HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-3Miami Neighborhoods United
December 1, 2005
City Commissioners
City of Miami
Miami, FL
Re: Revised EAR
Dear Commissioners:
We take this opportunity to report to the Commission on our efforts relating to the EAR since
presentation of our comments and our letter to the Commission on Dec. 9, 2004 and the
Commission's instruction to the Planning Department, at the Commission meeting on same date, to
"continue meetings with Miami Neighborhoods United".
1. Notwithstanding many requests to meet with the Planning Department after early May (during
preparation of the Revised EAR which is before you today), the Department did not meet with
us until the Planning Advisory Board insisted on such a meeting on September 21, 2005, when
the Revised EAR was initially presented to the PAB.
2. We met with the Planning Dept. on October 6 and presented a letter with attachments of our
comments and recommendations (attached for your review). The Planning Dept responded to us
at a meeting on October 14, accepting none of our comments or recommendations.
3. As pointed out in our letter to the PAB dated October 18, copy attached: "... to the best of our
knowledge, the only citizen input accepted during the whole process was a few poorly
attended meetings at the outset of the exercise. No citizen input has been incorporated
since that time ...."
4. Miami Neighborhoods United has suggested to Mr. Otto Boudet and Mrs. Alicia Cuervo-
Schreiber and hereby requests Commission support to completely revise the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan as part of the EAR Amendment Cycle — in
coordination with Duany Plater—Zyberk and the other consultants working on Miami 21.
Our initial input and that of another organization are included in the attachments. We suggest
that you and your staff familiarize yourselves with the issues raised in our cover letter of
October 6 (such as item 8 relating to the Transportation Concurrency Exception) and the
detailed recommendations for amendments in the attachments.
A major revision of the MNCP with widespread citizen input is critical to attaining the vision of the
Commission for the future of the City as expressed in the goals of Miami 21. Using Internet tools
for this process (as used by other cities) would be a major benefit in this effort.
Sincerely,
Hadley Williams
Chair, EAR / Miami 21 Committee
cc: City Commissioners
Mayor, City of Miami
Department of Community Affairs
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Miami Neighborhoods United
October 18, 2005
Planning Advisory Board
City of Miami
Miami, FL
Re: Revised EAR
Dear Members of the Planning Board:
This letter is intended to serve as a report of our meetings with the Planning Department, as
agreed at the meeting of the PAB on September 21, 2005.
Several representatives met with the Planning Department on October 6, 2005 and presented a
letter, with attachments, addressing MNU's concerns. A copy was provided to each of you by
mail or by hand on or about October 12, 2005.
A second meeting was held on October 14, 2005, at which time the Planning Dept. responded
to our letter of October 6, 2005. We were presented with a four page response, which, in
summary, advised us that there would be no changes made to the Revised EAR.
To recap the EAR process, to the best of our knowledge, the only citizen input accepted during
the whole process was a few poorly attended meetings at the outset of the exercise. No citizen
input has been incorporated since that time — to the best of our knowledge.
Sincerely,
Hadley Williams
Chair, EAR / Miami 21 Committee
cc: City Commissioners
Department of Community Affairs
South Florida Regional Planning Council
October 6, 2005
Mr. Otto Boudet-Murias
Chief of Planning and Development
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Ave, Floor 10
Miami, FL 33130
Planning Advisory Board
City of Miami
c/o Chief, Hearing Boards
Dear Mr. Boudet-Murias and Members of the Planning Advisory Board:
Miami Neighborhoods United (MNU) is a coalition of neighborhood associations in the city of
Miami which represent the interests of residents of the City of Miami as a non -governmental,
non -partisan organization — in particular the interests of its member associations of
neighborhoods and their residents. MNU also works with many other organizations in the city
which are working toward a better city.
MNU strives to develop and maintain professional working relationships with governmental
and with all other organizations in order to contribute to substantive improvements in the
quality of life for current and future citizens of our city. Effective planning and management
are a major focus. We therefore have established several teams under the EAR / Miami 21
Committee to address the EAR and Miami 21 issues and opportunities.
We are submitting to you today our comments on the Revised EAR, comprised of this letter,
"Revisions to the MCNP" covering specific changes we would like to see in the Miami
Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) (and which forms a part of this document) and
several other attachments for the record. We have many other specific comments on the
Revised EAR which we can submit to in due course.
A. MNU has the following Major Concerns relating to the Revised EAR:
1. The MCNP as of Oct. 2004 is a Plan originated in 1989 based on the City in 1989. The
amendments made since then have been patches to a Plan now outdated on a macro level. The
current Revised EAR is another piecemeal evaluation, whereas the PAB and the City should be
taking the opportunity of this EAR Amendment cycle to rewrite the MCNP based on the vision
and dimensions outlined for Miami 21.
We are concerned that there will be limitations on EAR based amendments if any such
amendments are not specifically forecasted in the EAR.
PLEASE NOTE: '163.3191 Evaluation and appraisal of comprehensive plan.--
"(10) The governing body shall amend its comprehensive plan based on the
recommendations in the report and shall update the comprehensive plan based on the
Page 1 of 8
components of subsection (2), pursuant to the provisions of ss. 163.3184, 163.3187, and
163.3189."
"(2) The report shall present an evaluation and assessment of the comprehensive plan
and shall contain appropriate statements to update the comprehensive plan .... "
"(i) The identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan
amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the
report.... and any new and revised goals, objectives, and policies for major issues
identified within each element."
This concern is reinforced by: 163.3184 Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or
plan amendment.--
"(3) LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED PLAN OR
AMENDMENT.--
(b) .... the local governing body shall transmit to the state land planning agency ....
and, in cases in which the plan amendment is a result of an evaluation and appraisal
report adopted pursuant to s. 163.3191, a copy of the evaluation and appraisal report."
Mr. Paul Darst at DCA has indicated that amendments in the EAR amendment cycle should
have been identified in the EAR and that the EAR amendment cycle should be an across-the-
board set of amendments.
Many of the issues raised in CHAPTER I of the EAR are not adequately provided for in the
respective "Impacts and Recommendations" sections and MNU has identified additional issues
which have not been raised at all.
MNU requests that the Planning Dept and the PAB step back and, with Miami 21 also in mind,
revise the EAR to provide for a broader range of EAR cycle amendments. For instance, MNU
recommends that the MCNP include several new Elements which are optional per 163.3177
Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.—
"(7) The comprehensive plan may include the following additional elements, or portions
or phases thereof: "
"(e) A public buildings and related facilities element showing locations and arrangements
of civic and community centers, public schools, hospitals, libraries, police and fire
stations, and other public buildings. This plan element should show particularly how it is
proposed to effect coordination with governmental units, ... having public development
and service responsibilities, capabilities, and potential but not having land development
regulatory authority."
"(f) A recommended community design element ...."
"(h) A safety element for the protection of residents and property of the area from fire,
hurricane, or manmade or natural catastrophe, .... "
Page 2 of 8
"(j) An economic element setting forth principles and guidelines for the commercial and
industrial development, if any, and the employment and personnel utilization within the
area. The element may detail the type of commercial and industrial development sought,
correlated to the present and projected employment needs of the area and to other
elements of the plans, and may set forth methods by which a balanced and stable
economic base will be pursued."
A Public Schools Facilities Element is also now required in FL163.3180 (13)(a) Concurrency,
school concurrency.
MNU strongly requests provision for these additional Elements because Goals, Objectives and
measurable Policies, as required in FL Admin Code 9J-5.05(7), are very necessary for proper
management of the City and its resources relating to these Elements.
2. The EAR gravely misrepresents community involvement in the EAR preparation process: a.)
neighborhoods were given only a couple of hours notification for the meetings held during
working hours and, notwithstanding complaints from neighborhoods and excuses from the
Planning Dept. about NET office communications errors, no additional neighborhood meetings
were scheduled; b.) many of the concerns stated by the few participants who made it to the
meetings were not properly expressed in the Issues included in CHAPTER II; c.) the Planning
Dept. agreed to only one meeting prior to submission of the original EAR to the City
Commission in December 2004; d.) the Planning Dept. refused to provide public information
without an official Public Records Request; e.) the Planning Dept. made no changes
whatsoever to the Revised EAR based on comments submitted in December 2004. Procedural
changes must be made to not only permit but encourage participation by the community in the
EAR process.
Ref: 163.3181 Public participation in the comprehensive planning process; intent;
alternative dispute resolution.--
(1) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive
planning process to the fullest extent possible. Towards this end, local planning agencies
and local governmental units are directed to adopt procedures designed to provide
effective public participation in the comprehensive planning process and to provide real
property owners with notice of all official actions which will regulate the use of their
property. The provisions and procedures required in this act are set out as the minimum
requirements towards this end.
MNU's position, given the FL statutes cited in (1) above requiring that the EAR provide for
amendments to be included in the EAR amendment cycle, that 163.3181 (2), below, also
applies to the EAR process.
(2) During consideration of the proposed plan or amendments thereto by the local
planning agency or by the local governing body, the procedures shall provide for broad
dissemination of the proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public
hearings as provided herein, provisions for open discussion, communications programs,
information services, and consideration of and response to public comments.
Page 3 of 8
MNU must also point out the requirements in FL163.2517:
(2)(a) As part of the preparation and implementation of an urban infill and
redevelopment plan, a collaborative and holistic community participation process must be
implemented to include each neighborhood within the area targeted for designation as an
urban infill and redevelopment area. The objective of the community participation
process is to encourage communities within the proposed urban infill and redevelopment
area to participate in the design and implementation of the plan, including a "visioning"
of the urban core, before redevelopment.
(b)1. A neighborhood participation process must be developed to provide for the ongoing
involvement of stakeholder groups including, but not limited to, community -based
organizations, neighborhood associations, financial institutions, faith organizations,
housing authorities, financial institutions, existing businesses, businesses interested in
operating in the community, schools, and neighborhood residents, in preparing and
implementing the urban infill and redevelopment plan.
2. The neighborhood participation process must include a governance structure whereby
the local government shares decisionmaking authority for developing and implementing
the urban infill and redevelopment plan with communitywide representatives. For
example, the local government and community representatives could organize a
corporation under s. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to implement specific
redevelopment projects.
MNU has seen little evidence of this requirement being fulfilled. Part of a solution is addressed
in the Transportation section, below.
3. The Revised EAR continues to take an inverted approach (notwithstanding our comments
submitted in December) in several recommendations for amendments. It suggests revisions to
the MCNP will be generated by changes in the land use or land development regulations. (ex:
Page 22; "Policy LU-1.3.5 calls for .... It is recommended that ... development ... will be in
accordance with ... standards adopted as a result of the amendments to the City's land
development regulations ....".) This approach is directly in contravention to the expressed
purpose of the comprehensive plan as specified in 163.3194 Legal status of comprehensive
plan:
"(b) All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the
adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, .... "
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to set Goals, Objectives and Policies which will
provide a proper framework and direction for land development regulations, not the other way
around.
A similar problem exists in several sections of the EAR which specify that intergovernmental
discussions will set the Goals, Objectives or Policies of the MCNP. The purpose of the MCNP
Page 4 of 8
is precisely to provide a framework of Goals, Policies and Objectives within which
governmental bodies will work. In those cases where other governmental or regional agencies
are providing the services, there should still be Goals, Objectives and measurable Policies
acceptable for the City set out in the MCNP.
4. A major purpose of the Growth statues and Administrative Code of the state is to put in place
the process of strategic planning with measurable policies, as clearly stated in FL Admin Code
9J-5.05(7). As we commented in our December submission and the DCA also commented in
it's letter of April 28, 2005, the EAR is recommending the removal of many measurable
policies and objectives rather than updating or expanding them. MNU strongly requests that the
Revised EAR provide for amendments with many additional, specific measurable policies. In
this regard, various MNU teams have been studying the Comprehensive Plans of several cities
around the country and have found that our MCNP is HIGHLY DEFICIENT in laying out
specific, measurable policies compared to other cities.
This is also pointed out in the Final Sufficiency Review (attached to the DCS insufficiency
letter to the Mayor dated April 28, 2005) Section 4, page 4 "Most of the comprehensive plan
objectives are not measurable or not directly measurable, and for that matter neither are many,
perhaps most, of the associated policies."
Even after receiving the comments in the insufficiency letter, the Revised EAR attempts to
avoid proper measurement against Objectives. See EAR CAHPTER III, A Population Changes
... (page 211): "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." This does not satisfy the DCA's instruction to
measure against the original goal and is a fine example of how a planning and control is
misused.
MNU also requests that consideration be given to comply more fully with the intent of FL
Admin Code 9J-5.05(7) requirement that: "Each element of the comprehensive plan shall
contain procedures for monitoring, evaluating and appraising implementation of the
plan." MNU has not been able to identify these procedures in many elements of the MCNP.
5. Population and growth assumptions. It is not clear which population growth assumptions are
assumed throughout the EAR. There are three different assumptions referred to, none of which
are the same as those mentioned in all public presentations about Miami 21, where there is
repeated mention of a projected 30% growth by 2010. The addition of measurable policies will
require more detailed presentation of population assumptions in each element, and those
assumptions must be consistent with the current growth spurt actuals and forecasts.
6. Housing. Affordable and workforce housing is clearly a crisis in the future of the City. We
have included suggestions for several new Objectives and Policies. We have included several
new Objectives and Policies in the attached "Revisions to the MCNP". Housing must be given
major attention in the MCNP, Miami 21 and actual planning and management of the city.
Page 5 of 8
Given the importance of affordable housing, we are including MNU Comments on Affordable
Housing, October 6, 2005 by reference Attachment B.
7. Levels of Service. Several Levels of Service must be revised.
Parks 3.1 acres per 1,000 individuals NOW, 4.0 acres per 1,000 by 2015, higher by 2030.
Transportation. 1.6 riders per automobile must be reduced to a level based on current realty.
Sanitary Sewer Transmission Capacity must be adjusted given current usage.
Rainwater runoff — new.
8. Transportation. Every resident of the City is aware that the automotive traffic situation is out
of control. Recognizing that where public transportation exists, congestion is probably the only
way to get people out of automobiles and into mass transit, there is still a major planning issue.
The current situation on the ground and the Revised EAR make it clear that: the city has taken
the position that the city's designation as one, big Urban Infill Area has absolved it from
addressing transportation problems which MUST be addressed. The EAR is recommending
deletion of TR-1.1.2, TR-1.1.2.1, TR-1.1.2.2, and TR-1.1.2.3, which have not been enforced —
to wit:
Revised EAR CHAPTER II Objective Achievement Analysis, II. G. Transportation 1.
Objective TR-1.1 states "... Miami -Dade County's Urban Infill Area (UTA), which includes
the City of Miami, is designated as a Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area, and is
exempt from transportation concurrency requirements. The City has therefore not had to delay
or prohibit development or redevelopment due to transportation concurrency issues between
1995 and 2005, and anticipates continuation of its current policies to reduce automobile
dependence through 2015 and 2025".
MNU has two problems with forsaking all transportation concurrency requirements: A.) it has
removed all planning controls from development, leading to uncontrolled development
jeopardizing the health, safety and economic welfare of city residents, and B.) it does not
conform to Florida statues (before and after 2005 revisions).
163.2517 Designation of urban infill and redevelopment area.--
"(3) A local government seeking to designate .... shall demonstrate ... -use planning to
promote multifunctional redevelopment to improve both the residential and commercial
quality of life in the area. The plan shall also:
i) Identify and map any existing transportation concurrency exception areas and any
relevant public transportation corridors designated by a metropolitan planning
organization in its long-range transportation plans or by the local government in its
comprehensive plan for which the local government seeks designation as a transportation
concurrency exception area. For those areas, describe how public transportation,
pedestrian ways, and bikeways will be implemented as an alternative to increased
automobile use."
Page 6 of 8
163.3180 Concurrency.--
"(5)(b) A local government may grant an exception from the concurrency requirement
for transportation facilities if the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the
adopted local government comprehensive plan and is a project that promotes public
transportation or is located within an area designated in the comprehensive plan for:
1. Urban infill development,"
"(d) A local government shall establish guidelines in the comprehensive plan for granting
the exceptions authorized in paragraphs (b) and (c) and subsections (7) and (15) which
must be consistent with and support a comprehensive strategy adopted in the plan to
promote the purpose of the exceptions.
