City of Miami and
Miami -Dade County'8
Year
Miami -Dade County
Population
City of Miami Population
2000
2,253,362
362,470
2005
2,403,195
368,479
2015
2,706,496
380,921
2025
3,011,900
391,912
As noted in Chapter I.A., the City is substantially developed, with only 556.08 acres of
vacant and developable land. These vacant and developable parcels tend to be small
sites, and are scattered throughout the City. The City occupies 35.6 square miles19, and
has not expanded in land area since the date of the last EAR. The development and
redevelopment that has occurred in the City has been consistent with the City's adopted
Future Land Use Plan Map, as it may be periodically amended as the result of specific
applications.
17 Miami -Dade County Facts, Miami -Dade Department of Planning & Zoning, May 2004
18 Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2003
19 Miami -Dade County Facts, Miami -Dade Department of Planning & Zoning, May 2004
181
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
B. Level of service Analysis
The City of Miami has adopted Level of service standards in its Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan (MCNP). Through the implementation section of the Capital
Improvement Element of the MCNP, the City ensures that future land development
regulations and City policies are consistent with the City's ability to provide the capital
facilities required to maintain adopted Level of service Standards, including those needed
to maintain or enhance the quality of life within the city.
1. Sanitary Sewer Transmission Capacity
All Districts 100 gallons per resident per day
The sanitary sewer network within the City of Miami is an interconnected county -wide
system. The City Departments of Public Works and Planning and Zoning cooperate with
Miami -Dade County WASAD to jointly develop methodologies and procedures for
biannually updating estimates of system demand and capacity.
2. Potable Water Transmission Capacity
All Districts 200 gallons per resident per day
The potable water network within the City of Miami is an interconnected county -wide
system. The City Departments of Public Works and Planning and Zoning cooperate with
Miami -Dade County WASAD to jointly develop methodologies and procedures for
biannually updating estimates of system demand and capacity, and to ensure sufficient
capacity to serve development needs.
3. Recreation and Open Space
Recreational open space shall be provided at the minimum rate of 1.3 acres of public
parks per 1,000 resident population. As noted in Chapter I.A.1, according to the 2000
Census, the City of Miami has 362,470 residents. In order to meet the adopted LOS
standard, 471.21 acres of recreation open space would be required. With an estimated
704 acres of designated parks and open spaces, the City of Miami is providing 1.94 acres
of recreation and open space per 1,000 residents.
4. Solid Waste Collection Capacity
Solid waste collection services shall maintain a Level of service standard of seven (7)
pounds per person per day and/or at the generation rate of 1.28 tons per resident per year.
The City is meeting its Level of service standards for Solid Waste.
182
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
5. Storm Sewer Capacity
Issuance of any development permit shall require compliance with a drainage Level of
service standard of a one -in -five-year storm event while incorporating water quality
considerations. The City is meeting its Level of service for Storm Sewer Capacity.
6. Traffic Circulation
The minimum Level of service standard on limited access, arterial, and collector
roadways that are not within designated Transportation Corridors is LOS E, with
allowable exceptions and justifications therefore, with LOS measured by conventional
V/C methodology. Within designated Transportation Corridors, which include
approximately 95% of the roadway mileage within the City of Miami, a minimum LOS E
is also maintained, but the measurement methodology is based on peak -hour person -trips
wherein the capacities of all modes, including mass transit, are used in calculating the
LOS. Specific levels of services by location and mode are further defined in the
Transportation Element of the MCNP.
Based on 2025 model results, the City is meeting its Level of service standard for Traffic
Circulation except for those roadway segments outlined below.
Table III.B.1. Level of service Deficient Roadways
1 knurl)) a! From To IDS Standard IOS
NW o2a1.d StreCt
NW 62nd Streit
NW 36th Street
NW 7th Avenue Interstate 95
interstate 95 N Miami Avenue
NW 7th Avenue N Miami Avenue
E+20
E+20
E+20
F
F
F
NE 361h Street
N Miami Avenue NE 2nd Averult
E+20
F
NW 7th Sheet
NW 57th Avenue NW 42nd Avenue
E+20
F
NW 7th Street
NW 42nd Avenue NW 37th Avenue
E+20
F
NW 7th Street
NW 37th Avenue NW 27th Avenue
E+20
F
NW 7th Street
NW 27th Avenue NW 22nd Avenue
E+20
F
NW 7th Streit
NW 22nd Avenue NW 1711) Avenue
E+20
F
SW 8th Street (I anuami Trail)
SW 57th Avenue SW 42nd Avenue
E+20
F
SW 8th Street (ranuiami Trail)
SW 42nd Avenue SW 37th Avenue
E+ap
F
SW 8th Street (ranvami Trail)
SW 37th Avenue SW 27th Avenue
E+20
F
NtV I2th Avenue
NW 361h Street SR 835 (Dolphin Expressway)
E+20
F
SW 17th Avenue
W Flagler Street SW 8th Street
E+20
F
SW 17th Avenue
SW 22nd Street South Dixie Highway
E+20
F
SW 17th Avenue
South Dixie Highway S Bayshore Avenue
E+20
F
SW 27th Avenue
South Dixie Highway S Bayshore Avenue
E
F
NW 37th Avenue (Douglas Road)
SR 836 (Dolphin Expressway) W Flagler Street
E
F
SW 37th Avenue (Douglas Road)
SW BthStreet SW 22nd Street
E
F
SW37th Avenue (Douglas Road)
South of Main Highway
E+20
F
SW 42nd Avenue (Leletme Road)
W Flagler Street SW 8th Street
E+20
F
SW 42nd Avenue (LeJeune Road)
South Dixie Highway Main Highway
E+20
F
NW 57th Avenue (Red Road)
SR 836 (Dolphin E.ymsswe)) W Flagler Street
E
F
SW 57th Avenue (Red Road)
W Flagler Street SW 8th Street
E
F
S Bayshore Drive
SW 27th Avenue SW 22nd Avenue
E+20
F
S Bayshore Drive
SW 22nd Avenue SW 17th Avenue
E+20
F
183
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
C. Coordination of Land Use and Public School Planning
Since 1995 the City of Miami has coordinated its Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood
Plan with existing and planned public schools as per statutory requirements. As
prescribed, the School Board has provided the City with a letter asking for a finding of
consistency with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan before acquisition of
school sites within the City, and the City has responded in the required timeframe.
Additionally, the School board has provided the City with copies of its Five Year Plans.
The City, as a matter of course, has invited a School Board representative to attend its
Large -Scale Development Committee meetings to review and provide comments on
development requests.
1. Interlocal Agreement for Joint Public School Facility Planning
In February 2003 the City, along with 28 other municipalities, Miami -Dade County and
Miami -Dade County Public Schools entered into the Interlocal Agreement for Public
School Facility Planning In Miami -Dade County. This far-reaching collaborative
agreement, which was mandated by Sections 163.31777 and 1013.33 of the Florida
Statutes, allows for better coordination in the educational facilities decision making
process.
Key requirements of the Interlocal Agreement20 are outlined as follows:
• The establishment of a staff working group comprised of the County
Mayor/Manager and/or his designee, the School Board Superintendent and/or his
designee, and City Mayors/Managers and their designees to meet on an annual
basis to: discuss issues and formulate recommendations regarding public school
issues; provide M-DCPS with input and recommendations on the Educational
Facilities Plan, Educational Plant Survey, and the need for new facilities and
expansion, renovation, and closure of existing facilities; and to identify
opportunities for the co -location and/or shared -use of civic and school facilities.
• The coordination of a joint annual workshop with elected officials of the School
Board, County, and municipalities to discuss public school issues.
• The development of coordinated projections of the amount, type, and distribution
of population growth.
• Expansion of M-DCPS' standing School Site Planning and Construction
Committee by four (4) voting members to include "a floating member of the most
impacted municipality to which the agenda item relates", a "representative
appointed by the Miami -Dade County League of Cities", a representative from
Miami -Dade County, and "a member of the residential building industry".
20 Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning in Miami -Dade County, 3/05/03
184
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
• The County and municipalities must invite a non -voting representative appointed
by the School Board to attend meetings of the local planning agencies at which
development requests that will impact public school enrollments are considered.
• The County and municipalities must notify M-DCPS of proposed land use
applications and development proposals that affect student enrollment.
2. Charter Schools
In 1996, the State of Florida enacted legislation that provided for the creation of charter
schools, non-profit corporations that are typically operated by a group of parents,
teachers, an organization, a municipality, universities, and/or a combination of more than
one group. There are many reasons to establish a charter school but as outlined in the
Board Rule but the major reasons are: to improve student learning, to increase learning
opportunities for all students with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for
academically low achieving students; to encourage use of innovative learning methods; to
increase choices of learning opportunities for students; to establish a new form of
accountability for schools; to require the measurement of learning outcomes and create
innovative measurement tools; to make the school the unit for improvement; and to create
new professional opportunities for teachers.21
A charter school is bound by the requirements of Sections 228.056, 230.22 and .23,
Florida Statutes and Miami -Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13.6A.1.47 and must be
reviewed and approved by the School Board. They are also fully recognized public
schools. Currently, 37 charter schools are operating or approved in Miami -Dade County.
3. Miami -Dade County Working Group on Public Schools Overcrowding Relief
The City of Miami faces a number of specific challenges regarding public schools. As a
result of current development and redevelopment trends, the City's population is
expanding, as is the demand for school facilities. A number of the County's school
facilities are overcrowded, and new schools cannot be provided quickly enough to meet
the demand for new student stations. As noted earlier, the City has few remaining vacant
and developable parcels, which limits the availability of land for new school construction.
In response to the overcrowding problem that is plaguing many County schools, in
September 2003 Miami -Dade County and the Miami -Dade School Board established the
Miami -Dade County Working Group on Public Schools Overcrowding Relief.
Commissioner Joe Sanchez serves as the City of Miami's representative on this task
force.
In October 2004, the task force adopted a final report for submission to the Miami -Dade
Board of County Commissioners and School Board. Key recommendations include:
levying additional documentary stamp fees on the sale or resale of homes for school
construction; exempting the cost of a parking garage from the cost per student station
restriction when building a new facility; establishing criteria for allowing the conversion
21 The School Board of Miami -Dade County, Florida Board Rules
185
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
of non -school structures into public education facilities; revising the educational
"amenities" that are required at public schools to save time, money and space; siting
schools along existing and future transit corridors; pursuing Educational Facilities Benefit
Districts in areas of substantial growth; and periodic review of the County Educational
Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance.
Of particular interest to the City of Miami are strategies to reduce the land requirements
for public schools, which would otherwise preclude new schools from being constructed
in many areas of the City. Allowances for multi -story schools, the location of schools
along transit corridors, promoting the joint use of facilities, and allowing the conversion
of non -school structures into public education facilities are all examples of strategies to
provide new or expanded public schools despite the scarcity of vacant, developable land.
4. Educational Facilities Impact Fee
Miami -Dade County's Educational Facilities Impact Fee imposes an impact fee on new
residential development throughout the County in order to offset some of the costs of
providing student stations to accommodate the additional demand for student stations
created by such development. An ongoing concern with the Educational Facilities
Impact Fee is that the County's three designated benefit districts are too large to ensure
that moneys collected are expended at the schools most directly impacted by the
development. A key recommendation of the Miami -Dade County Working Group on
Public Schools Overcrowding Relief calls for the periodic review of the Public
Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. Refining the benefit districts to ensure the
equitable distribution of impact fees should be a paramount issue in the City's review of
the Ordinance.
186
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
D. Consistency with Growth Management Laws
Section 163.3191 (2)(f), F.S., requires that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report evaluate
relevant changes in growth management laws since the date of the previous EAR for
consistency with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. This evaluation was
conducted based on the date that the current Evaluation and Appraisal was adopted
(1995). The following summarizes the results of this review.
1. State Comprehensive Plan
The City of Miami's adopted Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and proposed
2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report were reviewed in order to ensure consistency with
the adopted State of Florida Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statutes). This
review indicates that the adopted City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and
proposed EAR are in compliance with and address the intent of applicable State
Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. No additional amendments to
address compliance with the State Comprehensive Plan are deemed to be necessary at
this time.
2. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes
A table indicating the manner in which the City of Miami is addressing the requirements
of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes is attached as Appendix B. Based on a review of this
Table, the following amendments are recommended:
a. Water Supply Facilities Workplan Recommendations
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires the preparation of a 10-year Water Supply
Facilities Workplan by local governments with water supply facility responsibilities. The
City of Miami does not have water supply responsibilities, as it receives its water supply
through interlocal agreement with the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Depaitinent.
Therefore, the City will support Miami -Dade County's implementation of the Water
Supply Facilities Workplan requirement as appropriate, and other County efforts to
ensure that the City's water supply needs are met. It is recommended that a new
Objective and Policy be added to the Potable Water Element and Intergovernmental
Coordination Element in order to express the City's support of Miami -Dade County's
development and implementation of the Water Supply Facilities Workplan.
3. Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
A table indicating the manner in which the City of Miami is addressing the requirements
of Rule Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, is attached as Appendix C. Based on
a review of this Table, the following amendments are recommended.
187
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
a. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Update
The Intergovernmental Coordination Element should address the City's coordination with
the County on the identification of dredge disposal sites, and reflect the full range of
intergovernmental planning initiatives that involve the City. Other recommended
amendments include:
• Goals, objectives and policies to recognize campus master plans, and providing
procedures for coordination of campus master development agreements;
• Goals, objectives, and policies establishing joint processes for collaborative
planning and decision -making with other units of local government;
• Goals, objectives and policies establishing joint processes for the siting of
facilities with county -wide significance; and
• The removal of obsolete policies and the update or deletion of obsolete dates.
4. Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida
As of June 2004 the South Florida Regional Planning Council was in the final stages of
updating the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPPSF). The draft
SRPPSF was reviewed and the Comprehensive Plan and recommended EAR -based
amendments (1995 and 2004) are consistent with its goals and policies. Upon its
adoption, the City will review the SRPPSF for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
and will remedy any inconsistencies through Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan
amendments.
188
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
CHAPTER IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following Chapter includes a complete listing of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
recommendations by Element. These recommendations are made as a result of the
evaluation and appraisal of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan that is
documented in Chapters I., II. and III. Please refer to these chapters for more information
about the reasons that specific recommendations are being made.
A. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Recommendations
(Recommended New Goals, Objectives and Policies)
Recommendation MCNP-1. The use of school playgrounds and recreational facilities
for community recreation purposes, and of City parks to meet the recreational needs of
students, is an excellent strategy for increasing the recreational opportunities available to
City residents, visitors, and workers, and for reducing land requirements that might
otherwise prevent public schools from opening in a dense urban environment. It is
therefore recommended that objectives and policies calling for increasing the number of
joint park/school agreements between the City and Miami -Dade County Public Schools
be added to the Future Land Use, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, and
Intergovernmental Coordination Elements.
Recommendation MCNP-2. Add objectives and policies to the Recreation and Open
Space Element encouraging landscaped pedestrian and bicycle linkages between existing
and planned park sites, where appropriate and feasible, and supporting the Trust for
Public Lands efforts to create a Miami River greenway.
Recommendation MCNP-3. Add objectives and policies to the Land Use and Natural
Resources Elements calling for protection of the City's tree canopy and significant trees
through the implementation of a tree protection ordinance.
189
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
B. Future Land Use Element Recommendations
Recommendation LU-1. Amend Goal LU-1 to remove the word "residential" before
"neighborhoods", and to call for protecting the integrity and quality of the City's existing
neighborhoods.
Recommendation LU-2. Amend Policy LU-1.1.3 to add that strategies to further
protect existing neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition
standards and buffering requirements will be incorporated into the City's land
development regulations.
Recommendation LU-3. Amend Policy LU-1.1.4 to state that the City will continue
to aggressively address code violations in its neighborhoods through the implementation
of ongoing and new neighborhood improvement and code enforcement strategies and
initiatives.
Recommendation LU-4. Amend Policy LU-1.1.7 to more clearly call for the
development and redevelopment of well -designed mixed -use neighborhoods that provide
for the full range of residential, office, live/work spaces, neighborhood retail, and
community facilities in a walkable area, and that are amenable to a variety of
transportation modes, including pedestrian, bicycles, automobiles and mass transit.
Recommendation LU-5. Amend Objective LU-1.2 to more clearly state the City's
commitment to promoting, facilitating and catalyzing the revitalization of its
neighborhoods through a variety of public, private and public -private redevelopment
initiatives and revitalization programs. It can be further specified to reflect a continuation
of the redevelopment of blighted, declining and threatened residential, industrial and
commercial areas.
Recommendation LU-6. Amend Policy LU-1.2.3 to state that the City's priorities in
implementing, facilitating and encouraging redevelopment and revitalization projects
shall be determined on an area specific basis in accordance with the adopted City of
Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009, adopted redevelopment plans,
specific neighborhood and area plans, and the land development regulations, as
appropriate.
Recommendation LU-7. Amend Objective LU-1.3 to encourage the development of
well -designed mixed use neighborhoods that provide for a variety of uses within a
walkable area, to add the phrase "in accordance with neighborhood design and
development standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land
development regulations and other initiatives".
Recommendation LU-8. Amend Policy LU-1.3.1 to replace references to specific
neighborhoods with "designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the
Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area,
Commercial Business Corridors, and other designated targeted areas". It should further
190
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
be added that such commercial redevelopment and new construction shall be conducted
in accordance with neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result
of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives.
Recommendation LU-9. Amend Policy LU-1.3.2 to replace references to specific
neighborhoods with "designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the
Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area,
Commercial Business Corridors, and other designated targeted areas".
Recommendation LU-10. Amend Policy LU-1.3.5 to delete references to specific
neighborhoods, and to state that the development of such activity centers will be in
accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result
of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives.
Recommendation LU-11. Amend Policy LU-1.3.6 to replace references to specific
neighborhoods with "designated Neighborhood Development Zones (NDZ), the
Empowerment Zone, the Enterprise Zone, the Brownfield Redevelopment Area,
Commercial Business Corridors, and other designated targeted areas".
Recommendation LU-12. Amend Policy LU-1.3.7 to include the Empowerment
Zone, Commercial Business Corridors, and Brownfield Redevelopment Area.
Recommendation LU-13. Amend Policy LU-1.3.8 to call for the development and
implementation of job training and educational programs to assist the City's existing and
future residents in achieving economic self-sufficiency utilizing government resources as
necessary.
Recommendation LU-14. Amend Policy LU-1.3.9 to delete references to specific
neighborhoods.
Recommendation LU-15. Amend LU-1.3.10 to delete the reference to a percentage
increase and to state that the City will continue to aggressively address code violations in
its neighborhoods through the implementation of ongoing and new neighborhood
improvement and code enforcement strategies and initiatives.
Recommendation LU-16. Amend Policy LU-1.3.14 to state that such guidelines
should reinforce and be consistent with neighborhood character, history and function, and
in accordance with the neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a
result of the amendments to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives.
Recommendation LU-17. Amend Policy LU-1.4.1 to add "in accordance with
neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments
to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives" after downtown districts.
Recommendation LU-18. Amend Policy LU-1.4.2 to delete references to specific
retail areas.
191
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation LU-19. Amend Policy LU-1.4.10 to add "in accordance with
neighborhood design and development standards adopted as a result of the amendments
to the City's land development regulations and other initiatives" be inserted after "Miami
River".
Recommendation LU-20. Amend Objective LU-1.5.1 to add neighborhoods be added
to the list of resources to be protected.
Recommendation LU-21. Amend Policy LU-1.5.2 to add "and other appropriate
requirements regarding waterfront access and management".
Recommendation LU-22. Amend Policy LU-1.6.8 to replace "allow" with
"encourage and/or require, as appropriate".
Recommendation LU-23. Amend Policy LU-1.6.9 to call for the elimination of
adverse impacts on neighborhoods through the development of appropriate transition
standards and buffering requirements.
Recommendation LU-24. Amend Policy LU-1.6.10 to also call for providing access
by a variety of transportation modes, including pedestrianism, bicycles, automobiles, and
transit.
Recommendation LU-25. Amend Objective LU-1.7 to call for concentrating
"recreational activities that require public facilities and infrastructure" to areas where
capacity is available.
Recommendation LU-26. Amend Policy LU-1.7.1 to call for directing "recreational
activities that require public facilities and infrastructure" to areas where capacity is
available.
Recommendation LU-27. Amend Objective LU-2.1 to call for the City to maintain,
update and continue to increase the number of eligible properties included in the Miami -
Dade County Historic Survey.
Recommendation LU-28. Amend Policy LU-2.1.2 to state that the City shall continue
to maintain and update the referenced database.
Recommendation LU-29. Amend Policy LU-2.2.2 to state that the City Archaeologist
will monitor building activities near archeological sites.
Recommendation LU-30. Amend Policy LU-2.2.3 to reference the City
Archaeologist.
Recommendation LU-31. Delete Policy LU-2.2.4 as the City has no authority to
protect sites that have not been designated as historically or archeologically significant.
192
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation LU-32. Amend Objective LU-2.3 to call for the City to continue in
its efforts to increase the number of nationally and locally designated sites in the City,
and to develop incentives to encourage designation and preservation, while deleting the
reference to a specific percentage and time period.
Recommendation LU-33. Amend LU-2.3.2 to designate additional sites by 2015.
Recommendation LU-34. Amend Policy LU-2.4.3 to delete the reference to the
number of sites that the City owns, since it is subject to change.
Recommendation LU-35. Amend Policy LU-3.1.1 to continue to review zoning
regulations to insure that they provide adequate flexibility to redevelopment.
Recommendation LU-36. Amend Policy LU-3.1.2 to encourage the provision of
public open space and parks in Regional Activity Centers.
Recommendation LU-37. Amend the "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan
Map" section of the Future Land Use Element to revise Office, Commercial, Central
Business District, and Industrial designations to ensure that they provide for the full range
of appropriate uses to implement the City's economic development goals, and that any
requirements that have served as barriers to economic development efforts be
reconsidered. As the City redefines its land development regulations the City should re-
evaluate and amend land use classifications as appropriate.
C. Housing Element Recommendations
Recommendation HO-1. Amend Goal HO-1 to also call for encouraging middle
income housing, and for encourage a range of housing types in all areas of the City to
meet the needs of all income groups.
Recommendation HO-2. Amend Objective HO-1.1 to change the date to 2010 in
order to be consistent with the Consolidated Plan, and to establish that the City's goal is
to encourage the provision of housing options for City residents of all income levels,
including extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle income.
Recommendation HO-3. Amend Policy HO-1.1.1 to reference the State of Florida's
definition of affordable housing (up to 120% of median household income) in order to
allow the inclusion of, and assistance to, middle income households.
Recommendation HO-4. Amend Policy HO-1.1.5 to add "and to buffer such
neighborhoods from incompatible uses through the implementation and enforcement of
transition and buffering standards".
Recommendation HO-5. Amend Policy HO-1.1.6 to state that the City shall
encourage the designation, restoration and adaptive reuse of historically significant
housing through zoning and other incentives deemed appropriate.
193
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation HO-6. Amend Policy HO-1.1.7 to also call for providing
appropriate transitions between high rise and low rise residential developments.
Recommendation HO-7. Amend Policy HO-1.1.10 to be consistent with the City of
Miami Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Years 2004-2009.
Recommendation HO-8. Amend Objective HO-1.2 to include housing that is
affordable to middle income residents, and the reduction of substandard units through
demolition or rehabilitation.
Recommendation HO-9. Amend Policy HO-1.2.1 to reflect State of Florida
definitions of low and moderate income housing as well.
Recommendation HO-10. Amend Policy HO-1.2.3 to delete the reference to low
density housing, and to call for the provision of a diverse range of housing types in all
areas of the City, including housing that is affordable to extremely low income, low
income, moderate income, and middle income households.
Recommendation HO-11. Amend Policy HO-1.2.4 to include middle income housing
as well.
Recommendation HO-12. Amend Policy HO-1.2.5 to include housing with Code
violations that detract from the physical appearance of neighborhoods in the definition of
substandard housing.
Recommendation HO-13. Amend Policy HO-1.2.7 by deleting "where necessary",
and adding "and to implement neighborhood specific design and development standards
that may be developed as a result of the amendments to the City's land development
regulations and other initiatives".
Recommendation HO-14. Amend Policy HO-1.2.8 to call for the implementation of
programs to assist low and moderate income households in rehabilitating their units.
Recommendation HO-15. Amend Policy HO-1.2.11 to change the reference from
"Heritage Conservation Article" to "Chapter 23 and other appropriate sections" of the
City Code.
Recommendation HO-16. Policy HO-1.3.2 should be amended to include spacing
requirements between facilities.
Recommendation HO-17. Policy HO-1.4.6 should be amended to include language
about the development of a 10 year plan to end chronic homelessness and that the City
will work toward a more equitable distribution of facilities throughout Miami -Dade
County.
194
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation HO-18. Amend Objective HO-1.5 and Policy 1.5.1 to include
households displaced by private redevelopment projects and increased housing costs
resulting from gentrification.
Recommendation HO-19. Amend Goal HO-2 and Objective HO-2.1 to call for a
variety of housing types for all income levels provided in a walkable, mixed -use urban
environment.
Recommendation HO-20. Amend Objective HO-2.1 to call for achieving a livable
City center and healthy neighborhoods.
Recommendation HO-21. Amend Policy HO-2.1.2 to add "in accordance with
neighborhood specific design and development standards that might be adopted as a
result of amendments to the City's land development regulations and other neighborhood
planning initiatives".
Recommendation HO-22. Amend Policy HO-2.1.4 to delete reference to specific
neighborhoods.
Recommendation HO-23. Amend Policy HO-2.1.6 to call for avoiding undue
concentrations of assisted housing.
Recommendation HO-24. Amend Policy HO-2.1.7 to delete references to specific
grant programs and neighborhoods.
D. Sanitary and Storm Sewer Element Recommendations
Recommendation SS-1. Amend Policy SS-1.1.4 to reference Miami -Dade Water
and Sewer Department's (M-DWASD) 2001 Plan and any subsequent updates, not the
201 Plan.
Recommendation SS-2. Policy SS-1.3.4 should be deleted or modified due to the
fact that M-DWASD has overall responsibility for the sewer collection and transmission
system and would be the permitting agency. System demand coordination of
development impacts should be handled by M-DWASD.
Recommendation SS-3. Policy SS-2.2.5 should be amended to delete "South" from
"South Florida Building Code", as the name has changed.
195
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
E. Potable Water Element Recommendations
Recommendation PW-1. Amend Policy PW-1.2.2 to reference the City's support of
and assistance to the County in the development and implementation of the Water Supply
Facilities Workplan as required by Florida Statute.
F. Solid Waste Element Recommendations
Recommendation SW-1. Amend Policy SW-1.3.1 to delete references to specific
campaigns, and to state that the City will continue to actively support and implement
neighborhood clean-up and beautification efforts.
Recommendation SW-2. Amend Policy SW-1.2.1 to change the reference to the
Miami -Dade County Department of Public Works, Division of Solid Waste to Miami -
Dade County Department of Solid Waste.
Recommendation SW-3. Amend Policy SW-1.2.2 to delete the reference to Bond
Series A and B.
G. Transportation Element Recommendations
Recommendation TR-1. Amend Policy TR-1.1.1 to include a statement that
maintenance of transportation Levels of Service within this designated Urban Infill
Transportation Concurrency Exception area shall be in accordance with the adopted
Person Trip Methodology as stated in designated appendix.
Recommendation TR-2. Delete Policy TR-1.1.2 as the Major Use Special Permit
(MUSP) process is being revisited as a part of the City's Transportation Element Update.
Recommendation TR-3. Delete Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.1, as level of service standards are
currently in place.
Recommendation TR-4. Delete Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.2, as it will be addressed as part of
the Person Trip Methodology.
Recommendation TR-5. Delete Sub -policy TR-1.1.2.3, as it will be addressed as part of
the Person Trip Methodology.
Recommendation TR-6. Amend Policy TR-1.1.3 to reference the appropriate LOS
appendix.
Recommendation TR-7. Amend Policy TR-1.1.4 to delete references to the Person Trip
Methodology.
196
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation TR-8. Amend Policy TR-1.1.14 to drop reference to "remote
intercept".
Recommendation TR-9. Amend Policy TR-1.7.to recommend that the City develop a
transit tight -of -way map to use when reviewing new projects.
Note: The Transportation Element is currently being updated in its entirety, and specific
amendments to its goals, objectives and policies, as well as new goals, objectives, and
policies, are being prepared in a separate but related process. Recommendations will
focus on the following general areas: rewrite the Person Trip Methodology; reference
specific levels of service and neighborhood studies instead of listing recommendations in
objectives and policies; strengthen TCM policies; reestablish a TDM for the Civic Center
area; develop a parking plan for downtown; continue close intergovernmental
coordination to develop and evaluate projects; focus on planning, land use, and
transportation issues along Transportation Corridors; and reevaluate Transit LOS and
Headway methodologies.
H. Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element Recommendations
Recommendation PA-1. Under the "Port of Miami River" heading on Page 48,
Footnote 1, needs further clarification of the intent of Footnote 1 for accuracy.
Recommendation PA-2. Amend Goal PA-1 and Objective PA-1.1 to call for land
development regulations to mitigate negative impacts to neighborhoods that might result
from Port activities, while protecting the Port's economic function, operation, and
potential improvements.
Recommendation PA-3. Amend Policy PA-1.1.2 to state that the City will
encourage rather than ensure the availability of an adequate amount of commercial and
industrial land to complement port facilities. Due to the increasing pressure to develop
residential and public cultural facilities in the downtown area, the City cannot ensure that
commercial/industrial land will be available exclusively for port uses.
Recommendation PA-4. Delete policies PA-1.1.3 and .4, as they are not reflected in
the Port of Miami Master Plan.
Recommendation PA-5. Amend Objective PA-2.1 to call for land development
regulations to mitigate negative impacts to neighborhoods that might result from airport
activities, while protecting the airport's economic function, operation, and potential
improvements.
Recommendation PA-6. Amend Policy PA-3.1.1 to encourage water related/water
dependent uses along the upper river, based on the Miami River plans, rather than along
the entire river.
197
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation PA-7. Amend Policy PA-3.1.3 to also cite adverse impacts that
adjacent land uses might have on the Port, including the depletion of land zoned for
marine industrial use.
Recommendation PA-8. Amend Policy PA-3.3.1 to more clearly state that the City
of Miami shall coordinate with other jurisdictions and agencies having jurisdiction over
the River in order to support and enhance the Port of Miami River's economic
importance and viability as a port facility.
198
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
I. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Element Recommendations
Recommendation PR-1. Amend Objective PR-1.1 to call for enhancing recreational
and educational opportunities to all City residents, with a particular focus on programs
for special needs populations such as the elderly, youth and persons with disabilities.
Recommendation PR-2. Amend Policy PR-1.1.1 to add a provision to ensure that
neighborhood park space deficiencies are identified and addressed in specific
neighborhood planning, development and redevelopment efforts.
Recommendation PR-3. Amend Policy PR-1.1.2 to add a statement calling for the
City to investigate strategies to increase the level of programmatic funding that is made
available to City parks, and to encourage the provision of full service parks.
Recommendation PR-4. Amend Policy PR-1.1.3 to state that the City will continue
to investigate strategies to work with private developers to ensure that they pay their fair
share of the costs of providing additional park acreage and programming to serve their
development or redevelopment project.
Recommendation PR-5. Amend Policy PR-1.1.4 to reflect the current vision and
plans for Virginia Key.
Recommendation PR-6. Amend Policy PR-1.1.5 to state that the City shall continue
to ensure that recreational lands are included in any redevelopment plans for Watson
Island, and to reflect current plans.
Recommendation PR-7. Amend Policy PR-1.1.6 to reference "persons with
disabilities and other special needs groups" and "and the broader community", and to
read more clearly.
Recommendation PR-8. Amend Policy PR-1.1.7 to reference "other special needs
groups", as well, and amplified to continue to encourage coordination with non-profit
service providers to address recreational needs. Delete Policy PR-1.1.9, as it is
duplicative.
Recommendation PR-9. Amend Policy PR-1.1.8 to call for increasing accessibility
for persons with disabilities, in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements.
Recommendation PR-10. Amend Policy PR-1.1.11 to reference the Waterfront
Charter Amendment and the County's Shoreline Development Review Ordinance.
Recommendation PR-11. Amend Policy PR-1.1.14 to delete the reference to the date,
or change the date to 2015, and to call for such facilities to continue to be provided.
199
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation PR-12. Amend Objective PR-1.2 to recommend that the percent
and dates be deleted and that the Objective be amended to call for the reduction in crime
and incident rates in the City's parks.
Recommendation PR-13. Amend Policy PR-1.2.3 to state that the Police Department
will continue to work with neighborhood groups on these programs, as they are
established, and to call for expanding the Park Ranger program to all City parks.
Recommendation PR-14. Amend Policy PR-1.2.4 to state that the City will maintain
these programs, as they have been established.
Recommendation PR-15. Amend Policy PR-1.3.2 to state that the City will maintain
its Parks of Excellence Programs.
Recommendation PR-16. Amend Policy PR-1.3.5 to more strongly encourage public
private partnerships.
Recommendation PR-17. Amend Policy PR-1.3.8 to call for the City to periodically
review and refine the mission and charge of the Parks Advisory Board in order to ensure
maximum opportunities for public involvement and effectiveness in addressing specific
recreation open space needs.
Recommendation PR-18. Amend policies PR-1.4.1 and 1.4.2 to call for the periodic
evaluation of impact fees and fee schedules in accordance with changing recreation and
open space needs.
Recommendation PR-19. Amend Policy PR-1.4.4 to call for periodic evaluation of
this standard.
Recommendation PR-20. Amend Policy PR-1.5.2 to reflect current plans for the
renovation of Bicentennial Park, now known as Museum Park, in accordance with the
Museum Park Master Plan.
Recommendation PR-21. Amend Policy PR-1.5.3 to state the City will continue to
restore and maintain the utility of Southside Park.
Recommendation PR-22. Amend Policy PR-1.5.4 to state that the City shall continue
to redevelop Lummus Park in the Riverside District as appropriate.
Recommendation PR-23. Amend Policy PR-1.5.5 to state that the City shall continue
efforts to create the Fisherman's Wharf District.
Recommendation PR-24. Amend Policy PR-1.5.8 to state that the City shall maintain
and, where appropriate, expand Jose Marti Park.
200
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation PR-25. Amend Objective PR-1.6 to replace "designed" with
"designated".
Recommendation PR-26. Policy PR-1.6.1 is impacted because it calls for a planning
process to determine the necessary expansion of recreation and open space needs in Little
Haiti. It is recommended that this Policy be updated to reflect the current status of the
Little Haiti park planning process.
Recommendation PR-27. Amend Policy PR-2.1.2 to state that the City will maintain
and enhance official procedures to utilize native species in City parks.
Recommendation PR-28. Amend Objective PR-3.1 remove the date, as the
performing arts center is under construction but has been delayed, or to change the date to
Fall 2006.
Recommendation PR-29. Delete Policy PR-3.1.2, as construction of the Performing
Arts Center has commenced.
Recommendation PR-30. Amend Objective PR-4.1 to change the date to 2015.
Recommendation PR-31. Amend Policy PR-4.1.3 to replace "wild observation
areas", which is a typo, with "wildlife observation areas".
Recommendation PR-32. Add an Objective and policies calling for increasing the
number of joint park/school agreements between the City and Miami -Dade Public
Schools.
Recommendation PR-33. Add an Objectives and policies to the Recreation and Open
Space Element encouraging landscaped pedestrian and bicycle linkages between existing
and planned park sites, where appropriate and feasible, and supporting the Trust for
Public Lands efforts to create a Miami River greenway.
J. Coastal Management Element Recommendations
Recommendation CM-1. Amend Policy CM-1.1.1 to remove reference to the date
and state that the City shall continue to take actions to protect and restore the natural
environment of Virginia Key.
Recommendation CM-2. Amend Policy CM-1.1.2 to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City encourage the reduction in the levels of contaminants through
coordination with appropriate agencies.
Recommendation CM-3. Amend Policy CM-1.1.3 to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will encourage coordination with the appropriate agencies.
201
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation CM-4. Amend Policy CM-1.1.4 to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City encourage the reduction in point and non -sources of pollution
into Biscayne Bay through coordination with appropriate agencies.
Recommendation CM-5. Amend Policy CM-1.1.8 to state that all development on
Virginia Key will be in conformance with the 1987 Master Plan, and/or any subsequent
plans for Virginia Key that have been or might be adopted by the City. It should be
further revised to call for the preparation of an updated plan, if necessary.
Recommendation CM-6. Amend Policy CM-1.1.10 to state that all development on
Watson Island will be in conformance with adopted plans, and to delete specific reference
to the 1990 Plan. It should be further revised to call for the preparation of an updated
plan, if necessary.
Recommendation CM-7. Amend Policy CM-1.1.12 to state that the City will
continue to implement and enforce the marina siting requirements in the land
development regulations.
Recommendation CM-8. Amend Policy CM-1.1.13 to replace the direct reference to
the Biscayne Bay Management Plan Committee with a statement such as "the City shall
continue coordination with the appropriate agencies".
Recommendation CM-9. Objective CM-1.2 should be amended to delete reference to
"South" in "South Florida Building Code", as the name has changed to "Florida Building
Code".
Recommendation CM-10. Amend Policy CM-2.1.2 to call for the City to continue to
provide shoreline access to City -owned waterfront property.
Recommendation CM-11. Amend Policy CM-2.1.3 to remove references to the dates,
and to call for the City to continue to implement projects in accordance with the
Downtown Waterfront Master Plan or other adopted plans that impact the downtown
waterfront as appropriate. Delete Policy CM-2.1.4, as it is duplicative of Policy CM-
2.1.3.
Recommendation CM-12. Amend Policy CM-2.1.5 to call for the City to continue to
implement design guidelines along the baywalk and riverwalk in accordance with
adopted plans.
Recommendation CM-13. Amend Policy CM-2.1.6 to delete the reference to the date,
and to state that the City shall continue to consider the need for shoreline stabilization as
part of the development and redevelopment of waterfront properties.
Recommendation CM-14. Amend Policy CM-2.1.7 to delete the reference to the date,
and to call for the City to continue to implement these provisions.
202
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation CM-15. Amend Policy CM-2.2.1 to state that the City will continue
to collaborate with the County on developing an updated Master Plan for Virginia Key,
and to seek funding to implement these plans.
Recommendation CM-16. Amend Policy CM-2.2.2 to delete reference to the date and
state that the City will continue to implement adopted plans for Watson Island, and to
seek funding to implement the Plan.
Recommendation CM-17. Amend Policy CM-4.1.3 to remove the reference to the
date, and to call for the City to continue to implement measures to protect City -owned
historic properties and archeological sites from destruction in a major storm event.
Recommendation CM-18. Amend Policy CM-4.1.6 to remove the reference to specific
dates and the SFRPC's model post -disaster redevelopment plan, and to state that post -
disaster redevelopment activities in the City will be conducted in accordance with
adopted plans.
Recommendation CM-19. Amend Objective CM-5.1 to call for the City to maintain,
update and continue to increase the number of eligible properties contained in the Miami -
Dade County Historic Survey.
Recommendation CM-20. Amend Policy CM-5.1.1 to delete the reference to the date,
and to state that the City will continue to identify historic districts and to survey
contributing and non-contributing buildings.