Many parts of the city are not in transportation corridors nor are they centers of development
including "use planning ...." or where "public transportation, pedestrian ways, and bikeways
will be implemented as an alternative to automobile use". The Urban Infill and Redevelopment
designation under FL 163.2517 of the whole city/county does not conform to the letter or intent
of the law and has given rise to uncontrolled development in sections of the city outside of truly
urban development centers and transportation corridors. At the time the County and City
originally requested designation of the city as and Urban Infill Area, the designation was
probably simple and straightforward. That is no longer the case.
The city must redefine Urban Infill and Redevelopment areas to specific sections of the city,
establish guidelines for granting exceptions in the MCNP and comply with clearly defined
transportation concurrency requirements in review and approval of proposed development.
MNU recognizes that this is a major planning effort, but it must be carried out to protect the
health (pollution), safety and economic well-being of city residents. The economic cost of
traffic congestion is now outweighing the benefits of much of our development.
B. Other significant concerns of MNU
1. Parks. As you are no doubt well aware, MNU is very concerned about parks and open
spaces. Please refer to our presentation given to the City Commissioners, attached.
2. We attach the I. Major Issues section or MNU EAR Comments December 2004. Some of the
positions and concerns mentioned overlap the issues raised above, others are not covered
elsewhere in this letter.
3. MNU has many issues with specific sections of the Revised EAR. They are too numerous to
elaborate here, but we will provide them to you at an appropriate time.
MNU trusts that both the Planning and Economic Development Departments and the Planning
Advisory Board, after reviewing our concerns and comments, will take action to make a major
Page 7 of 8
revision to the EAR on the macro level. We repeat that our biggest concern is that appropriate
provisions be to address expected amendments to be produced as the EAR amendment cycle.
Amendments which will arise from Miami 21 as well as amendments we are recommending.
We recognize that many of the issues are medium, long and very long term and will require
substantial effort by the city. We look forward to working together.
Sincerely,
Hadley C, Williams
Chair, EAR / Miami 21 Committee
Attachments
A. MNU Revisions to the MCNP, October 6, 2005
B. Miami 21 Overview
C. MNU Comments on Affordable Housing
D. MNU EAR Comments December 2004
E. MNU Presentation to City Commissioners on 12/9/04
F. Parks Presentation to the City Commission
G. Florida Legal Services letter of September 21, 2005
H. Florida Legal Services letter of August 23, 2005
Page 8 of 8
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
The following are specific comments on the MCNP as of October 2004. It is a composite of
comments from many of our association members. Some of the comments have been thorugh
progressive revisions to incorporate the vies of several organizations while others have not been
edited nor has any attempt been made to consolidate or merge them, given the time constraints
imposed on MNU.
Future Land Use.
Goal LU-1. Include two additional points should be added to (5): "promotes the efficient us
of land and minimizes land use conflicts while protecting and preserving single family
residential sections within neighborhoods and restricting development and redevelopment to
existing capacity of arterial roadways during development of an extensive public transit
system...."
In the Ear residential has been changed to integrity and quality -thereby negating all
protection for single family neighborhoods and quality is a subjective standard.
LU 1.1 — What is "minimum level?" Does it vary with density?
Amend Policy LU-1.1.1 to include reference to population growth limitations by
neighborhood (and assumes modified LOS for transportation).
Amend Policy LU-1.1.2 to include a schedule for review and comments on the Concurrency
Review by Registered Interested Parties. (see further )
LU 1.1.2 — concurrency review? How is there concurrency for some things but not for
others in relation to Urban Infill Area?
The Ear calls for transition standards, however context has been ignored by the UDRB
since its inception and this is adversely impacting residential neighborhoods including
designated historic districts west of US 1 where they abut special redevelopment districts.
Amend Policy LU-1.1.3 to provide for protection in (1) against degradation of privacy, open
space, environment and ecology.
LU 1.1.3 — (3). "transportation policies that divide...": Does this mean no closures? This
needs to be rewritten so that neighborhoods can continue to avail themselves of traffic
diverters to keep commuter, drive through traffic from residential streets and to protect
closures that are already in existence. This is written as such a vague generality that it could
be used to remove the closures in the Northeast, Bay Heights and Coral Gate.
The Ear calls for transition standards, however context has been ignored by the UDRB
since the Boards' inception and this is adversely impacting residential neighborhoods
including designated historic districts west of US1, and where they abut special
redevelopment districts and transit corridors. The UDRB should context in design, as the
staff does, but their charter does not require them to do so and they have not. Miami 21
Page 1 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
should address this problem in the future, but recently issued Class II permits may
already thwarted the intent of the new zoning code.
The EAR does not address how the City will measure/audit the level of required job
generation is maintained in return for very generous credits. How does the City Measure
its "Maximization" of City " of City owned properties. So far most of these properties
have been sold for highest and best use, thus thwarting in many instances their use for
low income rental housing. There are at present no lowincome rental plans in Coconut
Grove West which is not a special district but is eligible for tax credit initiatives. The
entire Midtown Miami project has no low income rentals and there is virtually no park
space, even though the City had the opportunity to develop a huge empty tract of land,
and this would have been the best place for nearby displaced low income residents.
The economic mix is 70% luxury and 30% affordable ownership. The Civic Center
residential component is yet to include low income or affordable rentals/affordable
ownership and Watson Island was rezoned from Parks/Recreation to accommodate a
mega yacht marina and luxury hotel and condominium units.
LU 1.1.4 - Who will keep track? To whom is this reported? Will this be a city wide
percentage? Could the entire 10% increase be done in only one area?
LU-1.1.4 In the Ear Code Enforcement has succeeded numerically -however, code
enforcement is selectively applied. An example is the new Tree Ordinance which has not
been enforced; and numerous complaints from the residents concerning Horne Depot on
8th Street -these complaints go unrecorded by this department.
Use Policy LU-1.1.5 for: Land development regulations and policies will allow for
protection of single family residential sections and duplex family residential sections from
contiguous development with regard to physical height and mass transitions, privacy, and
open space.
LU 1.1.6 — "economically" — The city needs to budget better; make it a smaller scale project,
but do it right the first time. Band -aid measures fall short of what is needed and require
further expenditures.
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.
LU 1.1.7 — subject to? Underlying zoning? Neighborhood needs or desires?
Amend Policy LU-1.1.8 to include "...municipalities, and in particular with respect to
contiguous development with regard to physical height and mass transitions, privacy, and
open space" or similar.
Page 2 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Amend Policy LU-1.1.10 to include "... station in accordance with the population growth
plans by neighborhood and insuring transitions in accordance with Policy LU-1.1.5." or
similar.
Policy LU-1.1.11. The policy should exclude (in addition to Virginia Key, etc.) those single
family residential sections, within neighborhoods, which are not in the transportation
corridor zones or other centers of activity designated specifically for increased density.
Policy recognition of residential sections being excluded from the higher density Urban
Infill Area is absolutely necessary for both developers and residents of residential sections.
This Policy should also be modified to specify that single family residential sections within
neighborhoods will be protected from the commercial and higher density residential
developments in centers of activity, including reasonable transition requirements.
LU 1.1.11— Urban Infill: Exempt R1 and R2 also!
LU 1.1.12 — Schools: Exempt R1 and R2 also! These neighborhoods shouldn't be made to
bare the burden of the added traffic. Schools don't just operate from 7 to 3. People in lower
density neighborhoods deserve the peace and quiet they have paid a premium price for.
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.
Objective LU-1.2 should be divided into two objectives. One should address blighted and
declining neighborhoods (LU-1.2 as is, excluding "threatened"). The other should address
specifically "threatened" neighborhoods, which should be the subject of revitalization and
not redevelopment.
Goal LU 1 (2) specific definition of blighted or declining areas is needed. This can't be
subject to interpretation. (4) Downtown needs boundaries (according to the DDA?); (5)
"Efficient use of land," this seems to conflict with LU 1 because "efficient" is usually tied in
with highest and best use, which equals highest possible density. Again use clear language.
The EAR addresses special districts with individual masterplans. In practice, the
establishment of these new distrticts
such as Overtown/Parkwest and like areas have not provided appropriate incentives
to address the rehabilitation of low income rentals. Low income rentals are fast
disappearing and is replaced by redevelopment for affordable income home ownership
units. This displacement of a numerically high percentage of the population is resulting
in homelessness for the working poor.
LU 1.2.1— What's a "minor deficiency?"
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
Page 3 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
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.
LU 1.2.3 — How do the first priority and second priority differ?
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.
Objective LU-1.3 add: "... (LOS) adopted in the Transportation Element and the Capital
Improvement Element (CIE)."
LU 1.3 — This, if truly enforced, would eliminate any rezoning of R1 and R2 to Cl.
Ordinance #12347 NCD has been established in all of Coconut Grove; however, it has
not been extended to include other established stable neighborhoods such as Silver Bluff .
NCD protects against incompatible use but does not address context or adverse density
impacts including traffic and parking.
Policy LU 1.3.1 The EAR makes note of the new Urban Design Review Board charged
with giving recommendations on new building design. Although implementation
policies address context as a staff requirement, context is not addressed in the Board
Policy. After reading numerous staff reports one may conclude that since the Board is
not required to address context -the staff has ignored this requirement.
LU-1.3.1.4 The City of Miami has established an Urban Design Review Board
composed entirely of professionals including architects and planners. The Ear calls for
transition standards, however context has been ignored by the UDRB since its inception
and this is adversely impacting residential neighborhoods including designated historic
districts west of US1 where they abut special redevelopment districts.
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.
Page 4 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
LU 1.3.5 — "high intensity activity centers ...mixed use and specialty center development ..
. River Corridor..." Is this not in conflict with policy on the river?
LU -1 3.1.5 The EAR addresses "initiatives. These initiatives are not enumerated and
therefore cannot be measured in terms of their success.
LU 1.3.10 — repetition of code enforcement goals — same questions still remain.
LU-1.3.10 The Ear addresses Code Enforcement with measurement. It is admirably
quantifiable and in fact this quality of life function has turned into a profit center for the
City. Unfortunately the various ordinances policed by code enforcement are selectively
enforced.
Amend Policy LU-1.3.12 add: "... facilities, but not in single family residential sections." or
similar.
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.
LU 1.3.14 — add Coral Way?
LU -1.3.2 The Parrot Jungle Attraction has missed payments to the City who is now in
debt to the County for their loan. This attraction which consists of a concret banquet
facility with birds has destroyed some of the most valuable water front parkland in the
state. Only 8 acres remain for parkspace. The City is not counting but the residents are.
The City cannot purchase anything like this regardless of impact fees-whichwill remain
even after a new ordinance some of the lowest in Florida.
LU 1.4.1— Should this not be done in conjunction with NET?
LU 1.4.3 The implementation of this EAR policy by the Public Works Dept did not take
into account the presence of large shade trees. Miami has very little tree canopy as
compared to other major cities. Engineering and drainage studies for sidewalks, curbs
and drainage and the resulting plans and on going implementation have failed to account
for any large shade tree All trees are cut down thereby thwarting the goal of walkable
streets before sundown.
LU 1.4.6 — Too vague, most of the city is WEST of Omni?
LU 1.4.7 Signage has been addressed but the City of Miami's settlement with national
billboard companies have left arterial roads looking like Rout 66.
LU 1.4.8 to 10 — Definitions of downtown and general downtown are needed.
Page 5 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
LU _ 1.4.10 The Miami River Commission Studies all require marine use. None of
their recommendations have been formally adopted by the City of Miami which is
currently rezoning the lower and middle river for high density mixed use residential
development. Meanwhile in response to the River Commission Study the Army Corps of
Engineers is embarked on a dredging project to support marine use. This is not noted in
the EAR.
Insert in LU-1.6 policies corresponding/relating to Transportation Objective TR-1.8, but
from the Land Use point of view, to include population and growth limitations for all areas
of the Land Use Map, consistent with existing capacity of the arterial roadways and current
utilization of public transit. In order to successfully implement the higher density plans and
higher utilization of the public transport system, which will also cause increases in vehicular
traffic on arterial roadways, development and redevelopment of each area of the City must
be planned within the capacities of the major arteries (US1, I95 and others) more than the
total capacity of transportation corridors including currently underutilized public transit.
For example, Policy LU-1.6.2 could be used: "The City's Planning Department shall set
population and growth limits for each neighborhood (and high density residential
development, neighborhood activity center, large scale development, employment center,
regional activity center, special district designations, etc.) in the Land Use Map, so as to
contain population growth in accordance with the existing capacity of arterial and collector
roadways. Approvals of development and redevelopment permits will be allowed only
within the limitations set in the Land Use population limits. The City's Planning
Department will establish a reasonable process for selection of proposed projects and
permit requests on file. The approvals of permits will NOT be based on plans for increases
in transportation capacity, but only on existing and new capacity as it actually comes
available."
Please note there has been almost no negative vote for any MUSP by the City
Commission regardless of Planning Staff recommendations
There should be additional Policies in the Future Land Use to correspond to other Policies in
the Transportation element:
Amend Policy LU-1.6.3 to include an additional step for amendment proposals. The
Planning Department must provide for notice (a reasonable notice period) and review of
each amendment with Registered Interested Parties (which will include interested
associations of neighbors and homeowners) prior to presentation to the Planning Advisory
Board (with a reasonable period of time between the scheduled review with the Registered
Interested Parities and presentation to the Planning Advisory Board ... for changes to be
completed).
Amend Policy LU-1-6-4 to provide for:
A.) consistency with the population growth plan of the affected neighborhood and
B.) the addition of notice to and review by Registered Interested Parties (as in LU-1.6.3).
LU 1.6.4 — LOS minimum standards? For what grade? A or F
Amend Policy LU-1.6.8 to more clearly define open space requirements, at least in general
terms.
Page 6 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
LU 1.6.8 — What's "open space?" Minimum sq.ft. amount? What's the ratio?
Expand Policy LU-1.6.9 to cover more specifically the adverse impacts which will be
guarded against (including traffic congestion). ). Currently individual development impact
reviews are isolated so that surrounding planned projects are not considered in the impact
review.
LU 1.6.9 — Too vague. What mechanisms? Where? In what zoning? Subject to
interpretations?
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.
LU 1.6.10 — On site parking — This requirements needs realistic numbers; no family has
only one car.
LU 1.6.11 — We need to insure public access; otherwise we have an underused eyesore. Ex.
Marine Stadium. There needs to be maximum allowable time for the city to replace public
structures that have been deemed "unsafe." Once the time has run out there should
automatically be a city-wide election that gives the citizens the choice of rebuilding the old
structure or building a new one.
LU-1.6.11 Development and Redevelopment in the EAR described districts are not
subject to impact review on the abutting/adjoining districts.
Objective LU-1.7. As a major part of the Land Use Goal LU-1, it is totally unacceptable to
limit development of recreational use areas to existing capacity of public facilities. Must be
rewritten to set a goal for additions to recreational use areas together with additional public
facilities.
Policy LU-1.7.1 must be replaced by several policies which lay out how to increase and
improve recreational use areas.
Goal 3. As above, rewrite to provide for:
A.) exclusions of residential sections
B.) adherence to population growth plans and limits for each neighborhood
C.) addition of review by Registered Interested Parties in all proposed changes to zoning,
RACs, etc.
LU 1.7.2 — Add: The city will actively increase the amount of recreational areas by
requiring a donation of open land by large scale development. The developer must provide
park area for public use adjacent to his development which would be maintained by a trust
fund established by the developer's company for that purpose in perpetuity.
LU 2.2.4 — Rewrite "consider" the need — change to RECOGNIZE the need.
Page 7 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
LU 2.3 - Was to have been completed between 1996 and 2001. Was this accomplished?
LU 2.4.3 - Identify historic sites; how are they being used? Shouldn't their transfer be
subject to the Carollo Amendment.
LU 2.5.2 — Grammar/ Usage Check: "... will publish — a list."
LU Goal 3: identified Urban Infill Areas? According to Miami -Dade County everything
east of the Palmetto is.