Recommendation CM-21. Amend Policy CM-5.1.2 to delete reference to the date and
to the number of sites, and to state that the City shall continue to maintain this database.
Recommendation CM-22. Amend Policy CM-5.1.3 to state that the City has
designated numerous historic sites and districts as per Chapter 23 of the Miami City
Code, and that it will continue to designate sites and districts as appropriate and
warranted.
Recommendation CM-23. Amend Policy CM-5.1.5 to state that the City will continue
to include this information about historic resources in public information, economic
development promotion, and tourism materials, and to delete reference to the date.
Recommendation CM-24. Amend Policy CM-5.2.2 to delete the reference to the
number of sites, since it is subject to change.
K. Natural Resource Conservation Element Recommendations
203
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation NR-1. Amend Policy NR-1.1.1 to remove reference to the date
and state that the City shall continue to take actions to protect and restore the natural
environment of Virginia Key.
Recommendation NR-2. Amend Policy NR-1.1.2 to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City shall continue retrofitting storm water outfalls into the Miami
River in accordance with water quality improvement programs and adopted plans.
Recommendation NR-3. Amend Policy NR-1.1.3 to remove reference to the date
and to state that the City will encourage the reduction in the level of contaminants
through coordination with the appropriate agencies.
Recommendation NR-4. Amend Policy NR-1.2.1 to add "and with appropriate
agencies" .
Recommendation NR-5. Amend Policy NR-1.2.2 to add the phrase "and other
relevant plans" after the reference to the Biscayne Bay Management Plan.
Recommendation NR-6. Amend Policy NR-2.1.6 to delete the reference to the date,
and to call for the City to coordinate with the Miami -Dade County, South Florida Water
Management District and other appropriate agencies in the implementation of water
conservation programs and plans.
Recommendation NR-7. Amend Policy NR-2.1.8 to remove reference to the date,
and to call for the City to comply with and assist in the enforcement of all applicable
State and local water conservation ordinances and policies.
Recommendation NR-8. Amend Policy NR-3.1.1 to delete reference to the date, and
to call for the City to continue to work with County, State and federal environmental
agencies to maintain air quality monitoring stations that are sufficient to ensure adequate
monitoring.
L. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Recommendations
Recommendation IC-1. Amend Policies IC-1.1.2 to delete reference to the date, and
to state that the City will continue to implement the interlocal policies, as appropriate.
Recommendation IC-2. Amend Policy IC-1.1.3 to state that the City shall maintain
its membership on the Metropolitan Planning Organization and Transportation Planning
Council.
Recommendation IC-3. Amend Policy IC-1.1.4 to state that the City will seek or
maintain membership on committees and agencies addressing the environmental health
and water quality of Biscayne Bay.
Recommendation IC-4. Policy IC-2.1.4 has been completed and should be deleted.
204
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
Recommendation IC-5. Amend Policy IC-2.2.1 to state that the City shall seek to
ensure the continued consistency of County Level of service standards for County
arterials and transportation corridors with State requirements.
205
Draft City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
CHAPTER V. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
In 1998, the State of Florida revised the statutory requirements for the EAR to allow local
governments to base their analysis on the key local issues that they are facing. In order to
comply with these requirements, and in recognition of the complicated and diverse range
of planning issues that the City of Miami is currently facing, the City initiated its EAR
process with an extensive community involvement effort that occurred between May and
July 2004. During this time, the Project Team conducted approximately 30 meetings that
entailed: a series of one-on-one meetings with key City staff and elected officials; an
interagency scoping meeting held on May 24, 2004 with adjacent local governments, and
County, regional, and State agencies; five public workshops (one per Commission
district), and a workshop with the City's Planning Advisory Board on July 28, 2004.
This process is also detailed in Appendix A, the Public Participation Summary section of
this report.
206
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
APPENDIX A
Appendix A contains the summaries of public workshops, interagency scoping meeting,
and staff meeting notes pertaining to the 2005 City of Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
A-1
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Gonzalez Meeting District 1
April 27, 2004
A meeting was held with Frank Castaneda, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Gonzalez, to
inform him regarding EAR and Transportation Element update process. The following
project issues and concerns were discussed:
• Zoning density changes should be considered from R-1 to R-2 to reflect a high
number of current illegal units, which are not reflected in the Census. Special
notice must be made to those cases that detract from neighborhood zoning codes,
including multiple cars and trucks parked in front of single family residences.
• Development along the Miami River, particularly in those areas that appear to be
in transitional use. These areas are located along what is referred to as `Middle
River' whereby current industrial uses are being changed to residential High -Rise
land uses.
• Land uses around the planned Miami Intermodal Center (MIC).
• The following areas were identified as areas of concern for development:
o Civic Center Area
o Flagami
o Miami River
o 36th Street
o 22nd Avenue movement from R-2 to R-4
o Delaware Parkway & River
• The following areas were specifically identified as areas of concern for
transportation/traffic circulation/signalization issues:
o Civic Center Area
o Miami River
o North River Drive
o 22nd Avenue
A-2
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Regalado Meeting District 4
April 28, 2004
A meeting was held with Commissioner Regalado, District 4, to inform him regarding the
EAR and Transportation Element update process. The following project issues and
concerns were discussed:
• Traffic and new residential development issues, including high density
development along the Coral Gate corridor.
• Historic preservation and neighborhood conservation districts. These districts
offer protection from development. Neighborhood conservation districts may be
needed for Shenandoah, Silver Bluff and Coral Gate areas.
• Coral Way @ 22 Avenue is an office building that is occupied by Section 8
Miami -Dade County Housing that has multitude of old battered cars, frequently
illegally parked around the building. Issue to protect the single-family home
areas.
• There is no parking along Coral Way and people use residential streets to park.
• Consider ban for new motels along S.W. 8 Street and a SD overlay district similar
to that of Biscayne Blvd.
• Speed is an issue on NW 3rd Street, between 48th & 57th Street. Consider traffic
calming devices, including traffic humps and circles (this is the Flagami West
area).
• Coral Gate residents have requested traffic alleviation solutions along Coral Way
between 32nd & 37th Street. Consider study to look at alternatives to alleviate
traffic conditions.
A-3
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Winton Meeting District 2
April 29, 2004
A meeting was held with Frank Balzebre, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Winton,
District 2, to inform him regarding the EAR and Transportation Element update process.
The following project issues and concerns were discussed:
• Consider trust fund for parking. Look at development bonuses for parking.
• The comprehensive neighborhood plan currently has the majority of all goals,
objectives, and policies to promote affordable housing. This is not reflective of
the City today. The City needs to include median/moderate housing.
• Increase relationship with School Board and promote more charter schools.
Consider bonus development incentives for charter schools. City has been
historically a feeder area for school impact fees. This is going to change with the
re -districting of impact fees. FAR bonus for charter and private schools.
• FAR Affordable Housing trust fund should remain in downtown. Consider study
to determine needs for a citywide parks and/or parking trust fund.
• Consider buffer/transitional zones between high rises and single-family home
areas. Focus high rises along rail corridor.
• Promote streetcar system between the Design District and the downtown area.
• Look at the goals, objectives, and policies of the downtown master plan.
A-4
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
City of Miami EAR/Transportation Element
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Sanchez Meeting District 3
April 30, 2004
A follow-up meeting was held with Commissioner Sanchez staff, Steve Wright, to
discuss EAR and Transportation Element project issues and concerns:
• How do we accommodate growth?
• Traffic Impacts on Miami Avenue and Coral Way are a concern.
• Encourage growth around the Metrorail Stations.
• Need a step down transition in heights between high-rise commercial and
residential neighborhoods.
• Need for pedestrian friendly development along major corridors.
• Need for street level uses around parking garages.
• Provide screening between residential neighborhood and parking garages.
• The City wants a light rail/street car system connecting downtown west to Coral
Gables.
• Restore Calle Ocho to a Main Street atmosphere: on -street parking, wide
sidewalks, street trees, etc.
• Balance in affordable housing with conservation of existing multi -family
residential areas. Need for conversion of older multi -family units to create more
starter market housing.
A-5
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Mayor Diaz Office
April 30, 2004
A meeting was held with Otto Boudet-Murias staff to Mayor Diaz to inform him
regarding EAR and Transportation Element update process. The following project issues
and concerns were discussed:
• Concerned with Education, Transportation, and Affordable Housing.
• Further review regarding affordable housing citywide in the CNP.
• The EAR can set the framework for the Master Plan by laying -out the framework
for changes in emphasis such as infill, urbanism and housing. EAR needs to
reference these changes.
• Community has concern about the impact of towers adjacent to single family
neighborhoods in major corridors. There is no transition from single family to
high-rise commercial. This is a City-wide problem not just in corridors.
• Concern about possible conflict along the River in land use between the Marine
Industry and multi -family land use. Economic Development Department is
conducting a study to determine the impact of the River Port.
o The Miami River Commission has a plan for the River but it is not
adopted by the City.
o Need a river plan that displays a long-term vision.
o Maintenance of the Upper River for Marine Industrial may be an issue for
Homeland Security
o City needs to adopt and approve an appropriate long range plan for the
Miami River.
• Interest in light rail/street car system connecting major neighborhoods.
o Design District, west to Coral Gables, Little Haiti to Model Cities, and
Flagler.
o The City is interested in possibly implementing the downtown Loop on
their own for all the other lines to tie into.
o Use the City's PTP funds for projects.
• The City is developing a Master Plan that goes well beyond zoning.
o The plan includes Parks, Economic Development, and Education.
o The City is actively seeking to capture school impact fees for use with
Charter Schools. Need to develop policies for Education not an Element.
A-6
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Mayor Diaz Office (continued)
April 30, 2004
• Need for a policy regarding affordable Housing that emphasizes the need to
decentralize affordable housing rather than concentrating it in specific
neighborhoods.
• Historic Preservation right now is policy. May be a need for this category to be an
Element.
• The Park Master Plan is focusing on programming and educational programs —
not landscaping.
o A park endowment fund to get capital flowing into parks.
o Update parks impact fee (No change for 15 years)
• Emphasis on Cultural Improvements at Bicentennial Park
A-7
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Teele Meeting District 5
May 5, 2004
A meeting was held with Commissioner Arthur Teele, Jr., District 5, to inform him
regarding the EAR and Transportation Element update process. The following project
issues and concerns were discussed:
• Consider study for citywide transit subsidy. Need to lay the foundation for benefit
districts to recapture economic activity attributable to transit.
• Improve intergovernmental coordination with the county for City projects.
• Consider including a Parking Element within the Transportation Element.
Concern with existing parking problems in Little Haiti, Wynwood, Allapattah and
Model City areas. Also parking problems on NE 20 Street and in the Allapattah
area.
• Development pressures exist to redevelop industrial land for residential uses.
Concern for preserving and/or strengthening industrial areas in district.
Consideration for the creation of a special district Contract Overlay to preserve
industrial land use in specific areas- addressing land uses not zoning.
• There was controversy in district regarding converting industrial land for parks.
• Concerned about instituting Light -Industrial zoning and/or C-1 in district.
• As per staff, Light -Industrial zoning mandates mixed land uses and single uses are
not permitted. C-1 does not have this problem and allows similar uses to Light -
Industrial.
• Consider the promotion of Infill Homeownership and reducing or eliminating
parking requirements in order to promote infill ownership. Study other incentives
for infill ownership.
• Look at State Surtax dollars in order to move away from affordable rental housing
and move towards homeownership.
A-8
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Commissioner Teele Meeting District 5 (continued)
May 5, 2004
• Interest in maintaining historic buildings and markers. Staff mentioned TDR's as
incentives for historic preservation.
• Club District has the only 24-hour district in the County; consideration for
changing the boundaries to increase the size of this district.
• Consider Height Restrictions along the river, specifically from the 5th Street
Bridge to 12th Avenue.
A-9
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Historic Preservation Meeting
May 13, 2004
Attendees
Sarah Eaton, Preservation Officer, Department of Planning and Zoning
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
The City applied for and received a Preservation Development Initiative grant from the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. An Assessment Report was completed by
NTHP.
Initially, the City Commission designated properties historic. Now, the Historic &
Environmental Preservation Board designates buildings and historic districts.
The Commission gave $225,000 to hire consultants to complete 25 individual designation
reports and 2 National Register nominations, conduct a survey in Little Haiti and Model
City, prepare brochures and a website, and produce historic markers.
There is no authority to stop demolition if the property is not designated.
We must adopt incentives to property owners, such as TDR's, so that additional
properties can be designated without property owners believing that they are being
unfairly burdened.
Goals Objectives Policies
Policies LU-2.1.1 and 2. Sites have been identified and the survey will continue to be
updated.
Objective LU-2.2 Protect Archeological Resources. The City has assumed jurisdiction for
the arch. Surveys and has hired an archaeologist.
A-10
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Historic Preservation Meeting (continued)
May 13, 2004
Delete Policy LU-2.2.4 — Not applicable all the designated/identified sites around the
City require a Certificate of Appropriateness. If not designated, no penalties.
Objective LU-2.3 Increase number of sites by 5% annually. Modify to state actually
numbers. Get log from Sarah.
Policies LU-2.3.1 and .2 The City does continue to nominate and designate sites.
Objective LU-2.4 Increase number of structures preserved based on US Dept. of Interior
Standards. Met and done through Certificate of Appropriateness process.
Policies LU-2.4.1 through .4 Has that number of sites increased? Yes, several hundred
per year Starting 1/1/04 an excel spreadsheet is available.
Policies LU-2.5.1 through .4 Public Awareness items Brochures were created in 2003 and
a website was developed - www.historicpreservationmiami.com
Objective HO-1.2 Conserve low and mod housing and preserve historic housing. There
are currently 4 S-F areas designated historic.
Modify Policy HO-1.2.11 from Historic Conservation Article to Chapter 23 of the Miami
City Code.
A-11
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
EAR/Transportation Element Update
May 14, 2004
Attendees:
Lilia Medina, City of Miami
Kevin Provance, City of Miami
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
• Need a location driven Bibliography.
• The V/C table was removed from the TE.
• Need to revisit the GOP wording.
• Need to follow the LRTP development and make sure that someone attends the
LRTP meetings. The timing coordination of the 2030 plan is dependant upon the
availability of the data.
• Need to look at the Transportation Corridors Report. The last update was 1990.
• Need to look at the FDOT and County street definitions.
• How do you mitigate transportation growth? Congestion Management?
• The plan needs to have an emphasis on Congestion Management Strategies.
• How do you take into account the Coral Way Scenic designation and the Biscayne
Blvd. Historic District
• It is the Transportation Corridors including the 1/2 mile circle around the transit
stations.
• The final version of the Downtown Transportation master plan is not final as it
does not include the change made at the meeting that were to advance the Miami
River Tunnel to phase I and to advance the depression of I-395 to phase I.
• The concurrency analysis is being dropped because it is not required. Should it be
dropped?
• New Bicycle Plan that is newer that the North Dade Greenway Plan
• Need the analysis of Calle Ocho to convert the 7/8th Street couplet from one-way.
• Transportation around the Civic Center is a high priority.
• The City is preparing a feasibility study for Street Car.
• Planning and Zoning has initiated a study of 15 neighborhood corridors.
• FEC Corridor Master Plan Need to coordinate with the South Florida Commuter
Services.
• Need to measure each objective against a matrix to determine if there is a
reasonable timeframe for the effort, funding, staffing and a legislative mandate.
• Need to get the Flagler Marketplace. It is out to bid.
A-12
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 4
May 18, 2004
• Intergovernmental coordination Concerns with countywide transportation
• Schools
• Congestion
• Coral way corridor
o What plans are in place?
o Will it increase the integrity of the neighborhood?
o Concerned with height
o Not accessible to community
o No retail
o Access on side streets
o Parking
o Street level use
o 8-10 planned new developments
o Increase busses
• Douglas to 27th avenue Buildings next to single family homes
o Signs for 8-10 developments on the south side
o What is going to happen to community?
o Too many high rises
o Traffic
• Density
• Schools
o More appropriate height 6-8 stories not 18
• Development is good, but more public input regarding type of development
• Traffic and parking — MAJOR ISSUES
• Zoning enforcement is required
• Green space is needed — neighborhood is being destroyed Rental properties do not
ad value to community
• How is development going to impact traffic
• Why are their building 18 stories high next to single family homes 27 avenue -
moratorium & overlay to help control development
• Establish more design standards and guidelines
o Height
o Designs
o Setbacks
A-13
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 4 (continued)
May 18, 2004
• More pedestrian friendly areas
• Airport
o Noise from planes trigger car alarms at night
o High volume of traffic lots of vehicle noise
o Large volume of traffic
o Design district has airport noise
• Need intergovernmental coordination for traffic
• Schools
• Beautification of school/grounds needs to be more attractive City/district needs
improved cooperation with School Board
• 8th Street-US1 @l7thavenue
o State road
o Too wide and splits neighborhood
• 16th Street
o Local road
o Too much traffic
• City needs more "Clout" the state should support local government
• 18th Avenue & 16th Street
o Need more traffic control
• Make recommendation that the state recognize local authority
• 24 Terrace
o A relief for US
o Residential street not meant for relief
• Baseball Stadium
o Need traffic calming in the area
• 22'd Avenue to SR US 1 to Coral Way
o Residents want to know what types of developments are going to be done
• When will we see the plan
• Will we have anymore input?
• Largest development is in the Shenandoah area
• Increase # of buses in the coral way area
• In favor of Baylink/light rail to Miami Beach
• Waterways- look at water taxis
A-14
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 4 (continued)
May 18, 2004
• Miami River- look at Riverwalk in FTL
• Make comp plans available on line (adopted)
• Citizens were not informed of the meeting
• Put Future Land Use map on line
• Concerned with growth
o Shenandoah association thinking of neighborhood conservation district
o Do not want historic houses nest to new developments
o Want to preserve the character of their area
• Parks- Green space
o More trees in the area
o More shading landscaping
o Improve LOS for parks
o Parks -should serve the entire community
• Mommy & me classes
• Elderly programs
• Middle age friendly
• Mixed use
• School bus stop at 12th street & 12th avenue
o Illegal duplexes and bus stop combined
• Need affordable housing
• Code enforcement is an issue
• Loss of green space when single family units are illegally turned into multi units -
too many cars on SF
• Need zoning enforcement - Prior every building that met zoning only needed a
building permit
• More intergovernmental coordination
o 17th Avenue/24th Terrace
• No left turn- denied by county
• Too wide, too fast
• Needs median, landscaping, traffic calming
• Safety zone for pedestrians
• Streamline current look of neighborhood without stopping growth
A-15
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 2
May 20, 2004
• Do developers have to follow policy
• How does Comp Plan fit into transportation congestion
• Get people out of cars and into Public Transit
• Pedestrian friendly walkways
• US 1 Biscayne Blvd is state facility- state has to work with the plan Watson island
redevelopment as non -recreational
• Incongruence between new development and existing land use
• Where can a policy be developed that will protect the neighborhood- buffers
against others (traffic, parking, transportation, etc...)