The R-1 and R-2 zoned neighborhood in the City of Miami should not be included in the
areas designated as Urban Infill.
Under the section entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map," subsection
defining allowable uses in Single Family Residential: REMOVE: family day care homes;
places of worship; primary and secondary schools, child day care centers, adult day care
centers. ONLY ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE.
In all other zoning classifications (Office, Restricted Commercial, Central Business
Districts, General Commercial, Industrial, and Light Industrial) ADD: Unless abutting R1,
in which cases only general office use, clinics and laboratories, operating only between the
hours of 9AM to 5PM shall be allowed.
Objective LU-3.1. Revise. "Promptly review, prioritize/rank, and include in the queue for
consideration versus the population growth plans and limits for the respective
neighborhood petitions for land use plan amendments and rezoning of property to facilitate
redevelopment. All such petitions approved for consideration and addition to the queue for
the respective neighborhood will be reviewed with Registered Interested Parties on a
scheduled basis with reasonable notice and time for response of the Registered Interested
Parties, prior to presentation to the Planning Advisory Board."
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.
Policy LU-3.1.1. What is the process for approval of these revisions and new zoning
regulations. The approval process must include review and comment of Registered
Page 8 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Interested Parties prior to submission for final approval. The revised Policy should be much
more specific about how many Regional Activity Centers by 20 .
LU-3.1.2. The intended modification should "require" not "encourage the provision of
public open space and parks in Regional Activity Centers."
Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map section
Details of appropriate uses should be spelled out specifically in the MCNP and barriers also
identified and addressed — at least by specific type.
In paragraph two, the Planning Director is given the authority to make determinations as to
concurrency and the need for zoning changes to go through the MNCP amendment process.
Greater transparency and community input is necessary in this process. Recognizing the
need for practical process, we would like to work with the Planning Department and the
Planning Advisory Board to arrive at a suitable process satisfactory to all parties.
In this discussion, we would also like to establish a process for review of all development
projects of greater than X acres and less than 20 acres, with or without requests for zoning
waivers or changes.
The last sentence of the third paragraph is not clear.
Marine Facilities. Remove provision for hotels.
Changes/additions to the MCNP and EAR process. In order to provide a formal review of
the EAR and all other MCNP and Zoning changes by interested parties, we strongly request
the addition of a formal review of all drafts and amendments and waivers by neighborhood
representatives and other Registered Interested Parties prior to scheduling of PAB first
reading and the rest of the process. This must be established with a scheduled, formal
notification of registered homeowner/neighborhood associations and other Registered
Interested Parties, with ample time for review and to respond. There should then be a long
enough period in the schedule, between the response by Registered Interested Parties and
presentation to the Planning Advisory Board, to incorporate substantial modifications.
I also recommend a formal process for review of all development and redevelopment
projects of greater than X acres and less than 20 acres (with and without requests for land
use or zoning waivers or changes) by Registered Interested Parties.
Given the expanded use of the term `neighborhood' to refer to "mixed use neighborhoods",
specific Goals, Objectives and Policies should be added to address the concerns, Goals and
Objectives of the single-family and multi -family residential `sections' or `districts' within
the mixed use neighborhoods. The concerns about setbacks, transitions, commercial
encroachment, etc. all relate specifically to residential `sections' and must be addressed
separately and specifically. Such amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would clarify for
all residents how their residences will be treated and hopefully eliminate many unfounded
fears.
Housing Element
Page 9 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Goal HO-1 is acceptable as long as the amendment language is additional only and does not
take the emphasis off of low income housing. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies in
the Housing element except Objective HO-1.1 which is NOT acceptable. The City failed to
increase the stock of affordable housing and can not put off this obligation. Instead, a tiered
approach would be less objectionable. For example, a 10% increase by 2007 and another
5% by 2010, keeping with the timeline for the Consolidation Plan, which outlines the issues
and points out that they may be an impediment to carrying out the strategic plan:
Housing:
Growing shortage of affordable housing for very low income families (particularly rental)
Deteriorating housing stock (over 80 Percent of homes in the City of Miami and the NDZ
were constructed before 1979)
Low production of affordable housing compared to need
Scarcity of affordable sites due to escalating costs of real estate
High cost of land and construction and low profit margin to developers
Lack of capacity among non-profit developers to meet need
Reduction in government funding for affordable housing
Shortage of qualified buyers who can meet FNMA or FHMC standards
High cost of housing (homeownership and rental) compared to salaries
Lack of protection for tenants facing displacement
High number of housing units built before 1978 that are be potential lead hazards
Non -Housing:
High poverty rate (1st in the nation)
Low median household income (1st in the nation; almost half of national median)
Low percent of labor force participation (1st in the nation)
Poor credit, low wage incomes and high job turn -over among low to moderate income
families
Language barrier in providing services to non-English speaking residents. Miami has a high
share of foreign born residents (2nd in the nation)
Third lowest share of population with a high school degree in the country
High concentration of public schools with a grade of "D" in Miami -Dade County. The
majority are located in the Neighborhood Development Zones
Highest concentration of lead -based poisonings in Miami -Dade County is found within the
Neighborhood Development Zones
Highest concentration of non -elderly uninsured persons in Miami -Dade County, mainly in
the Allapattah and Little Havana area
Page 10 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
HO-1.1.6
Policy Summary: Continue to encourage the restoration/adaptive and sensitive reuse of
historic/architecturally significant housing through significant housing through zoning
incentives.
Implementation Measures:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan/Historic Preservation and Land Development
Regulations.
Implementation Status;
In place but review and strengthening of policies needed to encourage increased numbers.
See Chapter I.B.I.a. and the Recommendations for amendments to historic preservation
policies in Chapter IV. For further discussions of this issues, and of the City's focus on
providing increased incentives.
As per Chapter 23, Historic Preservation, of the City's Code Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinance, in place incentives include development bonuses to permit higher floor area
ratios or densities if historic properties are preserved, allowing uses otherwise not allowed
in the zoning district, allowing increased heights, and reduced setback and parking
requirements.
HO 1.1.6 - What are "zoning incentives?"
Policy HO-1.1.9 Encourage high -density residential development/redevelopment near
Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the Station Area Design/Development
Plan.
Implementation Summary:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan/Future Land Use Plan Map and Land
Development Regulations.
Implementation Status:
City Station Area Design/Development Plans and Miami -Dade County Rapid Transit Zone
encourage higher intensity uses near stations. In addition, Article 6 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance established a number of special zoning district. Many of these include
provisions to increased transit -oriented development and higher density residential use
around MetroRail/Metromover stations.
HO 1.1.9 — How close is "in close proximity?"
HO.1.1.10 — Continue to develop policies/procedures which aid in assembling land for
major residential projects, and develop informational programs.
Implementation Measure:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood plan and Land Development Regulations and
Community Development Policies.
Implementation Status:
Page 11 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Land Development Regulations for development size requirements to be strengthened in the
current revisions to the land development regulations; please see Chapter I.C.I.
HO 1.1.10 — "assembling land?" Zoning bonuses! According to Commissioner Winton, this
is what is giving the R-1 neighborhoods, from the NE to Shenandoah, problems. How can
the city make it policy to "aid the private sector" to do this? Unlike the previous section
HO1.1.9("in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations"); this section applies
city-wide.
R-2 should also be included in this. What is "close proximity" - 6 blocks?
HO 1.2.6 — Use code enforcement to prevent illegal conversion of S-F residence into M-F
units.
Implementation Measure:
Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status:
Code Enforcement in place and Quality of Life Task Force. Since the establishment of the
Quality of Life Task Force, 147 cases of illegal units have been filed and 19 assisted living
facilities have been cited.
HO 1.2.6 — How? With a court order? The City needs to increase the number of Code
Enforcement Officers and have 2 or 3 "on call" on weekends. This should be a goal listed
here also.
HO 1.2.8 — Increase code enforcement efforts where there are substandard units and
require timely remediation.
Implementation Measure:
Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status:
Code enforcement has significantly increased in the City, and is demonstrably a top
priority. Since the Quality of Life 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. Please see Chapter
I.C.I. as well. The City's land development regulations are currently undergoing major
revisions to strengthen the preservation of neighborhood appearances and to achieve other
goals.
HO 1.2.8 — "timely manner." Too vague. Give a number of days by which the work must be
done or steep fines will be levied.
Policy HO-1.2.9 Monitor conditions of public housing within the city.
Implementation Status
Enforcement of minimum housing standards in the City through Article X., Code
Enforcement, of the City's Code of Ordinance, and coordination with the U.S. Department
of Housin2 and Urban Development and the Miami -Dade Housin2.
Page 12 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Objective - To preserve/enhance appearance and character of neighborhoods by increasing
code enforcement efforts to avoid that properties that have not been maintained as well and
are now coming to light as blights on the community as well as threats to the life and safety
of the residents.
HO 1.2.9 - Code Enforcement should perform systematic inspections on rental properties
throughout the city, including commercial business, to keep unattractive land/building from
developing into worse situations.
Code Enforcement to regulate rental properties throughout the city by certifying that
landlords comply with the Florida State Minimum Housing Standards. When they meet
these criteria, they are issued a Rental Certificate (Business License) that must be renewed
annually. Inspections performed by this division verify that rental properties do meet the
state criteria before the Rental Certificate is issued.
A proactive approach to enforcing Minimum Housing Standards rather than relying on a
complaint driven system (too many property violations are never uncovered because no one
ever complains due to fear of possible eviction). Lower income tenants are the most
vulnerable to unsafe and indecent living conditions and are generally unaware of their
rights under the Minimum Housing Code.
The regulatory fee for a certificate of compliance is to be $ for each of the first 4
units and $ for each unit after 4, to a maximum of 500. There will be no charge for a
follow-up reinspection to inspect for correction of deficiencies. If a third inspection is
required (because ofa failed initial inspection and a failed reinspection) an additional fee of
$ per failed unit shall be assessed. For example, a property containing 20 units — the
charge will be $ for the certificate, an exterior inspection will be conducted on all units
and an interior inspection will be conducted on a sample of 3 units. If all inspected units
pass, there will be no further charge. If one of the inspected units fails the initial inspection
and a follow-up inspection, then the third inspection and any further inspections will
require an additional $ charge. Thus, problem properties requiring close scrutiny will
bear a larger financial burden. The purpose of the higher rate for the third and subsequent
inspections is to encourage compliance within the first two inspections. If compliance is not
achieved, no certificate will be issued, prohibiting the occupancy of the rental units. Any
property owner who fails to either register with the program or obtain a certificate of
compliance shall be subject to prosecution in the same manner as a code enforcement case,
pursuant to Florida Statutes Ch. 162.
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.
Implementation Measure
Miami Neighborhood Plan and Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status
Permitted uses identified in Article 4 (Zoning Districts) and Article 6 (Special District) in
Zoning Ordinance.
HO 1.3.1— Exclude R1.
Page 13 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy HO-2.1.1 Continue to protect/enhance existing viable neighborhoods by retaining
existing zoning.
Implementation Measure:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status:
Residential zoning/districts provided for in Article 4 (Zoning Districts), Article 5 (Planned
Units Development), and Article 6 (Special Districts) of the Zonin2 Ordinance. See Chapter
LC.1. for additional discussion. Land development re2ulations currently bein2 revised.
Retaining existing zoning can only be done by doing exactly that, retaining existing zoning.
The Commissioners are continuously voting in favor of land -use changes and special
permits which makes this policy worthless.
HO 2.1.2 — Continue to protect/enhance existing viable neighborhoods by retaining existing
zoning.
Implementation Measure:
Miami Neighborhood Plan and Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status
Residential zoning/districts provided for in Article 4 (Zonin2 Districts), Article 5 (Planned
Units Development) and Article 6 (Special Districts) of the Zoning Ordinance. See Chapter
LC.1. for additional discussion. Land development re2ulations currently bein2 revised.
HO 2.1.2 — As written, this is in conflict with HO 2.1.1. How can the city "continue to
protect and enhance existing viable neighborhoods by retaining existing residential zoning"
and accomplish "revise residential zoning district regulations to provide greater flexibility
for the design and development ... with the application new higher density zoning" at the
same time? The language of HO 2.1.2 needs to be made specific to particular cases so that a
liberal interpretation cannot justify an intrusive higher density where it is not desirable.
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.
Implementation Measure:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and Land Development Regulations.
Implementation Status:
Article 6 of the zoning ordinance establishes a number of special districts, including
provisions for mixed use development and special activity centers (i.e. SD-5, SD-7, SD-10,
SD-15, SD-16...). Please see Chapter I.A.1. for a description of the City's redevelopment
initiatives, and Chapter I.C.1. for description of neighborhood enhancement strategies.
HO 2.1.4 — This is only true for some sections of the Miami River; these should be listed.
HO 2.1.8. — Continue to expand the areas where new commercial development may receive
FAR bonuses for Housing Trust Fund contributions.
Page 14 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Implementation Measure:
Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status:
Floor Area Ration for affordable housing provided for in Article 6 (Special District) and
Article 9 (General and Supplementary Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance.
HO 2.1.8 — What is the Housing Trust Fund? How much is in it? What has it accomplished?
If this is an "evaluation report;" these questions should be answered.
Portable Water
PW 1.1 — What about increasing the size of incoming water pipes to prevent the possibility
of diminishing incoming water pressure? Where are the previous biannual update reports?
Solid Waste Collection
Policy SW-1.3.2 Ensure streets and yards remain clean and attractive.
Implementation Measure:
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and Land Development Regulations
Implementation Status:
Article X., Code Enforcement of the City's Code of Ordinances
This should also include the green areas that are poorly maintained by the City of Miami!
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.)
Implementation Measure:
Public Works Capital Budget
Implementation Status:
Public Works Department implements street sweeping program as part of Clean Up Miami
campaign.
This has always been part of the services we have been paying for. It has been well over 20
years since I've seen the street sweeping truck in my area. Is there an oversight committee
for the Public Works Capital Budget?
Transportation
Objective TR-1.1. "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,
within a transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA)." This sentence must be
modified. First, the City does not have in place a fully operational, extensive public transit
system. Therefore, current levels of service should not assume that it is already in place.
Page 15 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Second, major areas of the City are not and should never be "compact development and
moderate -to -high residential densities and land use intensities", so this blanket statement
must be amended to provide for City streets in residential sections and mixed use
neighborhoods.
Policy TR-1.1.1. The policy should exclude (in addition to Virginia Key, etc.) those single
family residential sections, within neighborhoods, which are not in the transportation
corridor zones or other centers of activity designated specifically for increased density.
Policy recognition of residential sections being excluded from the Urban Infill Area is
absolutely necessary for both developers and residents of residential sections.
TR 1.1.1— exclude R1 and R2 neighborhoods also.
Policy TR-1.1.2. As stated above, the Level of Service of transportation must be set based
on current usage of public transport, not based on capacity or 120 percent or 150 percent of
capacity. The long term goal of having people use the public transit system to alleviate the
congestion on arterial and collector roadways and Urban Streets is clearly necessary and
appropriate, but getting from today to capacity utilization of public transit must be
managed. The issuance of development orders for new development or significant
expansion of existing development must be contingent on these more realistic levels of
service.
TR 1.1.2 — If the minimum LOS is E, then no more development can be had until the LOS is
improved.
Policy TR-1.1.6. ...encourage Miami -Dade County to also have population growth limits for
each neighborhood together with land use patterns...
Policy TR-1.1.8. Should be much more specific about planning for parking and how land
development regulations will handle.
Policy TR-1.1.9. Why is the policy limited to "downtown"?
TR 1.1.12 — The language is unclear. Does this pertain only to "Downtown" in which case
perimeters need to be clearly stated. Otherwise, this section seems to apply city wide; if this
is true, then add EXCEPT IN CORAL GATE.
Policy TR-1.4.4. Recommendations for designation of additional streets as "Urban Streets"
must include a process for review of and comments by Registered Interested Parties before
presentation to the City Commission.
Policy TR-1.5.2. Add provisions for integrating such land use and zoning changes with
overall population growth plans and impact on roadway LOS in addition to public transit
capacity impact, plus protecting adjacent neighborhoods with reasonable transition
regulations. All such land use and zoning prospective changes will also be reviewed with
Registered Interested Parties whether or not they are going to require amendments to the
MCNP.
Policy TR-1.5.6. "...systems, in accordance with the population growth plans for each
neighborhood in the City and other LOS requirements which must be satisfied.
Page 16 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy TR-1.5.10 "...within the limitations of the population growth plans by
neighborhood."
Policy TR-1.5.13 "...County, and the population growth plans by neighborhood, established
by the City of Miami."
Objective TR-1.8. Include provision for the population growth plans by neighborhood.
Ports, Aviations and Related Facilities Element
PA 3.1 and PA 3. 1.1 Are both in conflict with LU 1.3.5 in which the city vows to promote
"high intensity activity centers ...mixed use and specialty center development ... River
Corridor..." Because the Port of Miami River is not confined to one well-defined area, to
enforce LU 1.3.5 can only lead to encroachment. This is a confusing mix of policies that
needs to be clarified further and put in language that is not subject to conflicting
interpretation.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Goal PR-1. The goal should be to "Provide superior natural recreational areas to residents
and visitors for both active and passive enjoyment of the gorgeous, natural assets,
attractions and attributes of the City." ... or similar.
Protect public recreational access, both physical and visual, to public park land and
especially public shorelines. Any "restoration" of parkland as a nature preserve should be
done so as to maintain pedestrian access and enjoyability, and not create an impenetrable
thicket.
Recognize that Banyan trees and Australian pines are a part of Miami's history and
cultural fabric. Preserve existing stands of Australian pine picnic areas at Wainwright
park and Virginia Key Beach Park. Preserve and allow future planting of Banyan trees
along Coral Way, Main Highway, numerous other city streets, city parks and public
schools.
GOAL 1: The department will provide adequate land in an equitably distributed manner
to meet public recreation space needs.
Objective PR-1.1. Must be rewritten to shift major focus to maintaining, preserving and
increasing open space and coastal spaces as well as access to recreation sites ...
OBJECTIVE 1.1: The City will provide parkland, and open space to meet median level of
service standards established in the Trust for Public Land Survey of 2002 of 12 major US
cities. The year 2000 LOS of 3.41 shall increase to 8 acres in January 2006.
POLICY 1.1.1: The Parks Division shall maintain a computerized inventory and map of all
public recreational lands. The mapping of all existing and future park space, for the
purpose of counting Level of Service (LOS), shall exclude any unusable green and
landscaped areas, all roadway medians, all swales. Open or green space areas, whether
owned by the City or privately held, may not be counted toward LOS if they are not open to
Page 17 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
the public on a daily basis, accessible to all for use and available free of charge to the public.
The map will be updated as park space is acquired and be available to the public on the
City web -site. The we -site shall include an additional list of all acquisitions until the map is
updated.
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 1.1.2: Consistent with the City's Miami 21 effort, all park sites are to be zoned PR
Restricted. All of Virginia Key and the remaining 8 acres of Watson Island shall be
immediately rezoned PR Restricted.
Policy PR-1.1.3 Refers to "adverse impacts of such development." No development which
has adverse impact should be allowed. Period. All developments will, directly or indirectly
(through fees), lead to improvements and increases in neighborhood parks, coastal locations
and recreation services.
POLICY 1.1.3: The City shall continue to provide 1.0 acre of neighborhood and school -
park land for each one thousand residents.
POLICY 1.1.4: The City shall continue to provide 2.0 acres of community and large urban
parkland for each one thousand residents.
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 1.1.5: Greenways, bikeways and connector parks shall continue to be developed
along Biscayne Bay and the Miami River. The City shall protect these walkways from
development impacts.
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 1.1.6: No park land shall be diverted to other uses except in instances of
overriding public interest, by a public entity, and with the approval of both the elected
Parks Advisory Board and the affected Neighborhood Association; in which case it will be
effectively replaced with an equivalent or better property.
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.
Page 18 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
POLICY 1.1.7: The City shall provide at least 20% land area in order to accommodate the
open space needs of its residential development. Such open space shall include pastoral,
utilitarian, and corridor spaces.
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 1.1.8: In order to ensure that the allocation of parklands are equitably
distributed, the City of Miami shall give high priority in developing its park system based
on a service radius calculation (e.g.: Mini -Parks = 1/4 mile, Neighborhood and School -Parks
= 1/2 mile, Community Parks = 2 miles, Large Urban Park, and Special Use Facilities/Parks
= 30 minutes on public transportation).
POLICY 1.1.9: The City shall comply with the Miami -Dade County Regional Park Level of
Service standard.
Policy PR-1.1.10. No more transfers of City park facilities or public open spaces will be
permitted, nor will conversion of City owned park or public open space to non -recreational
use occur. Any amendment to this Policy will require review and approvals of Registered
Interested Parties, the Planning Advisory Board prior to consideration for approval by the
City Commission.
Policy PR-1.1.11. Unclear. Must be completely rewritten.
Policy PR-1.1.12. "... will provide for open spaces for recreational use as well as for access
to the shoreline."
Policy PR-1.1.13. Must provide for open recreational space as well as physical and visual
access.
Policy 1.2 To meet LOS requirements the City of Miami shall immediately undertake an
aggressive land acquisition program. This effort will be professionally staffed, well funded
and lead by The Parks Director. Emphasis will be on acquiring parcels West of I95 that are
woefully underserved. Within this component the city, with the assistance of local
neighborhood associations, shall identify and purchase land for pocket parks that address
neighborhood 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-1.4.4. The minimum of 1.3 acres per 1000 residents must be reviewed and the
total area included in the calculations must be specified. It is inappropriate to include large
areas of purposely protected undeveloped park areas as "park space" in the urban area.
Page 19 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Objective PR-1.5 strike "strengthens the City's economic development." It would be more
appropriate to restate along the lines of "... to enhance the living experience of both
residents and visitors — which indirectly should have a positive economic impact."
GOAL 2: Establish and preserve an appropriate open space system to protect public
health, safety and welfare, and assure retention of aesthetic and environmental amenities.
OBJECTIVE 2.1: The City shall improve its visual attractiveness as possible, both through
positive measures of orderly development and beautification as well as consistent efforts to
avoid, remove, or diminish the impact of unsightly features. There will be an up to date
Parks inventory list. The list will include the total land area for each Park together with an
accurate calculation of the area (footprint, height and total number of square feet) and the
current dollar replacement value of recreational facilities either built or planned to be built.
This information will be listed on the City web -site.
POLICY 2.1.1: The City's Land Development Regulations shall require adequate
landscaping of public projects, as well as private development. The City's adopted Land
Development Regulations will be implemented consistent with Section 163.3202 (1), F.S.
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.
POLICY 2.1.2: The City's provision of public open spaces shall be consistent with the
Goals, Objectives and Policies of related Elements of the Comprehensive Plan (Land Use,
Conservation, Coastal Management, et. al.).
POLICY 2.1.3: The City shall actively discourage any type of development, within or
adjacent to unique natural areas, where such activity will have significant detrimental
effects on the aesthetic and environmental quality of the unique natural areas.
POLICY 2.1.4: The City shall follow standard design guidelines for all recreational and
open space adhering to current Natural Resource Protection
Areas (NRPA) and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
concepts/guidelines.
POLICY 2.1.5: The City shall upgrade and modernize parks through the implementation
of maintenance standards and the ongoing five year Capital Improvement Program.
GOAL 3: Provide and maintain diverse parks, recreation facilities and activities of high
quality for all residents.
OBJECTIVE 3.1: The City shall utilize the following Local Facility guidelines (LFG),
whenever feasible, so as to provide adequate recreational facilities through the life of the
plan.
a. One baseball/softball field per 5,000 residents aged 5-34.
Page 20 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
b. One basketball court per 4,000 residents aged 10-34.
c. One tennis court per 2,000 residents aged 10-84.
d. One football /soccer field per 5,000 residents aged 5-34.
e. One handball/racquetball court per 12,000 residents aged 10-59.
f. One playground per 1,000 residents aged 5-14.
g. One community center per 25,000 residents of all ages, with all residents
to be within three -miles of a center.
h. One volleyball court per 6,000 residents aged 15-34.
i. One roller hockey rink per 20,000 residents aged 5-34.
POLICY 3.1.1: The City shall continue and expand the use of cooperative agreements with
public and private schools, surrounding jurisdictions, nonprofit agencies, churches and the
private sector to assure facilities for active recreational opportunities year-round.
POLICY 3.1.2: The City shall allocate sufficient funds to adequately supervise and
maintain existing parks and recreational facilities in order to protect the public investment.
POLICY 3.1.3: Every five years the City shall reassess the ability of existing sites and
facilities to meet the changing needs of the population to be served. The City will hire a
nationally recognized parks consultant one year before each Evaluation and Appraisal
Report is due to audit the City's progress; to revise and update goals and objectives where
necessary; to evaluate implementation; and to provide for extensive Citizen participation in
the EAR and amendment processes.
POLICY 3.1.4: Miami shall institute a full Park Ranger program. Rangers shall be trained
to maintain a high level of public safety at park and recreation sites at a reasonable cost.
Rangers will help to relieve an overburdened Police Dept. Park Rangers will work with the
Police Dept. where and when necessary.
OBJECTIVE 3.2: The City will ensure that 100% of all recreational sites are accessible to
all residents and visitors by 2015.
POLICY 3.2.1: The City shall centrally locate new park and recreation facilities in the
neighborhood area to be served whenever possible.
POLICY 3.2.2: The City shall coordinate, with Miami -Dade County, present and future
recreation sites with existing and planned transportation systems (including transit -routes).
POLICY 3.2.3: The City shall provide for bicycle and pedestrian access to parks and
recreational facilities, especially in the case of neighborhood- serving sites. Bike racks shall
be provided.
Page 21 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
POLICY 3.2.4: The City shall require accessibility for all residents, including elderly,
handicapped, and economically disadvantaged and others with special mobility needs, as a
design criteria for new facilities and shall "retrofit" all existing sites by 2015.
OBJECTIVE 3.3: The City shall continue and expand efforts to ensure public awareness
and utilization of park and recreational programs and facilities throughout the life of the
pla n.
POLICY 3.3.1: The City will gather and analyze participation and usage data as a measure
of programming success and utilization effectiveness.
POLICY 3.3.2: The City will conduct one annual city-wide survey of the population to
determine the adequacy of and quality of services and to determine areas of dissatisfaction
and need.
POLICY 3.3.3: The City shall utilize program evaluations to determine and document user
satisfaction and preferences in recreational and special programming.
POLICY 3.3.4: The City shall administer survey sampling in all parks on an ongoing basis
to update/address park maintenance concerns and recreational needs.
POLICY 3.3.5: The City shall obtain public input into all park planning and design
decisions through the elected Parks Advisory Board. The Waterfront Advisory Board, the
Director of Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Associations and other concerned citizens.
There will be regular monthly meetings and public notice of these to encourage full
participation by the citizens.
The City shall provide complete copies of staff and consultant reports, all surveys and
samplings and the minutes to all participants in a timely fashion to foster Citizen
stewardship of our Parks and to insure an adequate amount of participation and expertise
goes into the planning, operating and review process.
The Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with the Parks Advisory Board and
the Friends of Parks Committees shall sponsor through each NET office an annual citizens
workshop/festival to educate residents and to seek their input and involvement with the
parks in their NET area.
POLICY 3.3.6: In order to reflect current or updated needs, one year in advance of the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report the City shall review facilities, amenities and recreational
programs offered at each neighborhood and community park utilizing the elected Parks
Advisory Board, a nationally recognized park consultant Friends of Parks Committees,
concerned citizens and Friends of Parks Committees.
POLICY 3.3.7: The City shall research and initiate new recreation facilities and programs
to expand recreational opportunities available to residents.
GOAL 4: Develop new funding sources for expansion of parks and recreation facilities and
make use of all available funding sources in the provision of quality recreation and open
space opportunities.
Page 22 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
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.
OBJECTIVE 4.1: The City's park requirements have been expanding as a result of
unprecedented growth. This pattern may continue in the future as the pressure for urban
infill increases. Therefore, The City of Miami shall continue to monitor levels of service for
parks and open space, and, if necessary, shall identify and implement alternative funding
mechanisms and programs to provide for additional acreage dedicated to parks and open
space.
POLICY 4.1.1: Assure and improve continued public access to existing Recreation and
Open Space, particularly as related to the public beach, coastal areas, river front and
boating and fishing areas.
POLICY 4.1.2: Where the School Board of Miami -Dade County has facilities for recreation
established, (unencumbered by portable classrooms) and because there is no need for
duplication of services, the City of Miami shall propose agreements for joint use of these
facilities. For the purpose of outdoor recreation, school facilities may be considered
equivalent to a neighborhood or community park within traditional city boundaries or in
other infill areas where the shortage of suitable vacant sites for active recreation
programming makes acquisition of additional park acreage difficult except for small pocket
parks. This substitution may only be used where satisfactory inter -local use agreements
have been negotiated. The City of Miami shall identify potential locations for joint use, with
priority given to neighborhood areas experiencing a deficiency.
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.
POLICY 4.1.3: The City shall continue and enhance use of MUSPs, DRIs, and other
mechanisms to provide recreation space open to the public, free of charge and on a daily
basis.
POLICY 4.1.4: The City shall maintain and improve the existing recreation lands and
encourage the dedication of properties for recreation uses through appropriate incentives.
POLICY 4.1.5: Proposed park sites, and existing park sites scheduled to be renovated, shall
be evaluated as to their existing and potential environmental quality and their impact on
the City's park levels of service. The City of Miami shall consider the following as park
projects are undertaken, particularly projects utilizing or attempting to obtain federal
and/or state grants:
1. The project's ability to maintain or improve park levels of service;
2. The protection of Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Special
Concern, including rare or threatened vegetative communities;
Page 23 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
3. The enhancement or restoration of natural areas and shoreline ecosystems, and
the removal of nuisance and/or exotic vegetation;
4. The creation or continuation of green way systems utilizing environmentally
sensitive lands;
5. The preservation of large canopy trees;
6. The protection or improvement of groundwater quality and/or surface water
quality;
7. The protection of natural resources from potential adverse impacts associated
with uses or activities on adjacent lands, including a land use compatibility analysis and the
provision of wetland buffers and buffer yards in the Growth Management Plan and Land
Use Development Code. Where applicable, the City shall ensure that the above mentioned
environmental systems are protected, preserved, and/or enhanced.
OBJECTIVE 4.2: The Parks and Recreation Department shall prepare and maintain a
coordinated five-year Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program.
POLICY 4.2.1: Projects included in the Capital Improvement Program related to park and
recreation facilities shall be arrayed in rank order, with a relative priority being determined
by:
a. Public Safety
b. Protection of the City's investments
c. Upgrading and replacement of existing sites, and
d. Need for new facilities and expansion
POLICY 4.2.2: The Capital Improvement Program related to parks and recreation
facilities, will be updated annually by the Parks and Recreation Department and the elected
Parks Advisory Board.
OBJECTIVE 4.3: The City shall recognize the significant role leisure provision plays in
economic prosperity of the community.
POLICY 4.3.1: The Parks and Recreation Department shall assist the Greater Miami
Chamber of Commerce and the Visitor and Convention Bureau in promoting recreation
activities and facilities to our visitors and residents by providing maps, brochures and up-
to-date information as needed.
POLICY 4.3.2: Open Space recreational areas shall be used as incentives for
redevelopment in deteriorating or underutilized areas of the City by giving priority to
projects in eligible Community Development Block Grant Program Areas.
The City of Miami in its Evaluation and Appraisal Report notes the following to which we
have made additions and subtractions.
Page 24 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
(note pages 152 to 157-page 154 is missing from the City web -site)
Objective
PR-1.1 Increase public park space to 8 acres and increase access...
PR-1.1.1 To add acreage and continue...
PR-1.1.3 ...Establish mechanisms to halt all adverse impacts of such development.
PR 1.1.3 — Instead of the vague "establish mechanisms, ... special development fees..." we
can require that a developer provide park area for public use adjacent to his development
which would be maintained by a trust fund established by his company for that purpose. As
it is written here, the citizens do not know what mechanisms are or if the fees would even be
used in their neighborhood.