• Noise from new uses -mixed use even new residential areas need protection
• Can the Comp Plan prevent the city from varying from the Comp Plan
• Is there a legal ability to restrict amendments
• Tighten up the requirements for variance
• Improve notification process for land use change
• Areas in Coconut Grove
o Waterfront noise
• Village West
o Improve infrastructure
o Maintain improvements on Grand avenue
o Under grounding utilities
o Zoning -maintain r-1
o Maintain affordable housing
• Historic preservation
• US1 under control of outside agencies- return local control of US 1 to City
• Traffic light synchronization
• Centralized traffic control center
• Tree canopy is disappearing daily from the Grove
• Code enforcement is abysmal in the Grove
• Enforce tree protection
• Make sure that entertainment districts are buffered from the residential areas
• Lack of enforcement penalties
A-16
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 2 (continued)
May 20, 2004
• Permits should only be issued when infrastructure is available (especially if
multiple projects are on line at the same time)
• Need more green space at eyelevel- especially high rises
• More setbacks on heights
• Parks as parks- not festival commercial areas
• Need public access to the Bay
• Clean up river —look at Riverwalk
• Correct zoning- high rise residential in the wrong district
• Make ordinance violations penalties have more impact for violator- economically
meaningful
• 24-hour code violation officers
• Waterfront- protect from development
• Maintaining current level of development -no more development Control
construction impacts on surrounding areas
• Impact fees should be spent in the areas where they were generated
A-17
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Capital Improvements Element Meeting
May 21, 2004
Attendees
Jorge Martinez Esteve, Dept. of Economic Development
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Department of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Jose Casanova, Department of Planning and Zoning
Lilia Medina, Department of Planning and Zoning
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• Should continue the search for additional funding options
• Make every effort to assure that the GOP's of the Plan and the CIP are consistent
and complimentary to each other. This would strengthen both processes.
• Need to make sure new projects are equitably distributed throughout the City.
• Look at Transit Tax
• Review Impact Fees (not done often enough)
• Homeland Defense Neighborhood Bond Program — rough draft of administrative
guidelines will be completed in one month.
• Review Financial and Project Database
• CDBG Funds — specific areas of neighborhoods
• Follow-up with staff regarding Special Assessment Districts
• Follow-up with staff regarding Bond Oversight Bond Liaison
A-18
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
CITY OF MIAMI 2005 COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAN
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING ISSUES
MAY 24, 2004
3:00 p.m.
City of Miami City Commission Chambers
Miami City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
ATTENDEES
Dickson Ezeala, DCA
Walker Banning, DCA
Steve Foren, City of Miami Beach
Vivian Villamil, Miami -Dade County Public Schools
Joanne Can, City of Aventura
Karen McGuire, FDOT
Miranda Blogg, Kittelson Assoc.
Robert Daniels, South Florida Regional Planning Council
Ted Baldyga
Debora Storch, City of Hialeah
Mirtha Gonzalez, City of Hialeah Gardens
Andrew Dickman, Councilmember, Village of El Portal
Michael Miller, Consultant for Bal Harbour Village, Golden Beach, Bay Harbor
Islands and Indian Creek Village
Richard Cannone, City of Coral Gables
Mario Garcia, Miami -Dade Transit
Winsome Bohn, Consultant, MDX
Don O'Donnely, City of South Miami
Paula Church, Miami -Dade County Department of Planning & Zoning
Brett Bibeau, Miami River Commission
Jose Casanova, City of Miami Planning Department
Mark Dorsey, City of Miami Planning Department
Kevin Provance, City of Miami Planning Department
Hal Ruck, City of Miami Planning Department
Project Consultant Team:
The Corradino Group
URS Corporation
Bell David Planning Group
A-19
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Interagency Scoping Meeting Issues (continued)
May 24, 2004
Historical and Archeological Preservation
• School Board owned properties on list of historic sites for funding resources
• Create incentives to save buildings
• Get more buildings on historic properties list faster
• Strengthen regulations
• Review GOP's to see how well they address
• Section 1305.2 put special emphasis on properties that may not be designated
• Regulations need to be strengthened
o Where did we go wrong?
• Level of preservation
Neighborhood Integrity
• Elevate neighborhoods as a priority
• Integrate land use/transit
• Lack of appropriate data on encroachment
o What's wrong with CNP?
• Keep integrity of marine industry
• Urban design
• Neighborhood/Street specific design
• CPTED
Affordable Housing
• Quantify affordable housing — Shimberg
• Supply vs. demand
• Workforce housing and proximity to transit
• Allapattah Gardens
• Santa Clara Apartments
• Tax incentives to keep mid -income
• More input from residents
• Pre -occupancy evaluation
• Post -occupancy evaluation
• Homeless
A-20
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Interagency Scoping Meeting Issues (continued)
May 24, 2004
Natural Resource Protection
• Look at types of trees
• Tree management plan
• Canopy > density
• Identify types
• Look at the problem first
• Connection between economic development and natural resources
Recreation and Open Space (Needs/Demands)
• How are recreational needs met with increasing density/intensity
• Keep pace with growth
• Viable open space
• How well have we done?
o Population
o Annexation
o Redevelopment
• Public access — more teeth in process
Transportation
• Increase (GREATLY) coordination with County (MDT and Public Works)
• Improve mobility
• Coordinate streetcar with other new sources of transit
• Water taxis — not feasible
o Get studies from Mario Garcia
• Transit title too broad break it down
• Transit feasibility
o Chapter 163.3191
• Person trip methodology
• Reductions in vehicle capacity — occupancy
• Measures of bikes and other modes
• Sidewalk evaluation
• Headways
• Revisit LOS E + 50
• Gap in real vs. stated vehicle occupancy
• Concurrency management
A-21
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Interagency Scoping Meeting Issues (continued)
May 24, 2004
• Assess roads if transit not getting ridership
• Nobody measures new trips
• Growth management not growth control
• Strategic intermodal corridor — Miami River
• Water taxis/Water buses
• Tunnels
• Office of Emergency Management
• Emergency Preparedness
Intergovernmental Coordination
• Neighboring communities
• Planner's Technical Committee — Good!
• School Interlocal
• Coordinate neighborhood comprehensive plans
• Need new schools to meet the demands of development
• Interlocal doesn't take effect when no increase in zoning
Additional Comments
• Consistency between CNP and LDR's
• CNP maximum should be zoning maximum with bonuses
• Good things from financial crises
• Economic development/creation of jobs
A-22
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 5
May 25, 2004
• Economic growth for community
• Community needs more input for Capital Improvement Projects/Code
Enforcement/Drainage Issues
• Increase speed to get money to projects/build quicker
• Work more closely with Community Associations
• Increase communication with Neighborhoods and Residents
• Each Community should have its own design
• City should look at other cities/communities as role models for examples of
Neighborhood Design and Planning
• Create Neighborhood identities
• Maintain habitat
• Preserve Neighborhoods
• Redirect funding to maintain housing stock
• Open spaces/plazas for:
o Neighborhood use/meeting areas
o Community/quality of life
• Increase Land Use mixes to encourage economic growth
• Utilize subsidy monies better for affordable ownership
• Make this program more accessible/Increase opportunities to the Community
• Community has enough Section 8 Housing preventing increase for
homeownership opportunities
• Monies directed to preserve Housing Stock
• Affordable Housing Threshold
o What is affordable?
o How do we determine definition of affordable housing?
• Increase H.O. Education
• Increase availability for low and moderate housing
• Keep neighborhood integrity
• Work more closely with FDOT regarding Homeless —CPTED
• Gentrification/Avoid displacement
• Increase Community access to Parks/Recreation decision process
• Increase Community facilities
• Increase LOS
• Increase street lighting
• Increase street signage
• Transportation Infrastructure development
A-23
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 5 (continued)
May 25, 2004
• Increase safety
• Increase parking (Model City)
• Provide adequate parking to support economic vitality and activity
• Pedestrian features
• Greenway development
• Look at other community models/role models to develop desirable pedestrian
features that will enhance Community
• Increase neighborhood involvement in the decision -making process
• Transportation Study to assess impacts
A-24
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Brownfields Meeting
May 25, 2004
Attendees
Keith Carswell, City of Miami
Craig, Brownfields Coordinator
Michael Goldstein, Chair, Brownfields Task Force
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Depaitment of Planning and Zoning
Bob, Department of Planning and Zoning
Jerry H. Bell, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• 25 years ago Congress took a strict approach that polluters should pay for
remediation costs. Laws were expanded that made anyone in the chain of
ownership liable for clean up - in some situations the last owner could be
liable for 100 % of clean up costs even if he/she was not responsible for
the original pollution. Lenders could be liable through extending
financing. As a result of this situation, the development community would
not touch brownfields, which became in essence blighting influence in
established neighborhoods. Often the location of these brownfields would
make them prime real estate if not for the perceived or real stigma and
liability.
• In the mid-1990s the Congress spearheaded a movement to address the issue.
Rather than the regulatory approach governments began to offer incentive to help
developers work through liability issues and institute cleanups to realize the site's
underlying potential. Significant grants were made available, both to local
governments to institute brownfield programs and to assist developers in clean up
and resolution of liability issues. The County's Brownfield Task Force and the
City's brownfield issue were addressed at this time.
A-25
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Brownfields Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
• Many brownfields are located at prime real estate - others are the corner
gas station sites in neighborhoods. Many brownfields are in disadvantaged
neighborhoods, at sites that would be prime for neighborhood businesses (i.e.
corner gas station lots). Development of these with neighborhood
businesses could create additional employment opportunities in disadvantaged
areas and assist in achieving economic development goals.
• There are a number of environmental justice issues associated with
Brownfields. The City of Clearwater identified environmental justice as an
issue in the development of their program.
• One problem associated with brownfields, and also more generally with
economic development, is that the City's industrial classification is too
restrictive. The Liberal commercial designation is preferable because of
the variety of uses allowed, including certain industrial uses. Many
Brownfield site are designated Industrial. This designation hinders their
development.
• Brownfields can also be developed as greenfields - used as parks,
greenspaces after restorations. There are examples of golf courses built
on former dumps.
o Tools to assist in brownfield development: funding
assistance (i.e. CDBG funds for neighborhood redevelopment); land use
incentives to add value to property (i.e. tax relief); reducing regulatory
obstacles.
• Big problem is marketing - brownfields carry a stigma. Consider coming up with
another name (i.e. redevelopment opportunity sites), marketing
programs, etc.
• Consider expanding designated brownfield area to include Virginia Key, more
"community brownfield" (i.e. corner gas station) sites.
A-26
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting
May 25, 2004
Attendees:
Kevin Provance, City of Miami
Lilia Medina, City of Miami
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
The following matrix was discussed and comments made during the meeting are in
the right hand column.
y
Deleted: ¶
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
1.1.1
none
none
Limits growth
in specific areas
This policy will be
analyzed for
possible revision
1.1.2.1
Exaggerates
potential growth
This policy will be
analyzed for
possible revision
1.1.2.2
Meets County
standard
1.1.2.3
Meets County
Standard
Follow-up calls
required
1.1.3
Meets FDOT
standards
Place elsewhere in
Element
1.1.4
Requires
MIT plan
Drop MIT
reference
Reword to reflect
City Policy
1.1.5
Attend TPC
meetings
Reword to reflect
heavier City
involvement
Cross Reference
1.1.6
Coordinate
MDT policy
TOD
1.1.7
Study and
restore one-
way streets
Study and
restore one-
way streets
Study and
restore one-
way streets
Improve wording
of policy
1.1.8
Code
enforcement
Amend LU
code for
parking
Neighborhood
parking needs
vs impact on
neighborhood
Should be zoning
code not LU code.
Remove energy
efficiency
reference.
A-27
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
1.1.10
Develop
Parking Map
Policy requires
map
development
Contact parking
authority.
1.1.11
Improve DT
grid system
1.1.12
Attend TPC
meeting
Depress 395;
add ramps
Replace with list
of projects in TE.
1.1.13
Change wording to
Transportation
Impact Fees.
1.1.14
Attend TPC
Remote
parking; express
bus stop
1.1.15
Manage
DT
parking
1.1.16
Develop DT
peripheral
parking
1.1.17
Coordinate
Ride sharing
Mandate
staff to
use
alternate
modes
Check with
Ridesharing Group
1.1.18
Coordinate
MDT
1.1.19
Incorporate
policies
1.1.20
Calculate
cost of
improvement
Need prior to
EAR
1.2.1
Code
enforcement
Part of PTM
A-28
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
1.3.2
Monitor
accident
locations
Improve
accident
locations
Cross reference to
CIP
1.4.1
Coordinate
with MD
County
Policy
confusing
1.4.2
Develop
streetscape
design
program
Develop
streetscape
design program
Remove bicycle
reference.
1.4.3
Provide C&G
where other
work is
underway
Cross reference
CIP.
1.4.4
Required
planning
studies
Install traffic
calming
1.5.
Add TDP
policies
1.5.1
Attend TPC
meetings
Change to transfer
locations for Tri-
Rail and Metrorail.
1.5.2
Prepare
detailed
studies
TOD
policies
Protect
neighborhoods
or encourage
TOD.
1.5.3
Participate
with
CCTMO
Change
CCTMO is
defunct, obtain
new plan for Civic
Center.
policy for
Civic
Center
1.5.4
Work with
MDT for
station
Local funds for
station
Should be Dupont
Plaza Metrorail
A-29
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
1.5.7
Attend TPC
meetings
Possible local
funds projects
or studies
Need to revisit
list
Reference List of
Projects.
1.5.9
Attend TPC
Use of
jitneys
Check status
1.5.10
Update
development
code
Improve
job
housing
balance
1.5.11
Coordinate
with TMI and
Commuter
Services
Enforce existing
Code
Make sure we are
rewriting TCM
ordinance.
1.5.12
Coordinate
with County
to establish
transit
baseline
1.5.13
Coordinate
with County
in developing
TDP
1.5.14
Incorporate
TDP projects in
TE
1.5.15
Incorporate
LRTP projects
into TE
1.6.1
Review and
incorporate
FDOT and
MPO plans
1.7.1
Preserve Right
of way
Check 9j5 to make
sure about this
policy.
A-30
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
1.8.2
Update TE to
reflect changes
in the LU
Element
1.9.1
Coordinate
with the Ports
and Airports
PA 1.1.1
City policy
supports the
Port
PA 1.1.2
Establish FTZ
near Port
PA 1.1.3
Assure that
sufficient
facilities
support the
Port
PA 1.1.4
Assure that
non -port
facilities are
not at the Port.
PA 1.1.5
All port
facilities are
financed by
County, State
and Feds.
PA 1.1.6
Port plan must
meet City
requirements
PA 1.1.7
Coordinate
with Port to
mitigate
impacts.
A-31
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Transportation Element Meeting (continued)
May 25, 2004
Policy
Staffing
Impact
Financial
Impact
Policy
Change
Issue
Meeting
Comments
PA 1.1.8
Coordinate
with Port to
mitigate
impacts.
PA 2.1.1
Coordinate
City policy
with goals of
Airport
PA 2.1.2
Coordinate
transp.
Improvements
to Airport.
No financial
impact to City
PA 2.1.3
Zoning
must
protect
flight path
PA 3.1.1
Protect
Port from
non-
compatibl
e uses.
PA 3.1.2
Encourage
expansion
of River
Port.
PA 3.1.3
Coordinate
with Port to
mitigate
impacts
PA 3.2.1
TE shall support
access to River.
PA 3.3.1
Support River
viability in
Comp Plan
• Need a policy about vacation of streets and alleyways.
• Need policies reflecting ADA requirements and bike paths.
A-32
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Parks Meeting
May 26, 2004
Attendees
Maria Perez, Support Services Coordinator, Depailinent of Park and Recreation
Ed Blanco, Department of Park and Recreation
Pasquale, Department of Park and Recreation
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Department of Planning and Zoning
Jose Casanova, Department of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• Get Consolidated Development Plan — Due out in June
(Community Development Plan)
• East Little Havana deficient in park acreage
• < 3% of General Fund goes to Park and Recreation little for operation and
maintenance
• Need to look at what should be counted as parks and open space for concurrency
purposes — look at redefining or change 1.3 acres/1000 people
• Trust for Public Lands has done research
• Encourage joint use agreements with schools/private facilities (parochial school
recreation sites) physical and programmatic
• We need to provide full service parks
• Look at readapting larger commercial buildings for community facilities
• Find alternate funding and/or new sources
• Get Total Impact Fee allocation fee ($12.40?) What goes to Parks?
• Revenues garnered in Parks through outside sources should stay in Parks
Department Survey being done on all public facilities for ADA accessibility
• Need to provide physical and programmatic accessibility to the disabled
A-33
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Parks Meeting (continued)
May 26, 2004
• Spring Garden Point Park — successful public/private partnership
• Very few purchases of land for parks in the last 5 years
• Planning, Asset Management and Parks all have different acreage figures for
parks and open space
• Need Parks and open space list with acreage
• Parks Master Plan
• Need to review Police crime analyses at parks to see if crime has been reduced
• Could we expand Park Ranger program through Police Department? There is one
at Margaret Pace Park
• There is a County Parks referendum ($1B?) Millions will come to City
• Capital dollars are easier to get than programmatic dollars
Policy Notes
• PR-1.11 Look at CDBG Target areas — no neighborhood management plans
• PR-1.1.3 Has the City considered density and intensity increases — No
• PR-1.1.4 and .5 Look at Virginia Key and Watson Island
• PR-1.1.7 No coordination with nonprofit providers, no budget for O&M,
because of budget restrictions not all age groups are served, priority age groups
are children and seniors
• PR-1.1.13 Waterfront zoning regulations and shoreline development regs.
Could work better
• Has the City acquired new land for parks — very little — Spring Garden, marina
north of Legion Park and two residential lots since 1999 — need acreage
• PR-1.3.1 Compare Capital Program of Department with CIP
• PR-1.3.5 Public/Private Partnerships — need more programs sponsored —
some partnerships are formal and some informal
• PR-1.3.8 Parks Advisory Board -- possibly look at Sunsetting and/or
revisiting to better define role — maybe ad hoc by some type of district and
encourage more public involvement/participation
• Objective PR-1.4 Review fees and definition of LOS
• Developer contributions and impact fees do not offset the impacts of new
residents
• Objective PR-1.5 Some parks have been redeveloped and there are master
plans for others, new park Little Haiti master plan
• Bayfront Park Trust has control over Bayfront and Bicentennial Parks
• PR-2.1.3 Have any new scenic corridors been designated
A-34
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Economic Development Meeting
May 28, 2004
Attendees
Keith Carswell, Director Economic Development and Asset Management
Carmen, Econ. Dev.
Laurie, Econ. Dev.
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Depaitinent of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• Offer incentives to revitalize
• The City has a very limited commercial facade program - $5000 max. with very
limited overall funding
• All issues are "lack of funding" driven
• No program to educate merchants
• Federal Empowerment Program — unfunded
• Strategic Development Plans to review — Watson Island, Virginia Key, FEC,
Empowerment Zone
• No analysis of zoning to determine impact on Econ. Dev.
• Contact Barbara Rodriguez in Community Development
• Come up with other ways to allow for purchase of homes. 2nd soft mortgages is
one idea
• Need to facilitate development
• Working on Enhanced Facade program, coordinated between Community
Development and Economic Development, to grant up to $50000 for
improvements
• CDBG is prohibitive towards workforce housing monies
• City needs more public/public and public/private partnerships
• River important economic engine must keep industry on part of it at least
• Land assembly issues — 20 potential sites along River
• Meet with the Miami River Economic Study people
• "Preserve, Protect and Nurture" the Port of Miami River
• Meet with DDA
• A problem is there is no definition of Entertainment District so Economic
Development cannot provide incentives
• Make better use of TIF's
A-35
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Economic Development Meeting (continued)
May 28, 2004
• Economic Development and Zoning must work in tandem "hand in hand"
• Necessary to provide Government Facilities for public safety but very difficult
because of zoning — have a policy to allow waiver of zoning requirements "for the
public good" — look at the County GF process Section 33-303 Exclusive
Procedure
Policy Notes
• The City has no overall Economic Development Strategic Plan
• LU-1.2.3 concerning securing federal and state funds for revitalization — there are
none
• Lu-1.3.1-14 There are no policies for providing incentives and assistance in
obtaining monies
• Downtown revitalization efforts may hinder economic development in the short
term
• There are things in the CNP and LDR's that limit economic development efforts —
size of development for one
• Move towards workforce housing monies
A-36
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Housing Meeting
June 1, 2004
Attendees
Barbara Gomez -Rodriguez, Director, Depat rent of Community Development
Dr. Ned Murray, AICP, FIU
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Depaituient of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Bob Schwartz, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• We must preserve the remaining affordable housing
• Instead of percentages when should use real numbers of rental and owned
residences. Whatever monies are available that's how many units the City can
provide
• There are different definitions of moderate income
80% of median
120% (state)
• The Commission needs to be provided with one definition
• Need to beef up the Housing Trust Fund
• Section 202 Housing HUD
• 75% of CD money is to be used towards homeownership
• All state money is for S-F rehab
• Need to put more money into public information and the City will be
• Neighborhood Development Zones will have Model Blocks that will have extra
funds for upgrading, enforcement, home loans etc.
• Crosswinds will have 80 units set aside for 80% of median households (HUD
definition) and 120 units at 120% state definition
• Need to coordinate with the County better and receive fair share of Doc. Stamp
monies
• County and state staff sit on City 's Loan Committee
• Homeless assistance monies do not go for living units only for outreach programs
• Need more direct funding from County and State to the City
• Housing program has rarely assisted in helping people displaced by public
projects
A-37
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Housing Meeting (continued)
June 1, 2004
Policy Notes
• HO-1.1.1 modify to have one definition of affordable
• HO-1.1.2 modify to state that City should get it's fair share of Doc. Stamp Surtax
• HO-1.1.11 review and modify zoning bonuses policies units vs. money need to
require more of developers
• HO-1.2.4 City wants to partner non-profit w/ for profit developers
• HO-1.2.8 change to reflect number of demolitions/year
• HO-1.2.10 goal to demolish included in Consolidated Plan
• HO-1.4.6 City ordinance will not support homeless programs/housing
A-38
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Works Meeting
June 1, 2004
Attendees
Len Helmers, Department of Public Works
Amilcar Choquehuanca, Department of Public Works
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Depaituient of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• Institute better/stronger policies to require reconstruction/restoration of streets
when excavation takes place
• Create a Utilities Management Database for the purpose of underground utilities
locations
• The relationship between the Zoning Ordinance and Public Works is OK
• Infrastructure projects are more numerous and on target mostly due to the Bond
Issue
• Better coordination with county (PW) needed at staff level
• There is coordination with DERM and WASD but cooperation is lacking with
WASD (contact Philip Torres)
•
• 1986 Storm Drainage Master Plan was amended in 1999 — some regulations were
updated
•
• Public Right -of -Way improvements are in CIP
A-39
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Works Meeting (continued)
June 1, 2004
• Developers provide facilities/services at or above what is required due to the
impacts of their development
• Public Works does not have an Intergovernmental Coordination Officer or
Liaison
Policy Notes
• SS-1.1.1 South Grove still served by septic which is 3% of area of City
• The City has no wastewater projects — it's DERM
• SS-1.1.4 should be 2001 Plan
• TR-1.4.2 a draft of the streetscape design program should be completed by Fall —
will be official document
• TR-1.7.1 Public Right-of-Way's are being protected— doing a good job
A-40
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 1
June 3, 2004
• Increased police presence
• Too many illegal units
• Between 14th-20th streets at 32id-371i Avenue, adjust land use to reflect what is
there. Remains R-1. Change the zoning
• Miami is growing zoning needs to reflect change
• Address overpopulation
• Need affordable housing
• Code enforcement required
• Illegal multi -family housing generate extra cars- no place for parking
• 7th Street Beautification Project- Heavy development -apartments
• 42nd Avenue/LeJeune is renovated for entrance to MIC
• Entrance to MIC- Beautification to 37th avenue- DO NOT increase traffic flow to
protect neighborhood
• Illegal units next to Single Family homes- need consistency in land use
• 14th Street- important arterial road.
• Trailer park/shelter- examine both sides between 27th and 12th avenue
• 78 marine related companies on the river
• Need to save some of the waterfront for the marine industries
• Significant developments on river (high rises) need transportation to get people in
and out
• 300,000 sf commercial at the Civic Center -River housing trying to attract
• Residents from the Civic Center area. Need more services in the area to support
needs of workers
• Efforts to redevelop 36th street
o If up zone keep sufficient park, open space, schools and transportation
• Minimize impacts of infrastructure projects
• Stronger coordination with neighborhood about construction projects
• Densification- wrong ratio between cars and number of bedrooms
• Miami River Plan has not been adopted by City of Miami
A-41
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 1 (continued)
June 3, 2004
• "Hurricane Cove"-
o Putting in 1,000 units-
o Maximizing density on site
o Based on more land than building
o Site sits on submerged land
• State 2000 Miami River Improvement Act -Joint Planning Agreement
• More police enforcement on the River
• Address drug issues on the River
• City EAR should make Comprehensive Plan consistent with Miami River Plan
• Establish appropriate transit on areas B/W zoning
• Per every 700 units- set aside a specific amount of square footage of acreage
• Mitigate abuse on GI zoning
• Jackson High School will be demolished and rebuilt this will change image on
36th Street
• Need more sewer lines
• New storm water sewer lines
• Too much turn up -negative neighborhood impacts from capital impacts- reduce)
• City has created many plans that have not been adopted
• Metrorail runs every 15 min during rush hour- buses are every hour- need more
coordinated services. Coordination between transportation systems to allow more
system wide use
• Make zoning changes gradual
• Demolition of historical buildings- incompatible uses near historical resources
• Storm sewers- streets flood with the rain
o Problems addressed through Capital Improvements
o Abandoned Housing- is there a time limit Need to increase code
enforcement on this issue
o Current Comp Plan has 11 policies
• Why is Grapeland Park locked up to residents
• Not familiar with Comprehensive plan to comment
• Meetings one day in English and then in Spanish
• Consider road infrastructure when looking at proposed development capacity
A-42
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 3
June 7, 2004
• Drainage problems
o Flagler and 12th Avenue
o 17th Street & NW 32-33rd Avenues (3230 NW 17th street)
• Increase community access/ awareness for CIP projects and public meetings
• Marlins stadium -What will happen to Orange Bowl
• Potable water
• Drainage
• Land use coordination
• Impacts on neighborhood
• Economic development
• Grapeland Heights Park
o Need for increased access for community to use ballpark
• Need for more busses and transit in the area
• More parking for new development along the Coral Way Corridor and other areas of
the City
• Look at parking code requirements
• Economic development need in Little Havana
o Build redevelopment to attract higher income households
o Outdoor cafes -City provide incentives for current business to create outside
cafes
• Create neighborhoods where you can live, work, and play in
• Mixed -use redevelopment
• Increased lighting
• Expand Jose Marti Park -more security
• Encourage the expansion of cultural activities and events
• Redevelop Flagler area similar to other corridors like Key Biscayne
• Height restrictions- need to evaluate most desirable area for this type of development
(downtown)
• Invest in Potable Water Projects to allow and provide for future development
• Invest in Capital Improvements projects for roadway improvements
• Increased Police Protection
• Increase code enforcement
• Tourism along Miami River, SW 8th street, Flagler and Little Havana
o Water taxis
A-43
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Public Information Meeting District 3 (continued)
June 7, 2004
o Restaurants
o Outdoor activities
o Entertainment like Lincoln Road
o Marketing- City wide promotions
• Water conservation
o Look at new developments for consistency regarding conservation efforts
• Height restrictions along Coral Way
• Little Havana area — preserve affordable/moderate housing
• Historic preservation along Coral Way
• Public comments
o Website
o Comment sheets
• Too easy to change zoning
• Affordable housing set aside with large scale developments
• Affordable housing is too concentrated
• Full potential of Brickell is not realized
• Land use compatible with infrastructure
• Preserve neighborhoods
• Higher densities along transit corridors
• Sufficient parking along new development corridors
• Consider where future station are located
• Take bold steps to attract transit riders
• Multi-modalism
• More roads lead to more autos
• Preserve existing R-O-w as open space
• Add more green/open space
• Need more sources of funds for parks
o Trusts for parks
A-44
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Land Use Meeting
June 9, 2004
Attendees
Lourdes Slazyk, Assistant Director, Department of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Summary of Meeting Issues:
• The zoning code will be changed to be more user friendly — Miami 21
• Code will translate to transects
• The new code will be more reflective of quality of life issues
• Code enforcement has been increasing
• The Interlocal Agreement has improved coordination
• Infrastructure improvements are on target
• Good urban infill is needed to serve neighborhood residents
• Supports C-1 (restricted commercial) being encouraged in growing residential
areas. This would allow mixed-use/include more language with C-1 to allow
businesses to locate near residential areas/mixed-use
• Affordable/Workforce housing must be
• Need sufficient land area to build higher density/intensity buildings. Lot depth a
major problem/also language for transitional buffer districts/both specifically
relate to LU 1.3.5
• Building parking structures should be lined with other uses to promote aesthetics
— needs to be required
• Urban design standards enforcement should be better enforced
• MUSP process needs to be more in depth with design and traffic review added
• Contact Downtown Miami Business Association
• Waivers are granted for projects for enhanced public amenities/access/baywalks
A-45
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Land Use Meeting (continued)
June 9, 2004
• There is not a lot of coordination with Miami -Dade County There is consistency
between the Comp Plan and LDR's
• Applicability matrix for GOP's in process
• NEW POLICY: Create or Promote UCD's in and around Downtown esp. in
combination with CRA
• Look for uses for areas underneath expressways
• Change Correspondence Table to put MCNP first, cleanup and add LI
• New Policy to define what are the real issues of urban infill
• Pertaining to LU-1.5.1 & LU 1.5.2: promote creation of scenic, environmental
and historical corridors
• Needs more language to improve LU 3.1.1. and LU 3.1.2 Add language to
encourage the development of new RAC's
A-46
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Solid Waste Meeting
June 10, 2004
Attendees
Mario E. Soldevilla, Assistant Director, Department of Solid Waste
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Mark Dorsey, Depaitment of Planning and Zoning
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Meeting Notes
• The City services single family homes and buildings 3 units or less. Some 4-
plexes have been grandfathered (Sec. 22.2)
• Commercial or high density typically by private
• The LOS standard is 7 Ibs./person/day
• There is one main trash transfer station in the City
• The City collects 184,000 tons/year including 5,000 tons of recycled material and
626 tons of compost
• The City does coordinate with the County
• Change Policy SW-1.2.1 to say Miami -Dade County Department of Solid Waste
• Solid Waste fee schedules are reviewed on an as needed basis per Sec. 22.93
• Enforcement is good
• There is a Sanitation Services Coordinator
• Publications are available
• The City has a Cleanup Program
Items Provided:
• Maps of Garbage, Large/Bulky Trash and Curbside Recycling Collection
Schedules
• Residential Services List
• Your Solid Waste Services at a Glance Pamphlet for Model Cities Area
The City of Miami Yard Trash Management Facility B
A-47
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Planning Staff Issues and Ideas
June 17, 2004
Attendees
Kevin Provance, Department of Planning and Zoning
Hal Ruck, Department of Planning and Zoning
Susan Cambridge, Department of Planning and Zoning
Jose Casanova, Department of Planning and Zoning
Gregory Gay, Department of Planning and Zoning
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Jerry Bell, Bell David Planning Group
Alex A. David, Bell David Planning Group
Staff Issues and Ideas
Four Major Elements
1) Transportation
2) Housing
3) Future Land Use
4) Parks and Recreation
Additional Elements
1) Economic Development
2) Public Safety
Future Land Use
Important Components (Goals)
1) Quality of Life
2) Encourage Uses
3) Location of Intensities and Densities
4) Natural Resources
Streamline the Goals
1) Easier/User Friendly Language (Flow)
2) ID the Goals/Generalize
Reference the New Land Development Code
Reference Design Standards and Guidelines
A-48
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Planning Staff Issues and Ideas (continued)
June 17, 2004
Opportunities for Annexation for Continuing Growth and Development
1) Economic Development
Look at the "Middle Income" Sector (Housing Element Issue)
High Density Transportation Link
Review CBRF Policies (Specify locations)
Review Statutes
Review Miami River Plan (Keep it open for changes))
Encourage Citywide RAC's (Regional Activity Centers)
(Specific references, i.e. Buena Vista)
1) Keep it specific
2)
Encourage Urban Central Districts (UCD's)
Encourage Revitalization, Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Citywide
whether blighted conditions, etc. or not
Housing
Goal 1
1) Expand to include all residents in City
2) Breakout Low/Mod in Objective
Consider home ownership as Goal? Objective?
Encourage mixed income/age within new development
Encourage suitable transition between high density development and low density
residential especially along major commercial corridors
Redefine (allow) — legalize "Granny Flats" (in appropriate districts)
Encourage mixed use development in designated areas along the Miami River
Encourage "Middle Income" development
A-49
Parks
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Planning Staff Issues and Ideas (continued)
June 17, 2004
Have/promote and encourage a "RAC" link to housing
Encourage incentives for "Middle Income" development, i.e. taxes,
bonuses etc.
Re-evaluate methodologies to determine housing Goals and Objectives, i.e.
percentages, actual figures, etc.
Encourage "home ownership" through incentives, i.e. (live/work units, tax breaks
etc.) Citywide
Encourage "Live/work units" Citywide where it is appropriate
Look at historic preservation in a "holistic" approach to consider a possible
element
Do not group objectives — specify objectives/break them out
Review safety hazards regarding unsafe structures
Encourage rehabilitation as another option besides demolition
Policy to have "historic" structures to follow current building codes
For rehab facilities, adhere to zoning code
Homelessness? (What social solutions do we need to address?)
Encourage "RAC's" as a concept for other urban nodes beyond a city center
(see Goal HO-2)
Ensure funding for recreation programs for kids/adults
Encourage school recreation area after hours/weekends
Encourage park land development and expansion in deficient neighborhoods
A-50
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Planning Staff Issues and Ideas (continued)
June 17, 2004
Update LOS calculations
Encourage open space/access for public use along river/bay
Review recreation (public open space requirements) for large-scale
developments — include in Park Element
Review % of Impact Fees going to park development/recreation programs
Review Goals 1 and 4 for duplications
Promote cultural activities and events along commercial corridors; cultural
Fridays; Soul 7
Transportation
Have goals reflect modes of transport, i.e., Vehicular, Pedestrian,
Metro/Bike/Jitney, River Taxi
Access to jobs/entertainment, culture, tourism, downtown
Concern for efficiency/timeliness of bus (transit) system
More attention for downtown transit corridor
Transportation/parking alternatives to cultural entertainment events
Look at efficient/affordable taxis between downtown and neighborhoods
City to help fund different modes of transportation (feeder vehicles)
City to coordinate with other transportation agencies, i.e. SFRTA, SF commuter
service
Link major corridors with density (transportation development driven)
Monitor MPO development of transportation driven growth)
More logical access to major corridors and highways/access to & from RAC's
A-51
Other
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Issues
Planning Staff Issues and Ideas (continued)
June 17, 2004
Educational & informational materials to provide the understanding of all services
available
Recycling in building (City -owned)
A-52
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
City of Miami Transportation Element
Person Trip Methodology
June 25, 2004
Attendees:
Lilia Medina, The City
Kevin Provance, The City of Miami
Mary Conway, The City of Miami
Harold Ruck, City of Miami
John Zeeger, Kittelson & Associates
Miranda Blogg, Kittelson & Associates
Joe M. Corradino, The Corradino Group
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
Jenn L King, URS Corporation
Jackson H. Ahlstedt, PE
The following comments were made regarding the Person Trip Methodology:
• Need to clarify that both peak hour and peak period trip calculations are
acceptable.
• Need to more clearly include bike and pedestrian.
• Need to clarify whether transit is calculated for both directions or just one
direction. (Roads are calculated in only one direction.)
• Need to clarify at what point in time improvements and changes are accounted
for.
• It was suggested that there are now national standards for transit LOS and they
should be used.
• If we are using the full capacity of a bus shouldn't we use the full capacity of an
automobile (5 or 6 persons per car)?
• The city needs to verify under a separate study that 1.4 is the average persons per
vehicle.
• There is no dateline for achieving the 1.6 persons per auto capacity goal.
• Need a source reference for MDT passenger volumes per line.
• In the near future FDOT will be releasing a new functional classification.
• Need add a new policy that the City of Miami needs to coordinate with FDOT
when establishing the functional classification of streets and roads within the City.
• The methodology needs to be concerned with the ease of implementation.
• We should get rid of the look -up table.
• Do we need the V/C ratios, or LOS, or just over or under the capacity threshold
(pass/fail).
• Should we allow for a 15 minute peak?
A-53
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
City of Miami Transportation Element
Person Trip Methodology — Work Session #2 (continued)
June 25, 2004
• The methodology should not follow the FDOT methodology for calculating LOS.
V/C needs to be applied consistently across the board. Using both D and E to
calculate capacity confuses everyone.
• The most recent issue of the ITE Trip Generation Manual should be used.
• The downtown DRI specified allowable transit reductions for different areas.
• Can we find out from Kathy Sweetapple if internal trips are taken into account in
the trip generation rates?
• Figure out a way to account for both pedestrian and bicycles without double
counting.
• E+20 is supposed to take care of bike and pedestrian.
• E+20 and E+50 is a second way of calculating the person trips but almost no one
uses it.
A-54
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #1
July 13, 2004
Attendees:
Lilia Medina, City of Miami
Kevin Provance, City of Miami
Mary Conway, City of Miami
Jose R. Gonzalez, City of Miami
Richard Eichinger, TAP
Karen McGuire, Florida Department of Transportation
Juan Espinosa, David Plummer & Associates
Ana Elias, Parsons Brinkerhoff
Cathy Sweetapple, Cathy Sweetapple & Associates (on behalf of DDA)
Richard Garcia, PE, Richard Garcia and Associates
Miranda Blogg, Kittelson & Associates
Jenn King, URS
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
A power point presentation concerning the person trip methodology including an
example for calculating person trips from the downtown DRI. Participants in the
workshop were asked to save their thoughts and comments for the follow-up session. A
number of comments were made during the presentation and are included in the topics for
discussion that were developed at the conclusion of the meeting.
• The overriding question is why are we requiring this exercise? Is the City just
doing "due diligence" to promote growth intelligently? Is the City driving growth
or is the market driving it?
• The TCM process could ask for mitigation.
• What does the City want to see out of this process?
• City needs a Master Plan to define the projects that the developer fees will pay
for. A lot of fees have been paid in the downtown development.
• The City wants to introduce mitigation and wants to guide development.
• Transportation Impact Fees should go into projects around the perimeter of the
development.
• City code requires TCM plan from the developers. It requires creative mitigation,
but is it monitored or enforced?
• City does not have a way to track TCM.
• Need to discuss the background growth versus committed projects.
A-55
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #1 (continued)
July 13, 2004
• Specify which should be used AM peak, PM peak or average peak.
• Should we specify the 100th highest hour — the planning hour?
• Is there a reason to specify 1 way or 2 way?
• Definition of transportation facility needs to be more specific.
• The City should specify "significant impact" similar to the DRI process because
the Commission is familiar with the concept.
• The goals, objectives and policies should not include the person trip methodology
only a reference to them.
• Need to define the distance from the facility for a corridor.
• Is '/2 mile reasonable for taking credit for transit
• Need to clarify some of the options for data collection.
o 72 hour counts versus 24 hour counts
o link counts
o intersection counts
o time of day
o distance from intersection
• Should we continue to fill in the blanks on the FDOT LOS table? Should we use
the DOT table at all or should we just go to a pass fail type system?
• There is agreement that we should use the peak season.
• How do you get transit ridership by segment? MDT has the data. Should that data
be compiled and made available. The City needs to coordinate with the County
for this data.
• Should we minimize the discretion of the applicant —yes or no?
• Use a standard transit capacity load.
• The entire conversion to person trips process should be restudied.
• How can 1.6 be a goal? We need a realistic goal for the next 5-years.