Delete the word mitigate. Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be
in place or under construction within one year of issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its
functional equivalent.
PR-1.1.4 Immediately rezone all of Virginia Key to PR -Restricted and increase
PR 1.1.4 — When? This doesn't mention the fact that this is a Conservation area. The
specifics of the Virginia Key Master Plan should be delineated here to prevent unwanted
changes and /or misunderstandings.
PR-1.1.5 Immediately rezone the last remaining 8 acres of Watson Island PR -Restricted
PR 1.1.5 — What do we (the city) have there now? Does recreational land use also include
that which can only be used by paying clients of Parrot Jungle, the boat club or the
Children's Museum?
PR-1.1.6 new/renovated/expanded and will provide for and maintain 10 per cent or more of
all park acreage in a manner which uses flowers, flowering shrubs, and tropical landscape
plantings to create an atmosphere which invites people to make return visits to a park to see
what is in bloom or new. In addition borders with fences shall be landscaped with greenery
of more than two feet in height.
PR 1.1.6 - Can green space, open space be included without all the requirements for
children and elderly? Are we not allowed to have public open space that only contains trees
and grass?
PR-1.1.10 No ownership spaces will be without the consent of the elected Parks
Advisory Board and the consent of affected Neighborhood Associations in the NET area in
which it is located.
Please note page 154 is missing from the City web -site.
Page 25 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
PR-1.2.2 presence.... Public swimming pools shall be kept open year round. The hours
of operation extended in the summer until dusk where there are no lights, and until 9:00 pm
where there are lights to give families the opportunity to swim together.
PR-1.3.8 new policy The City Commission shall act upon the advice of a Parks
Advisory Board. The Parks Advisory Board shall consist of one person from each
Neighborhood Enhancement Team (NET) district; to be elected by paper ballot at a public
meeting organized in each NET district. This meeting will be announced and publicized by
the Net office 60 days prior to the election date. Any resident 15 years or older living in the
NET District shall be eligible to run for office and to vote. The elected Board shall select a
Chair and a Vice chair. Initially, half the Board shall one year terms and half the Board
shall serve two years. Initial terms shall be determined by lots drawn at the first meeting.
This Board shall advise the Commission on all matters in regard to operations and capital
improvements including the disposition of impact fees for parks and budget. The City
Commission shall also seek the advice of the Waterfront Advisory Board, the Director of
Parks and Recreation and concerned residents. The Parks and Recreation Dept.
Staff and the Net Officer shall provide support services.
PR-1.3.8.1 New Policy To further encourage public involvement and the feeling of resident
stewardship, there shall be one Friends of Parks Committee for each NET District and
Adopt a Parks Groups shall be encouraged for each Park through annual Citizens
workshop/festivals to educate residents and to seek resident input and involvement in each
NET area.
PR-1.4 We dispute the City of Miami's estimate of population -note the new impact fee
ordinance (# ) uses different population estimates as provided to the City by
their hired consulting firm Tischler and
We dispute park and open space estimates of 704 acres as including roadway medians,
swales, unreachable spoil islands in Biscayne Bay, chain link fenced and landscaped areas
unable to be entered by the public, etc.
PR-1.4.1 For Pr1.4.1 through 1.4.3 new ordinance fees and assessments are too low
PR-1.4.2 to meet the need for acquiring additional parks regardless of biannual
PR-1.4.3 review.
The City of Miami shall raise the park impact fees and assessments until January 2006
LOS is met.
PR-1.4.4 The LOS ... should be 3.41, year 2000 levels increasing to 8 acres by 2025
PR 1.5.2 Please note $275mm from the Homeland Defense Bond is earmarked for museum
buildings in Bicentennial Park. There bulk is estimated to use between 4 and 8 acres of this
29 acre waterfront park site in the downtown central business district. The City of Miami
has yet to say if additional park space will be used for parking or if the people mover will
Page 26 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
have a traffic lane into the park. The remaining $6mm is divided equally between park
infrastructure and cultural institutions such as libraries.
PR 1.5.2 — Did the city complete the renovation of Bicentennial Park by 2002? If so why is
this an item on the county ballot? If it's a city park, what does the county have to do with
it? If city money was spent on it only two years ago, why are willing to throw it all away so
soon?
PR-1.5.6 There is no definitions of major attractions. There is no commitment to preserve
free open park space and unobstructed water views.
PR-1.5.7 .... required to provide waterfront setback and shoreline walkways.
PR-3.1 New Objective To insure that cultural and educational institutions are properly
planned and maintained by experts. This should include a City Department with its own
Director and Staff; a Cultural Advisory Board composed of recognized experts, artists and
academics; and an appropriate budget. Cultural and Educational Institutions have an
opportunity to be an enormous addition to the quality of life and to increase the intrinsic
value of the City if they are given an appropriate place to grow and thrive.
Objective PR 3.1— The date needs to be changed.
Coastal Management
Stop and reverse the practice of armoring public shorelines with boulders, as this prevents
pedestrian movement and launching or landing of recreational watercraft.
Minimize the planting of vegetation along shorelines that obscure the water view,
specifically mangroves. The environmental benefits that have been attributed to shoreline
mangroves (the dropping of leaves to feed the bottom of the food chain, and stilt roots that
provide shelter to small fish) can be replicated artificially without denying public physical
or visual access to the shoreline.
Give preference to non-commercial public access and recreation over environmental
"restoration" for public shorelines.
Goal 1: The responsibility, duties and mission of the City of Miami Coastal Management
Department and other city departments and employees with concerned with the following
goals and policies below, including but not limited to the Parks, Police, Fire, Administrative,
and Natural Resources Departments, and in cooperation with and abiding to the laws and
policies of Miami -Dade County, the State of Florida and the federal government agencies
including DERM, FEMA, the Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida
Water Management District and the U.S. Corp of Engineers, are: to maximize, protect, and
preserve the coastal areas of the City, and to maintain, maximize and enhance their
aesthetic, environmental, recreational, and economic values, while taking measures to
protect the City's natural resources, human life, and public and private property from
harm by natural disasters.
Page 27 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Objective CM-1.1 Replace with "Preserve and protect the existing natural systems and
coastline including ... River. Increase the lands areas designated for conservation.
CM 1.1.1— Was this accomplished? The entire subsection CM is full of past dates.
Objective 1.1: The City shall Conserve and protect remaining coastal wetlands, living
marine resources, beach/dune systems, coastal barriers, and wildlife habitat as applicable to
the coastal (bays, lakes, ocean, and estuary) areas of the City.
Policy 1.1.1: The City shall limit the specific and cumulative impacts of development or
redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine
resources, wildlife, estuaries, and beaches through the development review process.
Policy 1.1.2: The City shall assist county and state agencies in the enforcement and
monitoring of compliance with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Coastal Construction Control Line Regulations.
Policy 1.1.3: The City shall monitor development in the coastal areas to ensure proper
compliance with state, local and federal regulations.
Policy 1.1.4: The City shall instruct, direct and ensure that the departments, agencies and
employees concerned with these goals, objectives and policies carry out their duties in a
responsible, transparent and timely manner.
Policy 1.1.5: The City's Department of Coastal Management shall maintain a computerized
inventory, up -dated annually, and maps of all coastal features concerned in these goals,
objectives and policies that is made available to local, state and federal agencies and to the
public.
Policy 1.1.6: The City shall obtain public input into all planning to affect and effect the
goals, objectives and policies through public meetings and the elected advisory boards and
citizens groups and organizations concerned with and affected by the Coastal Management
Element: Parks Advisory Board, the Waterfront Advisory Board, the Director of Parks and
Recreation, Neighborhood Associations, other civic boards and organizations, and
concerned citizens. There will be regular monthly meetings and adequate public notice to
encourage the full participation of the public. The City shall provide complete copies of staff
and consultant reports, all surveys, samplings, surveys and minutes of meetings to all
participants in a timely fashion in order to encourage and inform the public and provide
them with the rights of being informed about government activities and the opportunity to
carry out their entitled civic duties in the Republic of the United States.
Policy CM-1.1.7. There is no such thing as "net loss of functional wetlands". Wetlands
cannot be replaced . . . therefore "net" must be removed. The last sentence must be
rewritten ... "Priority will be given to preserving open spaces for passive recreation and
only the Marine Stadium immediate property may be redeveloped for water dependent
land uses. The remainder of undeveloped land on Virginia Key will be designated
conservation or Restricted Parks and Recreation with a maximum FAR of
Development to improve physical public access to open spaces must enhance the natural
environment."
Page 28 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.1.7: The City shall take into account and provide for public review, criticism and
input to its laws, regulations and policies concerning management of the coastal areas, with
sufficient time to ensure participation by the public to allow adequate review and response
time to affect proposed City ordinances, laws and regulations. Scheduled City meetings will
be made available to the public and kept up-to-date on the City website. Advertisements for
meetings of the City Commission and postponements or cancellations will be advertised in
the Miami Herald newspaper with enough notification time for the public to respond.
Policy 1.1.8: The City shall allocate sufficient funds to city government departments and
agencies to administrate and carry out the laws, goals, objectives and policies of the Miami
Coastal Management Department and other local, state and federal agencies.
Policy CM-1.1.9. "Site development criteria will ensure that development or redevelopment
within the coastal zone will not adversely affect, including use of landfill or artificial barriers
which would alter the natural coastline, the natural environment or lead to any loss of open
spaces or public access to the City's natural resources."
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-1.1.10. Comment pending.
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".
Objective 1.2: The City shall improve its aesthetic qualities as much as possible, both
through positive measures of orderly development and beautification by using consistent
efforts to avoid, remove or diminish the impact of unattractive and unsightly features.
Changes to the coastal landscapes shall be in keeping with the natural habitat, bearing in
mind that Miami is a city on the sea in a semi -tropical climate zone.
Policy 1.2.1: The City shall follow standard design guidelines for all recreational and open
spaces adhering to current Natural Resource Protection areas (NRPA) and Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts and guidelines.
Policy 1.2.2: The City shall coordinate efforts with Miami -Dade County and existing
resource protection plans of the City to ensure adequate sites for water -dependent uses,
prevent estuarine pollution, control surface water runoff, protect living marine resources,
reduce exposure to natural hazards and ensure public access.
Policy CM-1.2.3 Include specific target levels of contaminants (end target and interim
targets with dates).
Page 29 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.2.3: The City shall provide plans and funds for restoration and enhancement of
disturbed or degraded coastal areas and institute programs to mitigate future disruptions
and degradations of coastal areas.
Policy 1.2.4: The City shall actively discourage any type of development, within or adjacent
to the coastal areas, where such activity will have significant detrimental effects on the
aesthetic and environmental quality of the area or limit public access both physical and
visual.
Policy 1.2.5: The City shall continue to maintain, review and amend land development
regulations which give priority to water -dependent and water related uses, especially in
public and tourism areas.
Objective CM-1.3. Revise. "In order to enhance the built environment of the coastal area,
redevelop and revitalize, blighted, declining or threatened coastal areas, so long as open
spaces are preserved and revitalized and such redevelopment is in accordance with Policy
CM-1.1.9 (revised)."
Objective 1.3: Utilize criteria or standards provided in the Miami Comprehensive Master
Plan for prioritizing coastal areas, giving priority to water -dependent uses.
Policy 1.3.1: The City shall continue to maintain, review and amend land development
regulations which give priority to water -dependent and water -related uses.
Policy CM-1.3.2. Add: Wherever possible, sites where structures must be demolished will
be retained as open space for passive or Restricted Park and Recreation use.
Policy 1.3.2: The City shall utilize performance standards for evaluating water -dependent
and water -related uses which afford such priority uses while giving consideration to the
surrounding uses.
Policy 1.3.3: The City shall prioritize, maintain and protect existing marine uses as a
resource of the City.
Policy 1.3.4: Areas adjacent to the coastal areas compromised of a high percentage of
residential uses shall be preserved for residential uses.
Policy 1.3.5: Areas adjacent to the coastal areas compromised of commercial and
residential uses, including hotels/motels, restaurants, and retail establishments shall be
maintained for those uses.
Policy 1.3.6: The City shall preserve and enhance existing marinas in the City and follow
standards for future marine siting which address: land use compatibility, availability of
inland support services, existing protection, ownership, environmental disruptions,
hurricane contingency planning, mitigation actions, protection of water quality, water
depth, availability for public use, and economic need and feasibility.
Policy 1.3.7: The City shall give priority to water dependent uses in zoning decisions.
Page 30 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.3.8: The location of water -dependent uses shall take into consideration the
protection of manatees, turtles and other endangered wildlife in areas which they frequent.
Policy 1.3.9: The City shall utilize criteria within the plan for the siting, evaluation,
monitoring and control of future water -dependent and water -related uses in the coastal
areas including boat rentals and water taxis.
OBJECTIVE 1.4: Monitor city, county and state construction standards to minimize the
impacts of development and redevelopment activities on sites adjacent to the coastal areas.
Policy 1.4.1: The City shall carry out and provide upon request an annual record of
monitoring activities of the coastal areas to comply with State mandated coastal
construction line development standards.
Policy 1.4.2: The City shall ensure that development is consistent with the Florida
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental Protection Coastal Construction
Control Line Regulations.
Policy 1.4.3: Development and redevelopment activities in the coastal high hazard areas
shall monitor and seek to protect the public and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the areas,
as in all coastal areas.
Policy 1.4.4: The City shall maintain and promote passive as well as active recreational
activities in the coastal areas which maximize the positive aspects of the environment while
protecting natural resources.
Policy 1.4.5: Wherever possible, native vegetation will be incorporated into projects on or
adjacent to coastal resources.
Policy 1.4.6: There will be an increase in non -waterfront public spaces such as plazas and
pedestrian linkages between the coastal areas and adjacent areas.
Objective 1.5: Utilize specific standards in the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan to
reduce the exposure of human life and property to natural hazards in the coastal high
hazard area.
Policy 1.5.1: Regulations contained within the South Florida Building Code will be
enforced to reduce exposure of life and property to the damaging effects of hurricanes,
wind, tornados, tidal waves, floods, and other natural disasters to protect human life and
property and conserve the City's natural resources.
Policy 1.5.2: The City shall regulate existing and prohibit inappropriate development,
including infrastructure, in the coastal high hazard area.
Policy 1.5.3: Development in the coastal high hazard area shall be reviewed and regulated
in cooperation with state and federal agencies for significant impacts upon evacuation
routes, and shall require roadway improvements if deemed necessary.
Objective 1.6: Protect human life and continue to limit public expenditures that subsidize
development permitted in the coastal high hazard area subject to destruction by a natural
Page 31 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
disaster, especially for public facilities that can reasonably be located outside the coastal
high -hazard area, except for those expenditures which facilitate natural disaster evacuation,
serve the existing population and promote the restoration or reinforcement of natural
resources in coastal areas.
Policy 1.6.1: The City regulations and practices shall protect public investments in areas
vulnerable to natural disasters by construction improvements in accordance with DEP
standards.
Policy 1.6.2: City projects and public expenditures should focus on the maintenance,
restoration and improvement of natural resources and coastal areas.
Policy 1.6.3: The City shall not utilize public funds for infrastructure expansion or
improvements in the coastal high hazard areas unless such funds are necessary to provide
services to the existing development and adequate evacuation in case of emergency.
Objective 1.7: Direct population concentration away from the coastal high hazard areas.
Policy 1.7.1: The City shall compile and make available to the public and other government
agencies an annual record of development permits issued in the coastal high hazard area
and their potential impacts on evacuation times because of natural disasters.
Policy 1.7.2: The City shall not increase land use densities and intensities established for the
City's coastal high hazard area; and shall prohibit increases in population densities in these
areas.
Policy 1.7.3: The City shall cooperate with and follow the regulations and suggestions of
local, state and federal agencies responsible for protection and evacuation of all people who
could be endangered or impacted by natural disasters.
Policy 1.7.4: The City shall provide an annual record of public actions within the City,
which contribute to reduction in hurricane evacuation times.
Policy 1.7.5: Deficiencies in natural disaster evacuation times or facilities that arise in the
future shall be analyzed, planned for, and reflected by amendments to this element.