• Why should we use the DOT V/C table?
• Why use 1.0 V/C? The capacity is what you can count.
• Should we use a separate table for person trips?
• If we are going to go to "significant impacts" then we need to measure existing
LOS.
• Growth factor adjustments, committed developments, and planned developments
are double counting.
• How about just using adjusted modeling data?
A-56
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #1 (continued)
July 13, 2004
• There has been a problem with project claiming to be in the downtown DRI
influence area. What does that mean?
• How far back do we need to go to get growth factors?
• City needs an inventory of committed projects (it has it) to help the developers.
The list should give trip generation for the projects.
• How far from development do you need to go out when accounting for traffic?
• Internal capture of trips is not addressed.
• The inflating of the 1.2 vehicle occupancy from ITE is questionable.
• There are no directions for distributing trips. Do you just use MUATS?
• Can you use non-ITE trip generation rates based upon local data? ITE
recommends that.
• Need different pedestrian and bike reductions for different areas.
A-57
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Miami River Corridor
Urban Infi11 Plan Meeting
July 15, 2004
Attendees
Brett Bibeau, Managing Director
Kevin Provance, City of Miami
Hal Ruck, City of Miami
Mark Dorsey, City of Miami
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
• Florida Legislature created Miami River Commission (MRC) in 1998
• Joint planning agreement between County & City to develop Miami River
Corridor Urban Infill Plan (Plan) in 2000. 42 public meetings were conducted.
• Sept 2002- MRC adopted Plan
• December 2002, approved three (3) Resolutions:
1. $125,00 to complete economic analysis
2. Two (2) of the 62 steps were approved
• Began the process for transportation implementation step
• Environmental step
• City Commission asked MRC to issue advisory opinions for everything to do with
the River. MRC has issues many opinions of which 95-98% were accepted
• MRC is not endorsing a moratorium along the River.
• Plan has never gone before Commission for approval.
• Sept 2003- lst update to the Plan: 20 of the 62 steps were implemented and Plan
amendments were adopted
• There are currently 7,000 residential units permitted and/or under development,
whereas 5 years ago much of this land was undeveloped
• MRC hopes that any elements of the EAR related to the Miami River will be
consistent with the adopted Plan
• Captain Watson of the U.S. Coast Guard has requested that the existing footnote
referencing the Port of Miami be deleted. MRC concurs with this request.
• In 2000, 80 acres along the River were zoned Marine Industrial. In 2004, 20 acres
were rezoned to high density projects. Currently, there are an additional 20 acres
pending for rezoning at this time.
A-58
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Miami River Corridor
Urban Infi11 Plan Meeting (continued)
July 15, 2004
• 2nd Bullet: Industrial to residential in Middle River. There should be high density
and low density marine industry. It should not be dominated by one use.
1. Miami River Master Plan — River is 5.5 miles long with mixed uses along
river.
2. Biscayne Bay to 5th Street Bridge has high density, mixed use
• The Miami River has never been dredged and sediment and contaminants have
built up. On October 28, 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers will begin dredging
to restore the required 15' depth. This will take 2 years to complete and will
improve the marine industrial economy.
• The river is divided/referred to as 3 sections:
o Lower River- Biscayne Blvd to 5th Street Bridge
High Density Mixed -Use Residential with office, retail and restaurants
o Middle River- 5th Street Bridge to 22nd Ave Bridge
Transitional Mixed -Use Zone, lower density than Lower River
o Upper River- 22nd Ave Bridge to NW 36 Street (outside City limits)
Considered heart of marine industry, and when tied with Tampa, is
considered part of the 4th largest port in Florida. Plan does not want to
remove existing residential area in Upper River.
A-59
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #2
July 20, 2004
Attendees:
Lilia Medina, City of Miami
Mary Conway, City of Miami
Karen McGuire, Florida Department of Transportation
Juan Espinosa, David Plummer & Associates
Ana Elias, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Cathy Sweetapple, Cathy Sweetapple & Associates (on behalf of DDA)
Richard Garcia, PE, Richard Garcia and Associates
John Zeeger, Kittelson & Associates
Jenn King, URS
Larry Foutz, The Corradino Group
Joe M. Corradino, The Corradino Group
Raj Shanmugam, URS
A very brief power point presentation summarizing the first workshop held the previous
week.
1. The following list were the categories the group listed as the highest priority.
• Committed Development
• Level of Service
• Volume person -trip conversion
• Capacity person trip conversion
• Transit data collection
• Trip generation
2. Committed Development was discussed in detail. The following points were
made:
• Should only be those projects approved
• Want to include other projects
o Preliminary application
o Application
o Approved
o Construction
• Projects should be included once a fee is paid for the traffic study
• The model usually doesn't come into play
A-60
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #2 (continued)
July 20, 2004
• Projects in the pipeline around the entire City or just those projects adjacent to
the site.
• Need to include all of the projects within the Study Area Boundary.
• Change definition of Committed trips in the zoning ordinance to include
projects with a valid transportation study.
• Palm Beach County supplies the list of projects and it must be used.
Recommendation: Define in ordinance, list of projects with trips, use when fee
paid, and when the traffic study is complete.
Policy Issue: What is the County's involvement in all of this?
3. Do we continue to use the FDOT generalized LOS tables?
• LOS is based on speed not cars.
• The definition of LOS is the Highway capacity manual — FDOT only adapted
those tables.
• E does not equal 1.0
• Two highest hours should not be used because it can allow one hour to exceed
E.
• The City definition does not match the Highway Capacity Manual
• This is a planning level analysis not and operational analysis.
• Palm beach has one set look up table and it is a problem.
• Developing the LOS is not an unreasonable burden on the applicant.'
• Drop A-F and only use less than or equal to 1.0
• People like to know the LOS letters.
• Then lets just use % of capacity.
•
Recommendation: Do not change the accepted LOS in the Comp Plan, Keep facility type,
keep both 1 hour and 2 hour analysis at the applicant's discretion, LOS look up for
capacity, Use percent of capacity no letters.
4. Volume Person -Trip Conversion will be the subject of an auto occupancy study
by the City of Miami.
5. Capacity Person -Trip Conversion of 1.6 persons per vehicle.
• This was set as goal above auto -occupancy counted in 1988.
• Need to set a new goal above the result of the new study.
• How high should that goal be.
• Capacity and volume need to be the same.
A-61
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Summary of Notes
Transportation Element Update
Person Trip Methodology, Workshop #2
July 20, 2004
• If they are the same then it is one and there is no reason to calculate it at all
just make every auto trip one person trip and it comes out the same.
• Test goals with a couple of projects.
• Need to back up policies with an ordinance that can be enforced.
• The only way that this can accomplish an increase in auto occupancy is
parking price since the banks will not let you tamper with parking supply.
• A person trip capacity higher than the volume is a negative incentive for
ridesharing and transit since it never gets to the point where the developer is
forced to use TCM's to reduce trips to get his project approved.
Recommendation: set a realistic goal a fraction of a percent higher than the study
results and redo the study regularly.
Policy Issue: Need to discuss mitigation projects so developers can fund projects if
their project fails.
A-62
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
2" Miami River Corridor
Urban Infill Plan Meeting
Via Teleconference on July 28, 2004
Attendees
Brett Bibeau, Managing Director
Kevin Provance, City of Miami
Aileen Boucle, The Corradino Group
Specific Comments regarding the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan:
• Future Land Use, Policy LU-1.4.3: MRC would want to have North River Drive
& South River Drive considered as "Pedestrian Streets"
• Transportation Policy 1.4.4: MRC wants to have North & South River Drives
designated as Urban Streets
• Transportation Policy 1.1.1: City of Miami is designated as an Urban Infill Area,
however, MRC feels that this can be broken down further to designate boundaries
for Urban Infill Corridors- specifically the Miami River Urban Infill Corridor, as
defined by the Miami River Urban Infill Corridor Master Plan. According to
Brett, this would greatly enhance funding opportunities under F.S. Chapter 163.
• Project schedule was discussed as follows:
Depending on DCA's response time, the following project schedule may result.
A-63
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Planning Advisory Board Workshop
Summary of Workshop Comments
July 28, 2004
• Protect / Preserve our history. What City/State laws are in place to protect
historical sites?
• Increase contribution to Affordable Housing Fund.
• Look into increasing affordable housing trust fund contribution even further.
What is the definition of affordable housing?
• Affordable Housing
• Community Development Department
• Lack of cooperation/coordination with County- needs improvement
• Review Special Districts (overlays)
• Follow up to make sure affordable housing is affordable.
• Fast track affordable housing.
• Preservation of existing and creation of new jobs.
• Hire locals through incentives.
• Local preferences goal.
• City residents must benefit from building boom.
• Fiscal health of City.
• We need good trade schools (Magnets). City could partner with Miami -Dade
County Public Schools.
• Cooperatives with trade organizations.
A-64
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC WORKSHOPS, STAFF MEETINGS,
AND INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING
Planning Advisory Board Workshop
Summary of Workshop Comments (continued)
July 28, 2004
• Decrease threshold of Major Use Special Permits should be reviewed.
• Review lot coverage/open space.
• More creativity in buildings.
• Crime prevention by design.
• Adopt public facilities (private sector).
• Make recommendations on how to get things done!
• Improve intergovernmental coordination with respect to transit.
• Peoples Transportation Plan allows City to fund transit projects.
• Land Use / Transportation study of gateways to downtown Miami.
• More public outreach / information.
• Increase awareness of Public Transportation.
• Other traffic calming devices
A-65
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A*
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
1986: [Ch. 86-191, ss. 7-12, & 18-31, Laws of Florida]
1
The requirement that plans include soil surveys which
indicate the suitability of soils for septic tanks moved
from the Capital Improvements Element to the General
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water
and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element, by
striking Subparagraph 163.3177(3)(a)4, and adding the
last sentence of Paragraph 163.3177(6)(c).
163.3177(6)(c)
Sanitary and Storm
Sewers and Natural
Groundwater Aquifer
Recharge Elements
2
A Future Land Use Element must have "goals, policies,
and measurable objectives", rather than "measurable
goals, objectives, and policies".
163.3177(6)(a)
Future Land Use
Element objectives
3
Eliminated the 12-month delay for consistency with the
comprehensive regional policy plans.
163.3177(9)(c)
Procedural
4
Defined "consistency", "compatible with", and
"furthers".
Required each local government to review and address
all State Comprehensive Plan provisions relevant to that
jurisdiction.
Support data shall not be subject to the compliance
review process, but that goals and policies must be
clearly based on appropriate data. The Department of
Community Affairs authorized to reject data if not
collected in a professionally accepted manner, but
forbidden to require a particular professionally accepted
methodology. 9J-5 does not require original data
collection.
Recognized that local governments are charged with
setting level -of -service standards.
Public facilities and services needed to support
development shall be available concurrent with the
impacts of development.
Established the "shield" against rule challenges to 9J-5
until July 1, 1987.
163.3177(10)
Procedural,
Concurrency
Management System
and adopted Level of
Service Standards
* Not Applicable
B-1
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
5
Required the comprehensive master plan for each
deepwater port to be submitted to the appropriate local
government at least 6 months before the due date of the
local plan; defined "appropriate local government", and
provided for sanctions for deepwater ports which are not
part of a local government and which fail to submit their
comprehensive master plan.
163.3178(2)(k)
Intergovernmental
Coordination
6
Substantially reworded Section 163.3184, "Process for
Adoption of comprehensive plan or amendment
thereto", to basic format in place today.
163.3184
Procedural
7
Extended development of regional impact exemption
from twice -a -year plan amendments to Florida Quality
Developments.
163.3187(1)(b)
Procedural
8
Exempted small scale amendments from the twice -a-
year limitation.
163.3187(1)(c)
Procedural
9*
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
NA
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed By
Element
10
Delayed implementation of concurrency until 1 year
after due date for submittal of the comp plan.
163.3202(2)(g)
Procedural
11
Initial adoption of the Florida Local Government
Development Agreement Act.
Procedural
1987: [Ch. 87-224, ss. 24, 25 & 26, Laws of Florida (Revisor's bill), and Ch. 87-338, Laws of Florida
12
Extended date for DCA to adopt schedule for submittal
of local plans from October 1, 1986, to October 1, 1987,
and extended the latest date for submission by non -
coastal counties from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991.
Procedural
1988: None
1989: None
1990: None
1991: [Ch. 91-45, ss. 31 & 32, Laws of Florida] Nothing substantive.
1992: [Ch. 92-129, Laws of Florida and Ch. 92-279, S. 77, Laws of Florida
13
Clarified that the procedures for approval of the original
plans also applied to plan amendments.
Procedural
* Numbering Error
B-2
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
14
Provided that the local planning agency should prepare
plan amendments.
163.3174
163.3164(13)
163.3221(10)
Procedural
15
Added "spoil disposal sites for maintenance dredging
located in the intracoastal waterways, except for spoil
disposal sites owned or used by ports" to the definition
of "public facilities".
163.3164(24)
Procedural,
Coordination with
County
16
Added requirement that independent special districts
submit a public facilities report to the appropriate local
government.
163.3177(6)(h)2
Procedural
17
Extended "shield" against challenges to the portion of
Rule 9J-5 that was adopted before October 1, 1986,
from July 1, 1987 to April 1, 1993.
163.3177(10)(k)
Procedural
18
Recognized the need for innovative planning and
163.3177(11)
Future Land Use and
Capital
Improvements
Elements
development strategies to address the anticipated
continued urbanization of the coast and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
Stated that plans should allow land use efficiencies
within existing urban areas, and should also allow for
the conversion of rural lands to other uses.
Provided that plans and land development regulations
("LDRs") should maximize the use of existing facilities
and services through redevelopment, urban infill, and
other strategies for urban revitalization.
19
Amended definition of "affected person" to clarify that
the affected person's comments, recommendations, or
objections have to be submitted to the local government
after the transmittal hearing for the plan amendment and
before the adoption of the amendment.
163.3184(1)(a)
Procedural
B-3
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
20
Required the local government to include such materials
as DCA specifies by rule with each plan amendment
transmittal.
163.3184(3)
Procedural
21
Gave the local government 120 days, rather than 60
days, after receipt of the objections, recommendations,
and comments to adopt or adopt with changes the plan
or amendment; and gives the local government 10 days,
rather than 5 days, after adoption to transmit the adopted
plan or amendment to DCA. Also requires that a copy
of the adopted plan or amendment be transmitted to the
regional planning council.
163.3184(7)
Procedural
22
Provided that the Secretary of DCA, as well as a "senior
administrator other than the Secretary" can issue a
notice of intent ("NOI").
1633184(8)(b)
Procedural
23
Required that the Division of Administrative Hearings
hearing must be held "in the county of and convenient
to" the affected local jurisdiction.
163.3184(9)(b)&
(10)(a)
Procedural
24
Provided that new issues cannot be raised concerning
plan compliance more than 21 days after publication of
the NOI.
163.3184(10)(a)
Procedural
25
Added a procedure for Compliance Agreements.
163.3184(16)
Procedural
26
Changed the requirements for small scale amendments:
o Increased the geographic size from 5 to 10 acres
of residential land use at a density of 10, rather
than 5, units per acre; and for other land use, an
increase from 3 to 10 acres. Also increased the
annual total from 30 to 60 acres.
o Allowed local governments to use a newspaper
ad of less than a quarter page in size.
o Authorized DCA to adopt rules establishing an
alternative process for public notice for small
scare amendments.
Provided that small scale amendments require only an
adoption hearing.
163.3187(1)(c)
Procedural
B-4
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
27
Provided that a plan amendment required by a
compliance agreement may be approved without regard
to the twice -a -year limitation on plan amendments.
163.3187(1)(e)
Procedural
28
Stated that nothing in the statute prevented a local
government from requiring a person requesting an
amendment to pay the cost of publication of notice.
163.3187(5)
Procedural
29
Created an alternative process for amendment of
adopted comprehensive plans.
163.3189
Procedural
30
Provided that the first EAR report is due 6 years after
the adoption of the comp plan, and subsequent EAR
reports are due every 5 years thereafter.
163.3191(5)
Procedural
31
Amended the Development Agreement Act by
providing:
o Development agreements are not effective
unless the comp plan or plan amendments
related to the agreement are found in
compliance.
o Development agreements are not effective until
properly recorded and until 30 days after
received by DCA.
163.3235
163.3239
Procedural
1993: [Ch. 93-206, Laws of Florida (aka the ELMS bill) and Ch. 93-285, S. 12, Laws of Florida
32
Amended the intent section to include that
constitutionally protected property rights must be
respected.
163.3161(9)
Procedural
33
Added definitions for "coastal area", "downtown
revitalization", "Urban redevelopment", "urban infill",
"projects that promote public transportation", and
"existing urban service area".
163.3164
Procedural
34
Amended the scope of the act to provide for the
articulation of state, regional, and local visions of the
future physical appearance and qualities of a
community.
163.3167(11)
Procedural
B-5
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
35
Amended the requirements for the housing element by:
o Having the element apply to the jurisdiction,
rather than the area.
o Including very -low income housing in the types
of housing to be considered.
o Provided guidance that the creation or
preservation of affordable housing should
minimize the need for additional local services
and avoid the concentration of affordable
housing units only in specific areas.
Required DCA to prepare an affordable housing needs
assessment for all local jurisdictions, which will be used
by each local government in preparing the EAR report
and amendments, unless DCA allows the local
government to prepare its own needs assessment.
163.3177(6)(f)
Housing Element,
proposed 2004
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
Issue II.A. Analysis
Addressed in
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
Issue I.A.
Recommendations.
B-6
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
36
Amended the intergovernmental coordination element
("ICE") by:
Requiring each ICE to include:
o A process to determine if development
proposals will have significant impacts on state
or regional facilities.
o A process for mitigating extra jurisdictional
impacts in the jurisdiction in which they occur.
o A dispute resolution process.
o A process for modification of DRI development
orders without loss of recognized development
rights.
o Procedures to identify and implement joint
planning areas.
o Recognition of Campus master plans.
o Requiring each county, all municipalities within
that county, the school board, and other service
providers to enter into formal agreements, and
include in their plans, joint processes for
collaborative planning and decision -making.
Requiring DCA to:
o Adopt rules to establish minimum criteria for
ICE.
o Prepare a model ICE.
o Establish a schedule for phased completion and
transmittal of ICE plan amendments.
163.3177(6)(h)
Procedural,
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element, Interlocal
Agreement for Public
School Facility
Planning
Amendments to
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
37
Providing that LDRs to implement the ICE must be
adopted no later than December 31, 1997.
Procedural, Land
Development
Regulations
Amendments to
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
38
Requiring a transportation element for urbanized areas.
163.3177(6)(h)
Transportation
Element
B-7
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
39
Adding an optional hazard mitigation/post disaster
redevelopment element for local governments that are
not required to have a coastal management element.
163.3177(7)
Coastal Management
Element
40
Requiring DCA to consider land use compatibility
issues in the vicinity of airports.
163.3177(10)(1)
X
41
• Amended the Coastal Management by:
o Defining "high hazard coastal areas" as
category I evacuation zones, and stated that
mitigation and redevelopment policies are at the
discretion of the local government.
o Affirming the state's commitment to deepwater
ports, and required the Section 186.509 dispute
resolution process to reconcile inconsistencies
between port master plans and local comp plans.
o Encouraging local governments to adopt
countywide marina siting plans.
o Requiring coastal local governments to identify
spoil disposal sites in the future land use and
port elements.
o Requiring each county to establish a process for
identifying and prioritizing coastal properties
for state acquisition.
163.3178
Procedural, Coastal
Management and
Ports, Aviation and
Related Facilities
Elements
B-8
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
42
• Created a new section for Concurrency which:
o Provides that concurrency on a statewide basis
only to roads, sewers, solid waste, drainage,
potable water, parks and recreation, and mass
transit, and that local governments can extend
concurrency to public schools if it first conducts
a study to determine how the requirement would
be met.