Policy 1.7.6: The City shall participate and cooperate with local and federal agency and
planning professionals in meetings and forums for plans and reviews to facilitate and
improve natural disaster evacuations and protection of the public.
Policy 1.7.7: The City shall continue to provide date to Miami -Dade County from police
and fire departments regarding transit dependent evacuation and protection needs of
mobile home residents, elderly and PSN (People with Special Needs).
OBJECTIVE 1.8: Develop and implement post -disaster redevelopment and hazard
mitigation plans to reduce or eliminate exposure of life and property to natural hazards to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the City's current and future residents.
Policy 1.8.1: The City shall maintain and make available to the public records of the of City
adopted local hazard mitigation, permits issued to upgrade existing units to reduce or
Page 32 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
eliminate exposure of life and property to natural hazards, and of participation in Miami -
Dade and City emergency meetings, activities and programs.
Policy 1.8.2: The City shall cooperate and coordinate after a natural disaster with Miami -
Dade County in the removal of debris, immediate repairs and replacement of public
infrastructure needed to protect public health and safety. Should City infrastructure in the
coastal areas be damaged or destroyed because of a natural disaster, including water and
sewer mains, pump stations and water tanks, they shall be repaired or replaced in their
present location or relocated an determined appropriate by the City but consistent with
federal funding provisions for unsafe structures as necessary.
Policy 1.8.3: Long-term redevelopment following a major natural disaster event shall be
conducted in accordance with DNR standards. Future land use designations shall be
retained after such event.
Policy 1.8.4: The City shall participate in the preparation and adoption of a county -wide
post -disaster redevelopment plan which establishes an orderly process for reviewing private
and public redevelopment proposals to restore the economic and social viability of the City
in a timely fashion. Post disaster redevelopment should address the removal, relocation, or
structural modification of damaged infrastructure as determined appropriate and be
consistent with federal funding provisions and unsafe structures.
Policy 1.8.5: The City shall develop policies in cooperation with citizens after a natural
disaster to mitigate its detrimental effects upon their property, property rights, economic
situation, health, and social concerns such as the effects of development and redevelopment
causing neighborhood gentrification.
Policy 1.8.6: The City shall develop a strategic plan to reduce or eliminate exposure of life
and property to natural disasters. The plan will include an inventory of City hazard prone
properties, shelters, evacuation routes, functioning medical facilities, publications with
instructions for preparedness, evacuations, shelters, organizations providing relief, etc.
Policy 1.8.7; The City shall legislate, require and implement policies to regulate
infrastructure and development such as setback provisions and other site controls to reduce
future human and property damages and losses.
Policy 1.8.8: The City shall demolish structures deemed unsafe by the City Commission
assessing the property owner of the full costs. In areas of repeated hurricane damage,
repeated development shall be limited.
Policy 1.18.9: The use of the term "blighted" because of the damage caused by a natural
disaster shall not be applied widely or recklessly by the City in order to damage or demolish
existing buildings and neighborhoods that can be restored and rehabilitated for the use of
current and existing businesses, property owners and residents.
Policy 1.8.10: Florida State laws on the limitations of Eminent Domain by the City must be
strictly interpreted and complied with after a natural disaster.
Page 33 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Objective 1.9: Ensure that adequate public access to coastal areas is provided and
maintained consistent with public needs, including roads, walks, bike paths, enhanced
signage, lighting, benches, alternative parking space, and sanitary facilities.
Policy 1.9.1: The public access requirements of the Coastal Protection Act of 1985 shall be
enforced.
1.9.2: The City shall continue to maintain and enhance public access to coastal areas, to
provide enough parking for residents and tourists, and maintain the natural features and
landscape.
1.9.3: Adequate records shall be kept to provide for an annual evaluation of the
implementation of the City's policies in accordance with this goal as well as a record of level
of service results, and these records shall be open to the public.
Objective 1.10: Ensure that infrastructure is provided in accordance with the adopted
levels of service established in the Transportation Element, Sanitary Sewer and Potable
Water Component, Parks and Recreation Element, and the Capital Improvements Element
to serve development and redevelopment in the coastal areas that is consistent with plans
for coastal resource preservation and safe evacuation.
Policy 1.10.1: The City's compliance with the goal shall be monitored by records open to
the public recording annual reports of improvements and maintenance of existing
infrastructure undertaken as necessary and the results to meet adopted levels of service.
Policy 1.10.2: Through the land development review process, the City shall ensure that
funding for infrastructure including roads, water and sewers will be provided to coincide
with the demands generated by development or redevelopment, as well as provision for
schools and parks in coastal areas where such development and construction is not
prohibited or undesirable.
Policy 1.10.3: The City shall collect the Impact fees from developers as required in state
and local laws in a manner, amount and on a timetable laws and regulations require.
Policy 1.10.4: All development and redevelopment shall include state-of-the-art drainage
improvements as a means to enhance water quality in conformity with other provisions of
this document and other sections of the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan.
Policy 1.10.5: All deviations and allowances from the laws and established policies to
benefit contractors, developers, other commercial enterprises, and citizens during
development and redevelopment, such as variances and bonuses, shall be limited or
prohibited if and when such allowances contradict or are detrimental to the goals,
objectives and other policies of the Coastal Management Element, the Parks and Recreation
Element or the Natural Resources Element of the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan.
Objective 1.11: Continue to monitor and amend the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan,
as needed, to bring the Plan into conformance with applicable resource protection plans
developed by County, State, regional, and Federal entities having jurisdiction within the
City.
Page 34 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.11.1: The City shall coordinate with existing resource protection plans through the
appropriate regulatory procedures.
Objective 1.12: The City shall, through existing intergovernmental coordination
mechanisms, continue to determine the best course of action for protecting natural
resources and coastal areas located within the City which are interjurisdictional.
Policy 1.12.1: The City shall participate and keep records of such in studies affecting
natural resources and coastal areas located in or adjacent to the City through
intergovernmental coordination mechanisms.
Policy 1.12.2: The City shall coordinate with other government entities to ensure adequate
sites for water -dependent uses, prevent estuarine pollution, control surface water runoff,
protect living marine resources and wildlife, reduce exposures to natural hazards, and
ensure public visual and physical access to coastal management areas, parks, and natural
resources open to the public.
Policy 1.12.3: In this era of unprecedented and rapid growth, the City shall continue to
monitor levels of service, infrastructure and funding to protect, enhance and maintain the
coastal areas. If necessary, alternate funding from other government and private entities
shall be identified and pursued to provide for the desired level and provisions of these
programs.
Policy 1.12.4: One year in advance of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the City shall
review the Coastal areas facilities, maintenance, compliance with the Miami Comprehensive
Master Plan, level of services, and evacuation measures, amenities and programs, utilizing
the elected Parks Advisory Board, the Waterfront Board, the nationally recognized
consultants on natural resources, parks and coastal management, state and federal
government agencies and concerned citizens groups. Meetings with the City and other
consultants, agencies and citizens shall be advertised in the Miami Herald with enough time
to allow public participation.
Objective 1.13: The City shall recognize the significant role that leisure provision plays in
the health and economic prosperity of the community.
Policy 1.13.1: The City shall assist the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the
Visitor and Convention Bureau in promoting recreational activities and use of the coastal
areas and facilities for visitors and residents by providing maps, brochures and current
information as needed.
Objective 1.14: Reduce risks to hospital patients and special needs population due to an
emergency.
Policy 1.14.1: Keep records on the City's participation of local, state and federal emergency
preparedness meetings, activities and programs to reduce risks to hospital patients and
special needs populations due to an emergency, and make the records open to public
scrutiny.
Policy 1.14.2: Enforce and keep records of compliance with South Florida Building Code
Standards to ensure that new, reconstructed and expanded health care facilities outside the
Page 35 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
disaster areas are built to shelter specifications. Existing health care facilities outside the
disaster area should retrofit buildings to shelter specifications. Health care facilities outside
the disaster areas should establish aid agreements with similar facilities with the disaster
areas.
Policy 1.14.3: The City should coordinate with Miami -Dade County to ensure that enough
shelter spaces are reserved for health care within the storm surge areas and to provide
requirements for patients. Health care facilities are to be responsible for evacuating their
own patients or to provide on -site enhanced protection areas for them.
Policy 1.14.4: The City should coordinate with Miami -Dade County to prepare an
inventory for the elderly and special needs populations and designate special shelter (s) to
accommodate their needs and establish an outreach program to assist these populations in
evacuation and sheltering.
Objective 1.15: The City shall continue and accelerate the evaluation, planning for,
protection, preservation, services, maintenance, funding and enhancement of the following
coastal areas: Virginia Key, Watson Island, Bicentennial Park, the portions of Biscayne Bay
that lie with the boundaries of the City, the Miami River and its tributaries, Little River,
Dinner Key, Peacock Park, Bicentennial Park, all the intermittent wetlands and other
coastal areas of Coconut Grove and the City of Miami, in conformity with the goals,
objectives and policies in the rest of this document on the Management of Coastal areas.
Policy 1.15.1: The City shall immediately establish and comply with a timetable to move
along with appropriate legislation, work on the sites and all other necessary means to
accomplish the goals, objectives and policies of this element.
Policy 1.15.2: The City shall make available to the public and all local, state and federal
agencies and concerned organizations a record of meetings, the timetable in Policy 1.15.1,
and all changes in any laws, zoning, ordinances and policies concerning the coastal areas,
as well as adequate notice published in the Miami Herald of meetings of boards, the City
Commission and workshops to encourage public attendance.
Policy 1.15.3: The City will prepare and make available to the public and local, state and
federal agencies and concerned organizations a quarterly report on the actions taken and
progress made regarding the goals, objectives and policies of changes of zoning, tax status,
construction, development, redevelopment, building permits granted, variances, and
bonuses granted to owners of the properties, any change of ownership, names and business
affiliations of purchasers, and sale dates and schedule of payments and prices paid and
schedule of payments of public land in the coastal areas.
Policy 1.15.4: The City shall complete any work left incomplete to retrofit storm water
outfalls that discharge into the Miami River and its tributaries, the Little River and into
Biscayne Bay. Considering that the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan currently governing
the actions of the City has not been respected in many instances regarding the timetable
established to carry out the Plan's requirements, dates for completion are included in the
policies and objectives of this document, in order to achieve its goals. If appropriate and not
yet completed, all such storm water outfalls will be retrofitted by 2008. If positive drainage
systems to these water bodies have been deemed to be the only feasible method of
maintaining adequate storm drainage, then these storm sewers will be designed and
Page 36 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
constructed to retain grease and oil and minimize pollutant discharges. A report on the
progress of this work shall be made available in a bi-annual report to the public, citizen's
boards and organizations, all local, state and federal agencies with a up-to-date timetable
indicating the dates the work will be finished and any changes in City laws, zoning and
ordinances affecting the coastal areas.
Policy 1.15.5: Virginia Key shall immediately be zoned for Parks and Recreation. The City
shall comply with the legalities, ownership and zoning regulations in this document and
established by law in regard to Virginia Key in all matters concerning maintenance and
protection of natural resource areas, including established beaches and their use. The
natural environment will be open to the public free of charge and maintained and enhanced
in a manner to make Virginia Key an aesthetically pleasing site for the enjoyment and
health of the public.
Policy 1.15.6: Because of its unique history, character and environmental significance, all
development on Virginia Key will be in conformance with the Virginia Key Master Plan of
1987, and more recent plans by developers and the City which do not conform to the 1987
plan will be nullified and not be permitted.
Policy 1.15.7: The City will regulate development in conformance with the 1987 Plan on
Virginia Key and the intermittent wetland areas of the coast of Coconut Grove to ensure
that there will be no net loss of functional wetlands; that beaches and dune systems on the
shoal islands shore and Virginia Key will not be degraded or disrupted; that when non-
native vegetation is removed, it will be replaced with native species; and that wildlife
habitats and native species of fauna and flora will be protected. Priority will be given to
water dependent land uses and to development that enhances the natural environment and
ensures adequate physical public access.
Policy 1.15.8: All site development criteria will ensure that development, redevelopment
including new, revamped and enlarged marinas, will not adversely affect the natural
environment or lead to a net loss of public access to the City's natural resources. No
decisions of City government, its administration, boards, employees or the City Commission
will be permitted by employment of variances, bonuses or other means to deny fulfillment
of this requirement.
Policy 1.15.9: The City will establish or finalize, by December 2006, marina siting
requirements to be administered through its development permitting procedures, and that
such requirements will meet standards established by Miami -Dade County DERM, the
State of Florida DEP, and all other applicable state and federal standards. Live -aboard
vessels whether sailing craft, motorboats or houseboats, will not be permitted as of the date
of adoption of the new Miami Comprehensive Master Plan unless such prohibition has
already been legislated and affected residences in the coastal areas has ceased.
Policy 1.15.10: All City property within the coastal areas that may be identified as areas of
significant natural or unique natural resources will be prohibited from any designation by
the City or any person, business enterprise or government entity to permit residential
construction and use. Such use and related construction shall be strictly prohibited, and any
deviation from this policy will be subject to remedial actions by the public, citizens'
organizations and local, state and federal agencies. Remedial actions will include
Page 37 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
injunctions to prevent construction, lawsuits against the City, its administrators and City
Commission members.
Policy 1.15.11: Adequate police and marine patrol attention to Virginia Key and all other
coastal areas open to the public will be sufficient to ensure the protection and welfare of the
public.
Policy 1.15.12: The development and redevelopment of the coastal areas open to the public
will be strictly monitored and discouraged or forbidden if it will destroy or be detrimental
to the natural environment, wildlife and recreational use by the public. All zoning changes,
building permits and other decisions by the City government will be included in the
quarterly report by the City on the coastal areas cited above and available to the public and
other concerned agencies on the City website and in print, free of charge, in City offices.
Policy 1.15.13: The City shall accelerate and complete any unfinished assessment of any
environmental hazards that are a result of past disposal activities at the Virginia Key
landfill in cooperation with appropriate county, state and federal agencies. All unfulfilled
work to correct any reported hazards will be carried out before 2007 and a report made
available to the public and all other boards and agencies concerned with this issue.
Policy 1.15.14: The City shall immediately seek cooperative agreements and funding
support from Miami -Dade County DERM, the South Florida Water Management District,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and any other appropriate state and federal agencies in
order to reduce point and non -point sources of pollution into Biscayne Bay, if this has not
been done and shall by June, 2006 will establish plans, including a schedule of projects and
completion dates, and identify funding sources required to reduce point and non -point
sources of pollution with the City's boundaries. If the work has been planned, scheduled
and completed, a report shall immediately be made on the City website, or if not, a progress
report of the work accomplished and cost shall be made available to the public on the
website and in print form.
Policy 1.15.15: Along the coastal areas, no land uses which represent a likely and
significant source of pollution to surface waters will be permitted, unless measures which
substantially eliminate the threat of contamination have been or are implemented as
conditions for approval of development or redevelopment. No variances or bonuses will be
available to developers and other residential or commercial enterprises except the
established marine industry as conditions to the requirements of this policy.
Policy 1.15.16: The City will adhere to Miami -Dade County DERM standards and require
DERM approvals in its permitting procedures to ensure that all fuel storage facilities in the
coastal zone or near major canals do not pose a significant threat to water quality.
Policy 1.15.17: In concern for the commercial development of Watson Island that has
already been permitted by the City to the benefit of developers, marina owners, and Parrot
Jungle, the City shall not issue any more building or other permits to any enterprise
wishing to establish itself on the island. Prohibited is the construction of anything that will
increase the density or intensity of population on the island other than sanitary facilities for
an enhanced natural resources and park area.
Page 38 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.15.18: Watson Island's remaining open shall be developed and enhanced as a
green park and natural resource area buffering it from the buildings and roads on the
island, be open to the public daily and be maintained and protected. It will be decorated
with attractive greenery and benches, water fountains and sanitary facilities.
Policy 1.15.19 The City shall act and legislate in a manner favorable to the preservation,
maintenance and expansion of the marine industry in Miami. In consideration of the
economic value and large employment characteristic of the marine industry on the Miami
River and other main waterways of the coastal areas, and also considering the enhanced
value of these commercial marine activities due to the dredging and deepening of the Miami
River, no building permits or changes in zoning will be granted by the City which will have
a detrimental effect on the viability of these industries and crowd them out of existence by
increases in taxes or land values and other pressures resulting from past re -zoning and
residential and other types of commercial construction.
Policy 1.15.20: In the interest of public safety and the well-being and enjoyment by all
citizens of the great and unique natural beauty of Miami's coastal areas, future land use
and land development regulations and actions by the City shall require non -water
dependent or related development or redevelopment to maintain public access, both
physical and visual, to the shoreline.
Policy 1.15.21: The museums and development and redevelopment of Bicentennial Park
shall conform to the goals, objectives and policies in this document and the Coastal
Management Element in the E.A.R. and Miami Comprehensive Master Plan. Any previous
and current agreements, plans, contracts or other mechanisms to nullify or thwart them
will be null and void. If the museums partially funded in Bond Issue 8 approved by the
voters are eventually built, they will be limited to the occupation of no more than four acres,
shielded from the east side of the park by a buffer of greenery, and limited to three stories
in height. Any construction will be placed at the west side of the property near Biscayne
Boulevard so as not to disturb the view of the bay from inside the park and adjacent parts
of the City and waterfront.
Policy 1.15.22: The City shall not be liable for the operating, insurance, maintenance or
construction costs of any museum(s) if they are built in Bicentennial Park, now or in the
future. This regulation may not be changed by any future amendment to City laws,
ordinances or Comprehensive Master Plan. The annual budgets of any museums in the
park and sources of funding will be a matter of public record.
Policy 1.15.23: Bicentennial Park will be developed principally as a green park space over
most of the park area, with amenities such as attractive greenery including shade trees,
paths and benches for the enjoyment of the general public, be free and open daily,
maintained, and protected. Any ball fields or other sports facilities will be limited to a small
section of the area, allowing the passive use and enjoyment by all ages of people.
Policy 1.15.24: No other type of building than two museums, whether cultural, commercial,
public, governmental, or educational, may be constructed in Bicentennial Park. No future
laws, ordinances, bond issues or Comprehensive Master Plans may change this policy.
Policy 1.15.25: If the Miami Art Museum, the Miami Science Museum, the Historical
Museum, or any other museum or entity connected to them is not able to obtain the funds
Page 39 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
required in Bond Issue #8 by December 2008, as a match for the funds to be provided by
Miami -Dade County, any contract or agreement between the City of Miami and the
museums, their boards, administrative staff, funding entities or persons for the City to
provide the area of Bicentennial Park for construction of the museums will be null and void.
Bicentennial Park in its entirety will be reverted to Park and Recreational use to be
maintained, enhanced with benches, sanitary facilities, landscaped, shaded by trees, and
protected for public use, free of charge and open daily.
Policy 1.15.26: All commercial, residential or government buildings in coastal areas already
granted buildings permits, constructed or under construction will be required to provide
adequate, safe and attractive public physical and visual access to the waterfront as well as
the walkways along the shore fronts mandated by law and ordinances in accordance with
the adopted standards and in compliance with all City, County, State, and Federal
Regulations that apply. The City will not allow any development or construction variances,
bonuses or other agreements, ordinances or laws to circumvent or be contrary to this Policy
regulation.
Policy 1.15.27: The City shall complete plans for design and implementation of the
Downtown Waterfront Master Plan, the bay and river walks along City owned properties
and privately owned land, and identify and consolidate and complete funding sources using
an appropriate mix of public and private sector monies, if not yet identified and provided.
These projects are to be in compliance with all local, county, state, and federal regulations,
and be completed, inspected and approved by all governing bodies by the end of 2008. Any
private landscaping or amenities provided by commercial development along the waterways
required as a condition of building and construction permits by the City shall be completed
by one year after completion of the buildings.
Policy 1.15.28: All development, redevelopment and construction along the coastal areas
and waterways, in accordance with the City of Miami Charter and related laws, and more
specifically the Waterfront Charter Amendment and Ordinance 9500 (Zoning Ordinance
for the City of Miami), all new development, redevelopment and construction along the
Downtown, Miami River, and Coconut Grove waterfronts, if allowed by other provisions of
this document, will be required to provide special setbacks. Those developments permitted
within Special Districts that require publicly accessible shoreline walkways, will design
them in conformance with established standards (see Parks, Recreation and Open Space
and Land Use sections and elements of the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan).
Policy 1.15.29: The City owned shorelines and coastal areas will be stabilized and improved
as part of required maintenance where sufficient stabilization is lacking.
Policy 1.15.30: The City shall prevent and prohibit any net loss of acreage devoted to water
dependent uses or wetlands in the coastal areas of the City of Miami.
Policy 1.15.31: Measures which provide for the protection of City owned Historic
Properties from the destruction of natural disasters and contingency plans for the
restoration of damaged or destroyed sites will be completed by the end of 2007. This will be
carried out by the Historic Preservation Department of the City and professional
consultants.
Page 40 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.15.32: All City departments including administrative, appointed boards, agencies
and employees will comply with and implement the provisions of this Coastal Management
document, as well as the provisions that apply to the management of coastal areas contained
in other sections of the Miami Comprehensive Master Plan. Any changes in this section or
any others in the Plan will be enacted in conformance with City, County, State, and Federal
laws and regulations; and without delay, as a matter of public record, be accessible in print
and displayed on the City website in order to be made available to citizens, citizens' boards
and organizations, and other government and regulatory agencies.
Policy 1.15.33: The City shall welcome, schedule sufficient meetings with and seriously
consider the input and concerns of citizens and citizens' organizations in the planning,
funding, enactment and compliance processes of all matters concerning the City's
stewardship of the coastal areas of the City of Miami including changes in the zoning code,
the issuance of building permits, natural disaster evacuations and reconstruction, laws,
ordinances and regulations. Records of all meetings between City government departments
will be kept and made available to citizens, citizens' organizations and other government
boards and agencies with being edited and without delay.
Policy 1.15.34: The City shall not enact, promote or attempt to enforce any laws, policies,
covenants, ordinances, or regulations nor permit the activities of any city department,
administrator or employee to intimidate or retaliate against any citizen or citizens'
organization or diminish their rights under the law because of a disagreement. The City
shall recognize that citizens have a legitimate interest and right to be considered in matters
regarding the welfare of the City and all its residents, visitors, enterprises, geographical,
natural, and man-made components that are allowed and protected as part of the rights of
citizens granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.
Goal CM-2. The Goal should focus not just on access, but also on open spaces for passive
recreational use. Aside from riverfront property being redeveloped, all existing open spaces
must be preserved as open space, including Virginia Key and Watson's Island.
Objective CM-2.1. Eliminate "net" and add open space as well as public access.
Policy CM-2.1.1 Replace. Non -water dependent or related development or redevelopment
should not be permitted on the shoreline. Whatever conditions/situations this Policy is
intended to cover must be spelled out more clearly.
Objective CM-2.2. Preserve Virginia Key and Watson Island open spaces.
Objective CM-3.1. Eliminate "net".
Policy CM-4.1 1 • swells and prohibit development of hotels, high density residential,
and high density retail in low-lying coastal areas which are subject to storm surge.
Add Policy CM-4.1.1.1 No high -density development (residential, hotel, commercial) will be
permitted east of South Bayshore Drive on the coastal plain between Peacock Park and
Aviation Ave.
Policy CM-4.1.2. Add: "However, any such development or redevelopment must also
conform to Policy CM-1.1.9" (as revised).
Page 41 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Development of Coastal lands. When the original MCNP was written, there was
considerable undeveloped coastal land in the City. However, the City must now preserve all
open space that remains adjacent to the coast, Biscayne Bay and the other waterways in and
around the City. With the exception of marinas and waterfront restaurants, there is NO
need for other new income -producing activities (commercial or residential) or other
development to be on the water. To preserve remaining open spaces as open spaces for
passive recreation creates the greatest economic value for the City, both short term and
long term. All income producing, and therefore tax generating, activities can exist within
walking distance of the open space and be just as lucrative to the private owners and to the
City as though they were on the waterfront.
Natural Resource Conservation
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."
Goal NR-1. Remove "within the context of the City's urban environment".
Goal: To conserve, protect, maintain, and appropriately utilize the City's natural resources
for the benefit of present and future residents and visitors by complying with all City,
County, State, Regional, and Federal regulations for infrastructure and control of
pollutants. To fulfill this goal, no further degradation or disruption of significant natural
resources should be permitted in the City. Where appropriate, measurable goals, objectives
and policies shall be required.
Objective 1.1: The City shall maintain and enhance water quality as per the requirements
of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
discharge to the waters of the United States. The City will restrict runoff based on the City's
needs analysis as approved.
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.).
Implementations Status:
Hazard reduction plan completed by Miami -Dade Department of Environmental Resources
Management.
Policy 1.1.1: The City shall adopt development regulations consistent with and furthering
the policies of Objective 1 and create a checklist of requirements based on its requirements
to record and evaluate the City's compliance. The evaluation will utilize the review of 100%
of all development and redevelopment plans to insure adequate protection of water quality
under the City's NPDES Permit, as well as drainage requirements by regulatory agencies.
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 storm water outfalls
retrofitted (See Policies SS-2.2.1 and CM-1.1.2.).
Page 42 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Implementation Status:
See Chapter I.B.1.b. — Not fully accomplished by target date but retrofitting underway in
conjunction with regulatory a2encies as part of a five year plan to improve water quality
Policy 1.1.2: The City shall coordinate with environmental agencies having jurisdiction over
a water body or function within the City to formally sample and analyze surface waters.
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 establish a new date after consultation
with appropriate agencies to state that the City will encourage the reduction in the levels of
contaminants through coordination with the appropriate agencies.
Policy NR-1.1.3 Beginning 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.).
Implementation Status:
Data to allow precise measurement as per Policy not available, but retrofitting
accomplished in conjunction with regulatory a2encies in order to eliminate point and
nonpoint source pollutant loading into surface waters— see Chapter LB.1.b.
Policy 1.1.3: The City shall cooperate with, facilitate, and develop new monitoring
procedures for surface waters with the Miami -Dade County Department of Natural
Resources; and work with the County to identify land uses adjacent to waterways which
may be detrimental to water quality.
Policy NR-1.1.3. Establish specific end -target permissible levels of contaminants together
with interim target levels and respective target dates for reductions until the end -target
level is reached.
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.
Implementation Status:
Participation in SWIM Program ongoing through intergovernmental coordination efforts
with Miami -Dade County, South Florida Waster Management District, Biscayne Bay
Management Committee
Policy 1.1.4: The City will take actions to restrict activities and land uses known to affect
adversely the quality and quantity of identified water resources, such as natural
groundwater recharge areas, wellhead protection areas and surface waters, which are used
as a source of public water supply.
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.
Implementation Status:
Virginia Key Master Plan adopted June 1987 — development regulated accordingly
Page 43 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.1.5: All new development and redevelopment as well as drainage improvements to
City facilities shall provide on site retention of the first inch of stormwater.
Policy NR-1.1.5. Remove "net".
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.
Implementation Status:
Waterfront access provisions included in Article 4 (Zoning Districts, Article 5 (Planned Unit
Development), Article 6 (Special Districts), and Article 9 (General and Supplemental
Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance. Also addressed through administration of
participation in the Waterfront Charter and Shoreline Development Review Committee.
Environmental Regulations addressed in Chapter 17 of Code of Ordinances.
Policy 1.1.6: The City shall report annually to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
on the requirements of the NMPDES permit concerning additions to and maintenance of
the Municipal Separate Stormwater System.
Policy NR-1.1.6. "Through development regulations, ensure that development or
redevelopment within the coastal zone will not adversely affect, including use of landfill or
artificial barriers which would alter the natural coastline, the natural environment or lead to
any loss of open spaces or public access to the City's natural resources."
Policy NR-1.1.7 Increase code enforcement to prevent illegal disposal of hazardous waste
into natural resources.
Implementation Status:
Increased code enforcement as a result of the Quality of Life Task Force; code enforcement
procedures implemented as per Chapter 2 (Administration), Article X (Code Enforcement)
of the Code of Ordinances
Policy 1.1.7: Through the City's development review process, the City will ensure that
development and redevelopment meet modern, adopted drainage standards and comply
with concurrency laws of the State of Florida. A report of these reviews will be a matter of
public record and bi-annually be up -dated and placed on the City website.
Policy NR-1.2.1 Continue to work with Biscayne Bay Management Plan Committee to
encourage/support DERM in monitoring contaminants within these water bodies and
ensure the City is kept informed of environmental conditions.
Implementation Status:
Inspections conducted by DERM — City participates on Committee.
Policy 1.2.1: The City will ensure that new development or redevelopment or other
construction does not degrade or decrease the quantity and quality of the public water
supply in established residential neighborhoods. State laws regulating the concurrency
Page 44 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
standards required by new development and development will be strictly adhered to as
legislated and signed into law in 2005.
Policy NR-1.2.2 Continue to implement the Biscayne Bay Management Plan to reduce the
level of contaminants in these water bodies and improve the water quality.
Implementation Status:
City supports DERM efforts to implement plan.
Policy 1.2.2: Because the potable water network is an interconnected, country -wide system,
the City Departments of Public Works and Planning with cooperate with Miami -Dade
County WASA Department to jointly develop methodologies and procedures for biannually
updating estimates of system demand and capacity, and ensure that sufficient capacity to
serve current and future development exists.
Policy NR-1.2.3 Participate in state/federally funded programs to remove abandoned/repair
leaking underground fuel storage tanks on City -owned properties.
Implementation Status:
Inspections are ongoing through State and federal programs.
Policy 1.2.3: The City will ensure that potable water supplies meet the established level of
service standards for transmission capacity as required by the needs of the population in
coordination with the Capital Improvements programs and policies of the City.
Policy 1.2.4: The City will cooperate with the South Florida Water Management District
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of Environmental Quality
(DER) monitoring of the water levels at the salinity control structures within the city to
prevent against further saltwater intrusion and protect the aquifer recharge areas and
cones of influences of wellfields from contamination. Monitoring will be done on at least an
annual basis.
Policy 1.2.5: The City will complete any studies or planning processes not yet effected, to
put into place by 2007, a workable and sufficient city -level water conservation plan that
mandates specific measures to be implemented on a regular basis as well as in drought
conditions; such measures will include but not be limited to:
1. Requiring plumbing fixtures that use low volumes of water in new developments and
reconstructions.
2. Encourage across the City and require in City owned lands, parks, recreation areas,
public spaces, and green areas of new construction and developments, the use of xeriscape
landscape, which requires little or no irrigation. This policy is in accordance with South
Florida's Water Management District (SFWMD) policies.
Policy 1.2.6: In periods of water shortage, the City will support the South Florida Water
Management District's policies and regulations concerning and regulating water
conservation.
Page 45 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.2.7: Distribute water conservation information to the public that details voluntary
water conservation practices to be used regularly and information about mandatory
regulations during droughts.
Policy 1.2.8: The City will adopt an emergency water conservation ordinance by the end of
March, 2006, if one is not yet in place, that is consistent with the existing Miami -Dade
County emergency water conservation ordinance, as well as the emergency
Water conservation policies of the South Florida Management District.
Policy 1.2.9: The City will replace water mains with a history of leakage through an annual
infiltration repair program.
Policy 1.2.10: The City will order studies of the practical, logistical and economic feasibility
of instituting a program of reuse of reclaimed water and act to implement such a program if
the study reports a favorable possibility. If the study indicates against the viability and
desirability of the reuse of reclaimed water, alternatives to water reuse will be studied and
implemented, where advisable in cooperation with the County, the South Florida Water
Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection. These measures
may include:
1. The development and construction of Aquifer Storage and Retrieval (ASR) wells and
tanks and regular monitoring of aquifer recharge areas and groundwater.
2. The development and construction of a welifield recharge system in cooperation with the
SFWMD, the DEP and the County, seeking grant funds from the SFWMD.
3. Institute an ordinance that will to allow the City to charge lower water rates for users
that conserve water.