• Set timing standards for concurrency of:
o For sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable
water facilities, in place no later than the
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
o For parks and recreation facilities, no later than
1 year after issuance of certificate of occupancy.
o For transportation facilities, in place or under
actual construction no later than 3 years after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
163.3180
Throughout
Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan
43
• Allowing exemptions from transportation
concurrency for urban infill, urban
redevelopment and downtown revitalization.
• Allowing a de minimus transportation impact of
not more than 0.1 % of the maximum volume of
the adopted level of service as an exemption
from concurrency.
• Authorizing the designation of transportation
management areas.
• Allowing urban redevelopment to create 110%
of the actual transportation impact caused by
existing development before complying with
concurrency.
• Authorizing local governments to adopt long-
range transportation concurrency management
systems with planning periods of up to 10 years
where significant backlogs exist.
Future Land Use
Element, Urban Infill
Area, Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
B-9
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
44
Provided a procedure to ensure public participation in
the approval of a publicly financed capital improvement.
163.3181(3)
Procedural
45
Amended the procedure for the adoption of plans and
plan amendments as follows:
o Proposed plans or amendments, and materials,
must be transmitted to the regional planning
163.3184
Procedural
councils, the water management districts, the
Department of Environmental Protection, and
the Department of Transportation as specified in
DCA's rules.
o DCA reviews amendments only upon the
request of the regional planning council, an
affected person, or the local government, or
those, which it wishes to review.
46
o The regional planning council's review of plan
amendments is limited to effects on regional
facilities or resources identified in the strategic
regional policy plan and extra jurisdictional
impacts.
o DCA may not require a local government to
duplicate or exceed a permitting program of a
state, federal, or regional agency.
Procedural
47
Provided that local governments cannot amend their
comp plans after the date established for submittal of the
EAR report unless the report has been submitted.
163.3187(5)
Procedural
48
Changed the Alternative Process for the amendment of
adopted comp plans to the Exclusive Process
163.3189(1)
Procedural
49
Provided that plan amendments do not become effective
until DCA or the Administration Commission issues a
final order determining that the amendment is in
compliance.
163.3189(2)(a)
Procedural
B-10
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
50
Provides that the sanctions assessed by the
Administration Commission do not occur unless the
local government elects to make the amendment
effective despite the determination of noncompliance.
163.3189(2)(b)
Procedural
51
Authorizing the local government to demand formal or
informal mediation, or expeditious resolution of the
amendment proceeding.
163.3189(3)
Procedural
B-11
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
52
Amended the EAR section to require additional
statements of:
o The effect of changes to the state
comprehensive plan, Ch. 163, Part II, 9J-5 and
the strategic regional policy plan.
o The identification of any actions that need to be
taken to address the planning issues identified in
the report.
o Proposed or anticipated amendments.
o A description of the public participation
process.
o Encourage local governments to use the EAR to
develop a local vision.
o Allows DCA to grant a 6-month extension for
the adoption of plan amendments required by
the EAR.
o Requires plan amendments to be consistent with
the report.
o Allows municipalities of less than 2,500 to
submit the EAR no later than 12 years after
initial plan, and every 10 years thereafter.
o Authorized DCA to review EAR for sufficiency,
but not for compliance. DCA authorized to
delegate review to the regional planning
163.3191
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
council.
o Administration Commission is authorized to
impose sanctions for failure to timely
implement the ERA.
o DCA authorized to enter into agreement with
municipalities of less than 5,000 and counties of
less than 50,000 to focus planning efforts on
selected issues when updating the plans.
B-12
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
1994: [Ch. 94-273, s. 4, Laws of Florida
53
A plan amendment for the location of a state
correctional facility can be made at any time, and does
not count toward the twice -a -year limitation.
163.3191
X
Procedural
1995: [Ch. 95-181, ss. 4-5; Ch. 95-257, ss. 2-3; Ch. 95-310; ss. 7-12; Ch. 95-322, S.S. 1-7; Ch. 95-341, S.S. 9, 10 and 12, Laws of Florida
54
Required opportunities for mediation or alternative
dispute resolution where a property owner's request for
a comprehensive plan amendment is denied by a local
government (Subsection 163.3181(4) and prior to a
hearing where a plan or plan amendment was
determined by the Department of Community Affairs
163.3184(10)(c)
Procedural
("DCA") to be not in compliance.
55
Added a definition for "transportation corridor
management" (Subsection 163.3164(30) and allowed
the designation of transportation corridors in the
required traffic circulation and transportation elements
and the adoption of transportation elements and the
adoption of transportation -corridor -management
ordinances.
163.3177(6)
Transportation
Element
56
Amended the definition of "public notice" and certain
163.3164(18),
Procedural
public notice and public hearing requirements to
163.3171(3),
conform to the public notice and hearing requirements
163.3174(1)&(4),
for counties and municipalities in Sections 125.66 and
& 163.318(3)(a),
166.041, respectively.
163.3184(15)(a)-(c),
163.3187(1)(c)
57
Prohibited any initiative or referendum process in regard
to any development order or comprehensive plan or map
amendment that affects five or fewer parcels of land.
163.3167(12)
Procedural
58
Reduced to 30 days the time for DCA to review comp
plan amendments resulting from a compliance
agreement.
163.3184(8)(a)
Procedural
B-13
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
59
Amended the requirements for the advertisement of
DCA's notice of intent.
163.3184((8)(b)
Procedural
60
Required the administrative law judge to realign the
parties in a Division of Administrative Hearings
("DOAH") proceeding where a local government adopts
a plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement.
163.3184(16)(f)
Procedural
61
Added clarifying language relative to those small scale
plan amendments that are exempt from the twice -per-
year limitation and prohibited DCA review of those
small scale amendments that meet the statutory criteria
in Par. 163.3187(1)(c).
163.3187(1)(c) &
(3)(a)-(c)
Procedural
62
Required DCA to consider an increase in the annual
total acreage threshold for small scale amendments.
(Later repealed by S. 16, Ch. 2000-158, Laws of
Florida).
163.3177(7)
Procedural
63
Required local planning agencies to provide
opportunities for involvement by district school boards
and community college boards.
163.31749(1)
Procedural,
Interlocal Agreement
64
Required that the future land use element clearly
identify those land use categories where public schools
are allowed.
163-3177(6)(a)
Future Land Use
Element
65
Established certain criteria for local governments
wanting to extend concurrency to public schools. (Later
amended by S.5, Ch. 98-176, Laws of Florida).
163.3180(1)(b)
Procedural, no school
concurrency
requirement
1996: [Ch. 96-205, s. 1; Ch. 96-320, ss. 10-11; 96-416, ss. 1-6,15, Laws of Florida
66
Substantially amended the criteria for small scale
amendments that are exempt from the twice -per -year
limitation.
163.3187(1)(c)
Procedural
67
Revised the objectives in the coastal management
element to include the maintenance of ports.
163.3177(6)(g)9
Coastal Management
and Ports, Aviation
and Related Facilities
Elements
B-14
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
68
Provide that certain port related expansion projects are
not DRIs under certain conditions.
163.3178(2),(3), &
(5)
Procedural
69
Allowed a county to designate areas on the future land
use plan for possible future municipal incorporation.
163.3177(6)(a)
X
70
Required the ICE to include consideration of the plans
of school boards and other units of local government
providing services but not having regulatory authority
over the use of land.
163.3177(6)(h)
Future Land Use
Element and
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Elements and
Interlocal Agreement
71
Revised the processes and procedures to be included in
the ICE.
163.3177(6)(h)
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
72
Required that within 1 year after adopting their ICE,
each county and all municipalities and school boards
therein establish by interlocal agreement the joint
processes consistent with their ICE.
163.3177(6)(h)2
Procedural, Interlocal
agreements
73
Required local governments who utilize school
concurrency to satisfy intergovernmental coordination
requirements of 163.3177(6)(h)1.
163.3180(1)(b)2
X
74
Permitted a county to adopt a municipal overlay
amendment to address future possible municipal
incorporation of a specific geographic area.
163.3217
X
75
Authorized DCA to conduct a sustainable communities
demonstration project.
163.3244
Procedural
1997: [Ch. 97-253, ss. 1-4, Laws of Florida]
76
Amended the definition of de minimis impact as it
pertains to concurrency requirements.
163.3180(6)
Procedural
77
Established that no plan or plan amendment in an area
of critical state concern is effective until found in
compliance by a final order.
163.3184(14)
X
B-15
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
78
Amended the criteria for the annual effect of Duval
County small scale amendments to a maximum of 120
acres.
163.3187(1)(c)1.a.111
X
79
Prohibited amendments in areas of critical state concern
from becoming effective if not in compliance.
163.3189(2)(b)
1998:
[Ch. 98-75, s. 14; Ch. 146, ss. 2-5; Ch. 98-176, ss. 2-6 and 12-15; Ch. 98-258, ss.4-5]
80
Exempted brownfield area amendments from the twice-
a -year limitation.
163.3187(1)(g)
Procedural
81
Required that the capital improvements element set
forth standards for the management of debt.
163.3177(3)(a)4
Capital Improvement
Element
82
Required inclusion of at least two planning periods at
least 5 years and at least 10 years.
163.3177(5)(a)
Procedural
83
Allowed multiple individual plan amendments to be
considered together as one amendment cycle.
163.3184(3)(d)
Procedural
84
Defined optional sector plan and created section
163.3245 allowing local governments to address DRI
issues within certain identified geographic areas.
163.3164(31) &
163.3245
Procedural
85
Established the requirements for a public school
facilities element.
163.3177(12)
Procedural, no Public
Schools Element
(voluntary)
86
Established the minimum requirements for imposing
school concurrency
163.3180(12), [now
Sec. (13)]
X
87
Required DCA adopt minimum criteria for the
compliance determination of a public school facilities
element imposing school concurrency.
163.3180(13), [now
Sec. (14)]
X
88
Required that evaluation and appraisal reports address
coordination of the comp plan with existing public
schools and the school district's 5-year work program
163.3191(2)(i)
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report and
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
89
Amended the definition of "in compliance" to include
consistency with Sections 163.3180 and 163.3245.
163.3184(1)(b)
Procedural
B-16
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
90
Required DCA to maintain a file with all documents
received or generated by DCA relating to plan
amendments and identify; limited DCA's review of
proposed plan amendments to written comments, and
required DCA to identify and list all written
communications received within 30 days after
transmittal of a proposed plan amendment.
163.3184(2), (4), &
(6)
X
Procedural
91
Allowed a local government to amend its plan for a
period of up to one year after the initial determination of
sufficiency of an adopted EAR even if the EAR is
insufficient.
163.3187(6)(b)
Procedural
92
Substantially reworded Section 163.3191, F.S., related
to evaluation and appraisal reports.
163.3191
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
93
Changed the population requirements for municipalities
and counties which are required to submit otherwise
optional elements.
163.3177(6)(i)
X
1999: [Ch. 99-251, ss.65-6, and 90; Ch. 99-378, ss. 1, 3-5, and 8-9, Laws of Florida]
94
Required that ports and local governments in the coastal
area, which has spoil disposal responsibilities, identify
dredge disposal sites in the comp plan.
163.3178(7)
Coastal Management
Element,
Coordination with
County
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
95
Exempted from the twice -per -year limitation certain port
related amendments for port transportation facilities and
projects eligible for funding by the Florida Seaport
Transportation and Economic Development Council.
163.3187(1)(h)
X
96
Required rural counties to base their future land use
plans and the amount of land designated industrial on
data regarding the need for job creation, capital
investment, and economic development and the need to
strengthen and diversity local economics.
163.317(6)(a)
X
97
Added the Growth Policy Act to Ch. 163, Part II to
promote urban infill and redevelopment.
163.2511, 163.25, 14,
163.2517, 163.2520,
163.2523, 163.2526
Procedural
B-17
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
98
Required that all comp plans comply with the school
siting requirements by October 1, 1999.
163.3177(6)(a)
Future Land Use
Element,
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element, Interlocal
Agreement for Public
School Facility
Planning
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
amendments
99
Made transportation facilities subject to concurrency.
163.3180(1)(a)
Transportation
Element,
Concurrency
requirements
100
Required use of professionally accepted techniques for
measuring level of service for cars, trucks, transit,
bikes and pedestrians.
163.3180(1)(b)
Transportation
Element,
Concurrency
requirements
101
Excludes public transit facilities from concurrency
requirements.
163.3180(4)(b)
Transportation
Element,
Concurrency
requirements
102
Allowed multi -use DRIs to satisfy the transportation
concurrency requirements when authorized by a local
comprehensive plan under limited circumstances.
163.3180(12)
Procedural
103
Allowed multi -modal transportation districts in areas
where priorities for the pedestrian environment are
assigned by the plan.
163.3180(15)
Procedural, Future
Land Use and
Transportation
Elements designates
pedestrian streets
104
Exempted amendments for urban infill and
redevelopment areas, public school concurrency from
the twice -per -year limitation.
163.31879(1)(h) & (i)
Procedural
B-18
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
105
Defined brownfield designation and added the
assurance that a developer may proceed with
development upon receipt of a brownfield designation.
163.3220(2)
Procedural
2000: [Ch. 2000-158, ss. 15-17, Ch. 2000-284, s. 1, Ch. 2000-317, s. 18, Laws of Florida]
106
Repealed Section 163.3184(11)(c), F.S., that required
funds from sanction for non -compliant plans go into the
Growth Management Trust Fund.
Procedural
107
Repealed Section 163.3187(7), F.S. that required
consideration of an increase in the annual total acreage
threshold for small scale plan amendments and a report
by DCA.
Procedural
108
Repealed Sections 163.3191(13) and (15), F.S.
Procedural
109
Allowed small scale amendments in areas of critical
state concern to be exempt from the twice -per -year
limitation only if they are for affordable housing.
163.3187(1)(c)1.e
X
110
Added exemption of sales from local option surtax
imposed under Section 212.054, F.S., as examples of
incentives for new development within urban infill and
redevelopment areas.
163.2517((3)(j)2
Procedural
2001: [Ch. 2001-279, s.64]
111
Created the rural land stewardship area program.
163.3177(11)(d)
X
2002: [Ch. 2002-296, ss. 1-11, Laws of Florida]
112
Required that all agencies that review comprehensive
plan amendments and rezoning include a nonvoting
representative of the district school board.
163.3174
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element, Interlocal
Agreement for Public
School Facilities
Planning
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
amendments
113
Required coordination of local comprehensive plan
with the regional water supply plan.
163.3177(4)(a)
Procedural
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
amendment
114
Plan amendments for school -siting maps are exempt
from s. 163.3187(1)'s limitation on frequency.
163.3177(6)(a)
Procedural
B-19
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
115
Required that by adoption of the EAR, the sanitary
sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water and natural
groundwater aquifer recharge element consider the
regional water supply plan and include a 10-year work
plan to build the identified water supply facilities.
163.3177(6)(c)
X
116
Required consideration of the regional water supply
plan in the preparation of the conservation element.
163.3177(6)(d)
Potable Water Element
amendments
117
Required that the intergovernmental coordination
element (ICE) include relationships, principles and
guidelines to be used in coordinating comp plan with
163.3177(6)(h)
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
amendment
regional water supply plans.
118
Required the local governments adopting a public
educational facilities element execute an interlocal
agreement with the district school board, the county,
and non -exempting municipalities.
163.3177(6)(h)4
X
119
Required that counties larger than 100,000 population
and their municipalities submit a interlocal service
delivery agreements (existing and proposed, deficits or
duplication in the provisions of service) report to DCA
by January 1, 2004. Each local government is required
to update its ICE based on the findings of the report.
DCA will meet with affected parties to discuss
strategies to remedy any deficiencies or duplications.
163.3177(6)(h) 6,7 &
8
Interlocal Services
Delivery Agreement
120
Required local governments and special districts to
provide recommendations for statutory changes for
annexation to the Legislature by February 1, 2003.
163.3177(6)(h)9
Procedural
121
Added a new section 163.31776 that allows a county to
adopt an optional public educational facilities element
in cooperation with the applicable school board.
163.31776
X
B-20
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
122
Added a new section 163.31777 that requires local
governments and school boards to enter into an
interlocal agreement that addresses school siting,
enrollment forecasting, school capacity, infrastructure
and safety needs of schools, schools as emergency
shelters, and sharing of facilities.
163.31777
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element, Interlocal
Agreement for Public
School Facilities
Planning
Intergovernmental
Coordination Element
amendments
123
Added a provision that the concurrency requirement for
transportation facilities may be waived by plan
amendment for urban infill and redevelopment areas.
163.3180(4)(c)
Concurrency
requirements
124
Expanded the definition of "affected persons" to
include property owners who own land abutting a
change to a future land use map.
163.3184((1)(a)
Procedural
125
Expanded the definition of "in compliance" to include
consistency with Section 163.31776 (public educational
facilities element).
163.3184((1)(b)
Procedural
126
Streamlined the timing of comprehensive plan
amendment review.
163.3184 (3, 4, 6, 7
and 8)
Procedural
127
Required that local governments provide a sign -in form
at the transmittal hearing and at the adoption hearing for
persons to provide their names and addresses.
163.3184(15)(c)
Procedural
128
Exempted amendments related to providing
transportation improvements to enhance life safety on
163.3187(1)(k)
Procedural
"controlled access major arterial highways" from the
limitation on the frequency of plan amendments
contained in s.163.3187(1).
B-21
Appendix B. Consistency with Chapter 163, F.S.
Changes to Chapter 163, F.S. 1986-2003
163, F.S. Citations
N/A
Addressed
(where/how)
Amendment Needed
By Element
129
Required EAR's to include:
o Consideration of the appropriate regional water
supply plan, and
o An evaluation of whether past reductions in
land use densities in coastal high hazard areas
have impaired property rights of current
residents where redevelopment occurs.
163.3191(2)(1)
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
130
Allowed local governments to establish a special master
process to assist the local governments with challenges
to local development orders for consistency with the
comprehensive plan.
163.3215
Procedural
131
Created the Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Certification Program to allow less state and
regional oversight of comprehensive plan process if the
local government meets certain criteria.
163.3246
Procedural
132
Added a provision to Section 380.06(24), Statutory
Exemptions, that exempts from the requirements for
developments of regional impact, any water port or
marina development if the relevant local government
has adopted a "boating facility siting plan or policy"
(which includes certain specified criteria) as part of the
coastal management element or future land use element
of its comprehensive plan. The adoption of the boating
facility siting plan or policy is exempt from the
limitation on the frequency of plan amendments
contained in s. 163.3187(1).
163.3187(1)
Procedural, City has
marina siting plan
133
Prohibited a local government, under certain conditions,
from denying an application for development approval
for a requested land use for certain proposed solid waste
management facilities.
163.3194(6)
Procedural
B-22
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A*
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
November 22, 1989
1
Defined availability or available, concurrency, concurrency
management system, currently available revenue sources, and public
facilities and services.
Note: The definition of availability or available was repealed March 23,
1994, and the definition ofpublic facilities and services was repealed
February 25, 2001.
9J-5.003
Procedural
2
Required comprehensive plan amendments applicable to the Wekiva
River Protection Area to meet requirements of Section 369.301, F.S., in
addition to meeting compliance requirements of Section 163.3184, F.S.
9J-5.005(8)
X
3
Required local governments to adopt a concurrency management
system in their comprehensive plans and established requirements for
such systems.
9J-5.0055
Concurrency
requirements
4
Required the capital improvement element to include requirements to
ensure an adequate concurrency management system is implemented.
9J-5.016
Capital
Improvements
Element,
Concurrency
requirements
5
Clarified requirements relating to projected revenue sources that are
contingent upon ratification by public referendum.
9J-5.016(4)(a)2
Procedural
April 2, 1992
6
Defined transportation concurrency management area,
transportation demand management, transportation system
management, and transportation mobility element.
Note: The definitions of transportation concurrency management area
and transportation mobility element were repealed March 23, 1994.
9J-5.003
Procedural
7
Authorized local governments to establish optional transportation
concurrency management areas and provided requirements for such
areas.
Note: This rule was repealed March 23, 1994.
9J-5.0057
X
N/A Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
8
Required transportation concurrency management areas to be shown
on the future land use map.
9J-5.006(4)(a)
X
N/A Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
* Not Applicable
C- 1
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
9
Required the capital improvement element to include requirements to
ensure concurrency management areas are implemented, if designated.
9J-5.016
N/A Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
March 23, 1994
10
Defined central business district, coastal area, evaluation and
appraisal report, partial evaluation and appraisal report, proposed
evaluation and appraisal report, sufficiency review, and very low
income family.
Note: The definition ofvery low income family was repealed March 21,
1999.
9J-5.003
Procedural
11
Revised the definition of coastal high hazard areas and modified the
definition of coastal area to provide a definition of the term coastal
planning area.
Note: The definition of coastal planning area was revised March 21,
1999.
9J-5.003
Procedural
12
Repealed definitions of availability or available, transportation
concurrency management area, and transportation mobility element.
9J-5.003
Procedural
13
Required local comprehensive plans to include a countywide marina
siting plan for participating local governments in the coastal area and
intergovernmental coordination processes.
9-5.005(1)(c)
City has a marina
siting plan in
compliance with
County Plan
14
Revised monitoring and evaluation requirements to include a
description of the public participation process and components of the
evaluation and appraisal process.
Note: Revised February 25, 2001.
9-5.005(7)
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
15
Added procedures for transmittal and review of evaluation and appraisal
reports and evaluation and appraisal amendments.
Note: Repealed March 21, 1999 and February 25, 2001.
9J-5.0053
Procedural
C-2
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
16
Revised requirements for the concurrency management system to include
provisions regarding level of service standards, and minimum
requirements for concurrency, and authorized local governments to
incorporate within their concurrency management system optional long
term concurrency management systems, transportation concurrency
management areas, transportation concurrency exception areas;
concurrency exceptions for projects that promote public
transportation, and provisions for private contributions to local
government capital improvement planning.
9J-5.0055
Concurrency
requirements
17
Repealed provisions authorizing establishment of optional
transportation concurrency management areas and providing
requirements for such areas.
9J-5.0057
N/A Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
18
Required the Future Land Use Element for coastal counties and
municipalities that have dredge spoil disposal responsibilities to identify
any existing dredge spoil disposal sites and include an analysis of the
need for additional dredge spoil disposal sites.
9J-5.006(1)(f)3
and
9J-5.006(2)(f)
Coordination with
County
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
19
Required the Future Land Use Element to include an analysis of
proposed development and redevelopment based upon hazard
mitigation reports.
9J-5.006(2)(g)
X
20
Required the Future Land Use Element to include objectives to
encourage elimination or reduction of uses that are inconsistent with an
interagency hazard mitigation report and ensure the availability of
dredge spoil disposal sites for affected coastal counties and
municipalities.
9J-5.006(3)(b)
Future Land Use
Element
21
Required policies of the future land use element to designate dredge
spoil disposal sites for affected coastal counties and municipalities and
establish site selection criteria for designation of future dredge spoil
disposal sites.
9J-5.006(3)(c)
Coordination with
County
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
22
Required local governments to adopt the level of service standards
established by the Department of Transportation for facilities on the
Florida Intrastate Highway System and adopt adequate level of service
standards for all other transportation facilities.
Note: 9J-5.007 was repealed February 20, 1996, and has been replaced
by 9J-5.019.
9J-5.007(3)(c)
Transportation
Element,
Concurrency
requirements, Miami
is designated a
TCMA
C-3
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
23
Required the Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element to include an
analysis of the need for additional dredge spoil disposal sites for
existing and proposed ports.
Note: 9J-5.009 was repealed February 20, 1996, and has been replaced
by 9J-5.019.
9J-5.009(2)(c)
Intergovernmental
Coordination with
County
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
24
Required the Housing Element inventory and analysis to:
o Use data from the affordable housing needs assessment;
o Address housing needs of existing and future residents;
o Avoid the concentration of affordable housing; and
Address the needs of very low-income families as well as low and
moderate income families.
9J-5.010(1) and
(2)
Housing Element,
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
25
Required Housing Element objectives to address:
o Housing needs of current and future residents;
o Sites and distribution of housing for very -low income and low-
income families; and
Encouraged to provide for use of job training, job creation and economic
solutions to address affordable housing concerns.
9J-5.010(3)
Housing Element,
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
26
Required Coastal Management Element inventories and analyses to be
coordinated with the countywide marina siting plan.
9J-5.012(2)
Coastal Management
Element, City has a
marina siting plan in
compliance with the
County plan
27
Required Coastal Management Element policies to:
o Incorporate recommendations from interagency hazard
mitigation reports;
o Address the relocation, mitigation or replacement of
infrastructure within the coastal high -hazard area;
o Include criteria consistent with the countywide marina siting
plan; and
Include a procedure to resolve inconsistencies between the local
comprehensive plan and the deepwater port master plan.
9J-5.012(3)
Coastal Management
Element
C-4
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
28
Required affected local governments to incorporate the marina siting
plan in the Coastal Management Element.
9J-5.012(4)
Coastal Management
Element
29
Required objectives of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to:
o Ensure coordination in the designation of new dredge spoil
disposal sites;
o Involve the navigation and inlet districts, state and federal
agencies and the public in identifying dredge spoil disposal sites;
and
Resolve conflicts between a coastal local government and a public
agency seeking a dredge spoil disposal site through the Coastal
Resources Interagency Management Committee's dispute resolution
process.
9J-5.015(3)
X
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
Add Policy to
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Elemennt
30
Required local governments having all or part of their jurisdiction within
the urbanized area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization to prepare
9J-5.019
Transportation
Element
and adopt a transportation element which replaces the traffic
circulation element, the mass transit element, and the ports, aviation and
related facilities element and established requirements for the
transportation element.
Ma 18, 1994
31
Added provisions for settlement of conflicts through compliance
agreements.
Procedural
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
C-5
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
32
Defined adjusted for family size, adjusted gross income, affordable
housing, agency, amendment, clustering, compatibility, composition,
density, development, development controls, distribution,
environmentally sensitive lands, extent, facility availability, flood -
prone areas, functional relationship, high recharge area, hurricane
vulnerability zone, intensity, manufactured home, moderate income
household, natural drainage flow, natural groundwater aquifer
recharge areas or natural groundwater recharge areas, new town, a
pattern, potable water wellfield, purchase of development rights,
rural areas, rural village or rural activity center, stormwater basin,
stormwater facilities, stormwater management system, suitability,
transfer of development rights, urban area, urban sprawl, very low
income household, wellhead protection area, and wetlands.
Note: The definitions of adjusted for family size, adjusted gross income,
development, and high recharge area were repealed and the definitions of
affordable housing and wetlands were revised March 21, 1999.
9J-5.003
Procedural
33
Revised definitions of areas subject to coastal flooding, conservation
uses, deepwater ports, estuary, low income household, mobile home,
natural reservations, and oceanic waters.
9J-5.003
Procedural
34
Revised comprehensive plan content requirements to clarify that the
future land use map or map series must be included in the adopted
comprehensive plan.
9J-5.005(1)
Future Land Use
Element, Future Land
Use Plan Map
35
Required all goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and
conclusions of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments to be based
upon analysis as well as data, explained the meaning of being based upon
data, referenced the Department's guide to data sources and National
Wetland Inventory Maps, and authorized local governments to submit
textual portions of their plan or amendment on electronic processing
storage media.
9J-5.005(2)
Procedural
C-6
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
36
Required goals, objectives and policies to establish standards for the use
of land and guidelines for land development regulations.
9J-5.005(6)
Future Land Use
Element
37
Required plan amendments exempt from the twice -a -year restriction
under the development of regional impact provision to be transmitted as
required by law and revised adoption by reference requirements.
Note: Adoption by reference requirements were further revised March
21, 1999.
9J-5.005(8)
Procedural
38
Authorized local governments to recognize in their comprehensive plans,
statutory and common law vested rights.
9J-5.005(9)
Voluntary; not
addressed
39
Required public potable water wells and wellhead protection areas to be
shown on existing land use map or map series and provided that
educational uses, public buildings and grounds and other public facilities
may be shown as one land use category.
9J-5.006(1)
Future Land Use
Element, Future Land
Use Plan Map, Water
provided by Miami -
Dade Water and
Sewer Department
40
Required policies of the Future Land Use Element to address protection
of potable water wellfields by designating appropriate activities and land
9J-5.006(3)
Future Land Use and
Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge
Elements
uses within wellhead protection areas.
41
Required public potable waterwells, wellhead protection areas, and
coastal high hazard areas to be shown on the future land use map and
provided that educational uses, public buildings and grounds and other
public facilities may be shown as one land uses category. Provided that
if mixed use categories are used, policies must specify types of land uses
allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses or other
objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use.
9J-5.006(4)
Future Land Use
Element, Future Land
Use Plan Map
C-7
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
42
Provided criteria for reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan
amendments for adequacy in discouraging the proliferation of urban
sprawl, including indicators of sprawl and measures for evaluating land
uses, local conditions, and development controls.
9J-5.006(5)
Procedural
43
Required the Housing Element to address housing for moderate income,
low income, and very low income households group homes, foster care
facilities, and households with special housing needs, including rural and
farmworker housing.
9J-5.010
Housing Element,
rural and farmworker
housing not
applicable
44
Required the Housing Element analysis to address the existing housing
delivery system.
9J-5.010(2)
X
Add Policy to
Housing Element
stating that sites for
mobile and
manufactured homes
are dictated by the
Land Development
Regulations
45
Required objectives of the Housing Element to address adequate sites for
mobile and manufactured homes.
9J-5.010(3)(b)
Housing Element
46
Required policies of the Housing Element to:
o Include specific programs and actions to streamline the
permitting process and minimize costs and delays for housing;
o Establish principles and criteria guiding the location of
manufactured homes;
o Identify interlocal agreements with nearby local governments to
provide affordable housing; and
Designate sufficient sites at sufficient densities to accommodate
affordable housing.
9J-5.010(3)(c)
Housing Element,
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
47
Required the data and analysis of the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Stormwater Management, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Element to identify major natural drainage features and
natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, including areas identified by
the water management district as prime or high groundwater recharge
areas.
9J-5.011(1)
Data and analysis for
Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge,
Sanitary Sewer,
Solid Waste and
Potable Water
Elements
48
Required the policies of the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater
9J-5.011(2)
Natural Groundwater
C-8
Management, Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Aquifer Recharge,
Elements to establish water quality standards for stormwater recharge.
Sanitary Sewer,
Natural Resource
Conservation and
Coastal Management
Elements
C-9
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
49
Required the Conservation Element to identify and analyze groundwater
and important fish or shellfish areas.
9J-5.013(1)
Natural Resource
Conservation
Element
50
Required policies of the conservation element to address land uses
known to affect adversely the quality and quantity of water sources,
including natural groundwater recharge areas, well head protection areas
and surface waters used as a source of public water supply, and the
protection and conservation of wetlands.
Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge,
Sanitary Sewer,
Natural Resource
Conservation and
Coastal Management
Elements
February 20,1996
51
Repealed rule requirements for the Traffic Circulation Element; Mass
Transit Element; Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element.
Note: Certain local governments must continue to prepare these
elements pursuant to 163.3177, F.S., and 9J-5.019, F.A.C.
9J-5.007,
9J-5.008, and
9J-5.009
Procedural
52
Repealed rule requirements for the Recreation and Open Space Element.
Note: Section 163.3177, F.S., requires local governments to prepare this
element.
9J-5.014
Parks and Recreation
Element
53
Repealed rule requirements for consistency of local government
comprehensive plans with Comprehensive Regional Policy Plans and
with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Note: Local government comprehensive plans are required by Section
163.3184(1)(b), F.S., to be consistent with the applicable Strategic
Regional Policy Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan.
9J-5.021
Procedural
October 20, 1998
54
Established requirements for the Public School Facilities Element for
Public School Concurrency for local governments that adopt school
concurrency.
9J-5.025
X
March 21, 1999
55
Defined public transit and stormwater management facilities.
9J-5.003
Procedural
56
Revised the definitions of affordable housing, coastal planning area, port
9J-5.003
Procedural
facility, and wetlands.
57
Repeal the definitions of adjusted for family size, adjusted gross income,
development, high recharge area or prime recharge area, mass transit.
9J-5.003
Procedural
58
Revised provisions relating to adoption by reference into the local
9J-5.005(2)(g)
Procedural
C-10
comprehensive plan.
and (8)(j)
C-11
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
59
Repealed transmittal requirements for proposed evaluation and appraisal
reports, submittal requirements for adopted evaluation and appraisal
reports, criteria for determining the sufficiency of adopted evaluation and
appraisal reports, procedures for adoption of evaluation and appraisal
reports.
Note: Transmittal requirements for proposed evaluation and appraisal
reports and submittal requirements for adopted evaluation and appraisal
reports were incorporated Rule Chapter 9J-11, F.A.C.
9J-5.0053(2),
through (5)
Procedural
60
Repealed conditions for de minimis impact and referenced conditions in
Subsection 163.3180(6), F.S.
9J-5.0055(3)6
Procedural
61
Required the future land use map to show the transportation concurrency
exception area boundaries of such areas have been designated and areas
for possible future municipal incorporation.
9J-5.006(4)
Transportation
Element
62
Required objectives of the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Stormwater
Management, Potable Waster and Natural Groundwater Aquifer
Recharge Element to address protection of high recharge and prime
recharge areas.
9J-5.011(2)
Infrastructure
Element
63
Repealed the Intergovernmental Coordination Element process to
determine if development proposals would have significant impacts on
other local governments or state or regional resources or facilities, and
provisions relating to resolution of disputes, modification of
development orders, and the rendering of development orders to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA).
9J-5.015(4)
X
Procedural,
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
64
Clarified that local governments not located within the urban area of a
Metropolitan Planning Organization are required to adopt a Traffic
Circulation Element and that local governments with a population of
50,000 or less are not required to prepare Mass Transit and Ports,
Aviation and Related Facilities Elements.
9J-5.019(1)
X
C- 12
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed 1
Element
65
Required objectives of the Transportation Element to:
o Coordination the siting of new, or expansion of existing ports,
airports, or related facilities with the Future Lane Use, Coastal
Management, and Conservation Elements;
o Coordination surface transportation access to ports, airports, and
related facilities with the traffic circulation system;
o Coordination ports, airports, and related facilities plans with
plans of other transportation providers; and
Ensure that access routes to ports, airports and related facilities are
properly integrated with other modes of transportation.
9J-5.019(4)(b)
Transportation and
Ports, Aviation and
Related Facilities
Element
66
Required policies of the Transportation Element to:
o Provide for safe and convenient on -site traffic flow;
o Establish measures for the acquisition and preservation of public
transit rights -of -way and corridors;
o Promote ports, airports and related facilities development and
expansion;
o Mitigate adverse structural and non-structural impacts from
ports, airports and related facilities;
o Protect and conserve natural resources within ports, airports and
related facilities;
o Coordinate intermodal management of surface and waster
transportation within ports, airports and related facilities; and
Protect ports, airports and related facilities from encroachment of
incompatible land uses.
9J-5.019(4((c)
Applicable
requirements in
Transportation and
Ports, Aviation and
Related Facilities
Element
67
Added standards for the review of land development regulations by the
Department.
9J-5.022
Procedural
68
Added criteria for determining consistency of land development
regulations with the comprehensive plan.
9J-5.023
Procedural
69
Defined general lanes.
9J-5.003
Procedural
70
Revised the definition of "marine wetlands".
9J-5.003
Procedural
71
Repeal the definition of "public facilities and services".
9J-5.003
Procedural
72
Revised procedures for monitoring, evaluating and appraising
implementation of local comprehensive plans.
9J-5.005(7)
Procedural
73
Repealed requirements for evaluation and appraisal reports and
evaluation and appraisal amendments.
9J-5.0053
Procedural
C- 13
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
74
Revised concurrency management system requirements to include
9J-5.005(1)
X
provisions for establishment of public school concurrency.
and (2)
75
Authorized local governments to establish multimodal transportation
9J-5.0055(2)(b)
Procedural, no
level of service standards and established requirements for multimodal
transportation districts.
and (3)(c)
district established
76
Authorized local governments to establish level of service standards for
general lanes of the Florida Intrastate Highway System within urbanized
areas, with the concurrence of the Department of Transportation.
9J-5.0055(2)(c)
Transportation
Element
77
Provide that public transit facilities are not subject to concurrency
requirements.
9J-5.0055(8)
Concurrency
Management System,
Procedural
78
Authorized local comprehensive plans to permit multi -use developments
of regional impact to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements
by payment of a proportionate share contribution.
9J-5.0055(9)
Procedural
79
Required the future land use map to show multimodal transportation
district boundaries, if established.
9J-5.006(4)
Voluntary, not
established
80
Authorized local governments to establish multimodal transportation
districts and, if established, required local governments to establish
design standards for such districts.
9J-5.006(6)
Voluntary, not
established
81
Required data for the Housing Element include a description of
substandard dwelling units and repealed the requirement that the housing
inventory include a locally determined definition of standard and
substandard housing conditions.
9J-5.010(1)(c)
Housing Element,
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report
82
Authorized local governments to supplement the affordable housing
needs assessment with locally generated data and repealed the
authorization for local governments to conduct their own assessment.
9J-5.10(2)(b)
Housing Element,
Evaluation and
Appraisal Report,
Voluntary
83
Required the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to include
objectives that ensure adoption of interlocal agreements within one year
of adoption of the amended Intergovernmental Coordination Element
and ensure intergovernmental coordination between all affected local
governments and the school board for the purpose of establishing
requirements for public school concurrency.
9J-5 .015 (3)(b)
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element; no school
concurrency
requirement
C-14
Appendix C. Consistency with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
Changes to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. 1989-2003
9J-5, F.A.C.
Citations
N/A
Addressed
(Where/How)
Amendment Needed
By Element
84
Required the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to include:
o Policies that provide procedures to identify and implement joint
planning areas for purposes of annexation, municipal
incorporation and joint infrastructure service areas;
o Recognize campus master plan and provide procedures for
coordination of the campus master development agreement;
o Establish joint processes for collaborate planning and decision -
making with other units of local government;
o Establish joint processes for collaborative planning and decision
making with the school board on population projections and
siting of public school facilities;
o Establish joint processes for the siting of facilities with county-
wide significance; and
Adoption of an interlocal agreement for school concurrency.
9J-5.015(3)(c)
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Policies needed
85
Required the Capital Improvements Element to include implementation
measures that provide a five-year financially feasible public school
facilities program that demonstrates the adopted level of service
standards will be achieved and maintained and a schedule of capital
improvements for multimodal transportation districts, if locally
established.
9J-5.016(4)(a)
X
Intergovernmental
Coordination
Element
86
Required the Transportation Element analysis for multimodal
transportation districts to demonstrate that community design elements
will reduce vehicle miles of travel and support an integrated, multi -modal
transportation system.
9J-5.019(3)
No multimodal
transportation district
established
87
Required Transportation Element objectives for multimodal
transportation districts to address provision of a safe, comfortable and
attractive pedestrian environment with convenient access to public
transportation.
9J-5.019(4)
No multimodal
transportation district
established
88
Authorized local governments to establish level of service standards for
general lanes of the Florida Intrastate Highway System within urbanized
areas, with the concurrence of the Department of Transportation.
9J-5.019(4)(c)
Miami is a
Transportation
Concurrency
Exception Area
C-15