4. Record the number of new septic tank systems installed and require that new septic
systems shall only be permitted when the Florida Department of Health Bureau of Water
and Onsite Sewage Program and County Health Department determine that they are
consistent with Miami -Dade County's Water and Septic Tank Ordinance, with the
mandates of Florida Statues and the Florida Administrative Code.
Policy 1.2.10: The City will inspect and determine the viability of the sewage system on a
regular basis and replace and upgrade faulty sewage lines according to the needs of the
neighborhood and area.
Policy 1.2.11: The City will continue to identify, conserve and protect all groundwater and
aquifer recharge areas consistent with the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 1.2.12: The City will review all development, redevelopment, road, sidewalk and
parking lot construction, and other projects that cover open space and the natural
environment as part of the Planning Department and other reviews by City agencies to
determine the possible detriment to the ability of land within the city to absorb rain and
other storm waters. Policies should be enacted and enforced to limit covering over land in a
manner that diminishes drainage.
Page 46 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.2.13: The construction of additional street sewers is to be discouraged due to
resultant mosquito breeding, and grassy swales should run along residential streets as a
better manner of absorbing water than street sewers and wide sidewalks which abut the
streets.
Policy 1.2.14: The City shall continue to assess the extent of environmental hazards and
past disposal activities at the Virginia Key landfill, in cooperation with appropriate County,
State and Federal environmental agencies, and an action plan will be accelerated to
eliminate the associated hazards by January of 2007.
Policy 1.2.15: The City shall continue to implement the Biscayne Bay Management Plan in
order to reduce the level of contaminants in those waters and improve the water quality to
satisfy DER, SFWMD, State, and Federal standards by January 2008.
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.
Objective 1.3: Maintain or enhance air quality through 2008 in accordance with the City of
Miami, Miami -Dade County, State and Federal standards.
Policy NR-1.3.1 Continue/expand use of scenic corridor/Environmental Preservation
District designation.
Implementation Status:
Environmental Preservation Districts designated as per Chapter 17, Article II of the Code
of Ordinances
Policy 1.3.1: The City shall adopt specific Clean Air Standards according to State, Regional
and Federal guidelines that can be measured, targeted for improvement, be adhered to and
reported to government agencies on a regular basis.
Objective 2: Objective 1.3.1: To conserve water as a resource of the City and region as a
whole and work to reduce per capita water demand, to ensure that adequate levels of safe
potable water are available to meet the needs of the city.
Policy NR-1.3.2 Identify City -owned land with significant native vegetative features/wildlife
habitats, and designate those as Environmental Preservation Districts.
Implementation Status:
Environmental Preservation Districts designated as per Chapter 17, Article II of the Code
of Ordinances
Policy 1.3.2: In order to evaluate the City's progress and compliance with the regulations
in this objective, the City shall keep a record of the City's adoption of development
regulations consistent with and furthering the policies of the objective. A checklist of
requirements based upon the policies under the objective will be utilized to record and
evaluate the City's compliance. The evaluation will also utilize data obtained through the
Page 47 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
monitoring of the City's in compliance with Policies 1.2.3. And 1.2.4. The records and
checklists will be available to the public and appropriate government agencies.
Policy NR-1.3.3 Continue designating private properties with significant/unique resources
as Environmental Preservation Districts.
Implementation Status:
Environmental Preservation Districts designated as per Chapter 17, Article II of the Code
of Ordinances
Policy 1.3.3: The City shall establish specific end -target permissible levels of contaminants
together with interim target levels following State and Federal guidelines and respective
target dates for reductions until the end target level is reached.
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.
Implementation Status:
Development review as per Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 17
(Environment) of Code of Ordinances.
Policy 1.3.4: The City will increase the number of monitor air quality indicators to the level
needed to ensure accurate monitoring of air quality by the end of 2006 and will monitor
them bi-annually to determine areas of concern in compliance with the requirements of the
goals, objectives and policies in this document.
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 benefits to overall
natural system.
Implementation Status:
Provisions in Chapter 17, Code of Ordinances and the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Policy 1.3.5: The City shall establish vehicular transportation patterns that reduce the
concentration of pollutants in areas known to have ambient air quality problems and also in
and adjacent to residential neighborhoods, parks and other recreation areas.
Policy NR-1.3.5. No further disruption or degradation of significant natural resources
should be permitted in the City.
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.
Implementation Status:
Provisions in Tree Protection Ordinance and Chapter 18A (Landscape) of Miami -Dade
County Code of Ordinances
Page 48 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.3.6: The City will work with the County transportation planning agencies to
continue to expand, and increase the quality of mass transit services within the City, and
actively seek funding to accomplish these goals and objectives.
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.
Implementation Status:
City complies with DERM's Marina Siting Plan and requirements provided in: Chapter 29,
Landfills and Waterfront Improvements and Chapter 50, Ships, Vessels and Waterways of
Code of Ordinances; Use provisions in Article 4, Zoning Districts and Article 6, Special
Districts of the Zoning Ordinance, and; through the Waterfront Charter and Shoreline
Development Review Committee
Policy 1.3.7: The City will monitor developers to ensure that they treat exposed
construction sites appropriately by means such as mulching, spraying or grass coverings, to
minimize air pollution.
Policy NR-1.3.8 Slow/idle speed zones shall be adopted and enforcement improved in areas
frequented by manatees.
Implementation Status:
Speed zones enforced
Policy 1.3.8: The City will work with appropriate County, State, Regional, and Federal
agencies to ensure that owners of buildings and facilities with unacceptable levels of
asbestos (according to EPA and State Standards) in ambient air test remove, treat and seal
asbestos -containing materials as long as this action will not cause further degradation to the
air quality.
Policy 1.3.9: Provide for improved traffic conditions in transportation related planning by
discouraging automobile travel through encouragement of mixed use development along
major roadway corridors with mass transit accessibility, always taking into consideration,
balancing and mitigating the possible detriment to established R1 and R2 residential
neighborhoods because of increased congestion, traffic, noise and air pollution.
Policy 1.3.10: The City will encourage and create land use policies that do not foster the
proliferation of employment centers, large commercial enterprises such as big -box stores
and high-rise residential buildings in or adjacent to established residential R1 and R2
neighborhoods, in order to prevent increased air, traffic and noise pollution.
Policy 1.3.11: Adequate open space, shaded and landscaped parking areas will be provided
and maintained by the city near Metrorail stations to mitigate air pollution and encourage
use of the Metrorail and connecting buses. City land along and under the Metrorail will not
be used for private or public parking or will be landscaped with greenery as a visual buffer
and means of improving air quality.
Objective 1.4: Improve the water quality of, eliminate pollution and ensure health safety
standards within the Miami River, its tributaries and the Little River, the Little River, in
Biscayne Bay, and on Virginia Key.
Page 49 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.4.1: The City will continue to work with the Biscayne Bay Management Plan
Committee in order to encourage and support the Miami -Dade County Department of
Environmental Resource Management in the monitoring of contaminants within these
water bodies and to ensure that the City is kept adequately informed of environmental
conditions, the results being a matter of public record.
Policy 1.4.3: The City will participate in state and federally funded programs to remove
abandoned and repair leaking underground fuel storage tanks on City owned properties.
Policy 1.4.4: The City will continue to reduce the quantity of storm water that discharges
into the Miami River, its tributaries, the Little River, and directly into Biscayne Bay. Any
outfalls not yet refitted will be brought up-to-date by January of 2008.
Policy 1.4.5: The City will take action to reduce the level of contaminants carried into
Biscayne Bay via by the Miami and Little Rivers by at least 35% by January of 2009.
Policy 1.4.6: The City will continue to participate in the State funded SWIM program for
funding support in order to reduce point and non -point sources of pollution into Biscayne
Bay.
Policy 1.4.7: The City will increase code enforcement including fines to prevent illegal
disposal of hazardous waste into the city's natural resources such as Biscayne Bay, the
rivers and other waterways.
Policy 1.4.8: The City will work with and support County efforts to identify generators of
hazardous waste, and to enforce procedures for the proper collection and disposal of
hazardous waste. The City will support the County's development and use of a hazardous
waste temporary storage facility in a non -populated area.
Policy 1.4.9: The City will assess the extent of environmental hazards that are the result of
past disposal activities at the Virginia Key landfill, in cooperation with appropriate County,
State and Federal environmental agencies, and implement an action plan to reduce or
eliminate associated hazards by the end of 2007.
Policy 1.4.10 The City will regulate development and prohibit activities on Virginia Key so
that there will not be a detrimental effect on the natural resources of the island. The
preservation and maintenance of the natural features with free public access will be
emphasized in the development plans for the island.
Objective 1.5: Comply with DEP, County, State and Federal policies and regulations to
appropriately use, protect and conserve native vegetation and other natural resources of the
City.
Policy 1.5.1: The City shall prohibit development activities that would destroy exceptional
natural areas, native vegetative communities and environmentally sensitive lands and
require that these resources be incorporated into the plans for development and be
maintained and preserved for the use of the public.
Page 50 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.5.2. The City Development and Design Review agencies shall recommend denial of
applications and permits for construction which do not fulfill the other policy intentions of
this document.
Policy 1.5.2: The Tree Ordinance of the City of Miami shall be enforced by the City in all
respects, and fines are tripled for violations that are carried out in a manner to thwart City
vigilance, inspections and preventive measures.
Policy 1.5.3: The City will institute and implement a shade tree planting program to
increase the canopy of the City by 30% by the end of 2008.
Policy 1.5.4: The City will require developers and builders to increase the amount of foliage
and green areas by 50% of what is now mandated by law, starting immediately. No
variances or bonuses will be granted that would invalidate the intent of this policy.
Policy 1.5.5: The City shall survey, record, report, and actively promote the acquisition,
retention and management of unique natural areas to preserve environmental, recreation
and other public benefits. This program is to begin in January If 2006 and be completed on
paper in January of 2008.
Policy 1.5.6: The City shall cooperate with other local governments to conserve,
appropriately use or protect unique vegetative communities located within more than local
jurisdiction.
Policy 1.5.7: The City shall immediately undertake and fund an aerial tree survey of the
entire city to be completed in stages by the February 2007, beginning with the long
established, historic residential neighborhoods. The results of the project will be made
available, including the aerial photographs and any supporting documents, to the public
within two months of the completion of each neighborhood survey. Bi-annual reports on the
tree removals and plantings by the City and private citizens and commercial enterprises
will also be available to the public.
Policy 1.5.8: The aerial tree survey and the preservation of significant trees will be a
required part of development and construction plans and the review process of the Design
Review Board in the consideration of plans submitted for building permits and approval by
the City Commission. Policy 1.5.9: Plats, which include local areas of particular concern,
shall be referred to the County for Environmental Impact Statements.
Policy 1.5.10: The City will continue, and where advisable or necessary, expand the use of
scenic corridor and Environmental Preservation District designation.
Policy 1.5.11: The City will identify City owned land and private properties with significant
native vegetative features or wildlife habitats and designate those areas and properties as
Environmental Preservation Districts.
Policy 1.5.12: The City will review development and redevelopment to determine any
adverse impacts on adjacent areas with significant native vegetative features, wildlife or
marine life, and establish regulations that reduce or mitigate such impacts.
Page 51 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy 1.15.14: The City will nclude significant and appropriate portions of the Model
Landscape Code for South Florida, available from the South Florida Water Management
District, for inclusion in the City's development regulations.
Policy 1.5.15: Through the development and design review and approval process, the City
shall ensure that off -site mitigation for disruption or degradation of significant natural
resources occurs in an orderly and sound manner, so as to maximize benefits to the overall
natural system. In -kind mitigation (tree replacement) will be of the same species and no less
than half the size of the original tree, and if the replacement dies within two years, the party
responsible will replace it again. No trees will be cut or moved in a manner to attempt to kill
them, either the branches or at the roots.
Policy 1.5.16: The City shall, through the development review process, deny the use of
intrusive species, encourage the use of native plant species, and those species that do not
require use of fertilizers, excessive watering, are not prone to insect infestation or disease,
and do not have invasive root systems.
Objective 1.6: Marine life will be protected from disturbances and damage to their habitat
and food supplies and from accidents and incursions by people and boats that cause bodily
harm or death.
Policy 1.6.1: Permit applications for all boating facilities located on city shorelines shall be
evaluated in the context of their cumulative impact on manatees, turtles and marine
resou rces.
Policy 1.6.2: Slow or idle speed zones shall immediately be adopted in areas frequented by
manatees, and enforcement of speed zones will be improved.
Policy 1.6.3: The City will prohibit unmitigated development and human encroachment in
and around areas known to be a habitat, reproduction, nesting and feeding areas for
animals listed as endangered or threatened species, or species of special concern.
Policy 1.6.4: The City will legislate for and enact without delay the protection and
conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers,
bays, lakes, floodplains, and harbors, wetlands including estuarine marshes, freshwater
beaches, shorelines, and marine habitats.
Policy 1.6.5: The Marine Patrol of the Police Department shall enforce state and local
ordinances dependent upon the jurisdiction of the waterways to reduce the careless
operation of boats, including speed and wake restrictions which may in turn injure marine
creatures and habitat.
Policy NR-2.1.2. What is the purpose of retention of the first 1" of storm water runoff?
Should this be 3" or 4" for Miami?
Objective NR-3.2. The City must have specific Clean Air Standards and the MCNP must
have specific Policies relating to meeting the standards. Population growth limits by
neighborhood in order to control growth of carbon -burning vehicles are essential to
Page 52 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
controlling the quality of air, especially for residents and employees working anywhere near
arterial and collector roadways.
Capital Improvements
Objective CI-1.2. The intent of the Objective is exactly in line with prior comments made
above, however . . . it is illogical that the implementation section of the Capital
Improvements Element 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 standards"! The inverse must be
clearly stated in the Land Use Element: that when there are insufficient capital resources
and capital projects in the Capital Improvement Program to meet LOS requirements for
additional development or redevelopment then the land use regulations must limit or
contain the growth. This Objective must be revised to properly recognize financial
limitations which will always be present with regard to the Capital Improvement Program.
Policy CI1.2.3.
a.) Review appropriateness of 1.3 acres and specify calculation excluding
large areas of purposely protected undeveloped park areas as "park space"
in the urban area.
f.) [minimum LOS on limited access, arterial, and collector roadways not
within Transportation Corridors ... comment pending]
Within designated Transportation Corridors: 1.) if 95% of the roadway
mileage within the City is covered, then this section has to be subdivided to
have different LOS for different types of roadways in the City — by land use
or other criteria.
2.) It is totally inappropriate to use capacity and 120% of capacity and 150% of
capacity of the public transit system as part of the LOS when the current utilization is at a
very low level compared to capacity. As stated above, this whole approach to levels of
service of transportation cannot be applied in the City of Miami in its current stage of
development (or ever in the case of 120% and 150%).
Policy CI-1.3.1. Add: "Developer contributions will be placed in trust and disbursements
will be made in accordance with ...."
Policy CI-1.4.1. ". . . events and in no case will be used for new development or
redevelopment."
Policy CI-1.4.2. "(See Coastal Management Policy CM-4.3.2 and CM-4.1.1(revised))
Intergovernmental Coordination
Objective IC-1.1. Possibly add here Registered Interested Parties ... as coordination with
the homeowner associations and others is critical in coordination and cooperation "required
to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan".
Page 53 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Policy IC-2.1.5 (new). The City will request Miami -Dade County to work jointly on
population growth plans and growth limits for each neighborhood in the City and the
county, in order to better control concurrency and maintenance of LOS and in particular
transportation levels of service. The City will request that this planning activity be an on-
going joint activity, given the mutual interdependence of the two.
Policy IC-2.1.6 (new). The City will encourage the South Florida Regional Planning
Council to conduct a regional review and evaluation of the collector and arterial roadways
in Miami -Dade and Broward Counties together with reasonable capacity utilization factors
for public transit in order to facilitate determination of effective levels of service standards
for transportation in the counties and the City.
Historic Preservation
It is noted that the City of Miami has not included this optional element in the
Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan. Historic Preservation has been governed by an
unimaginative ordinance since the 1980s, with not one new thought brought to bear.
The HEP Officer of many years described Historic Preservation in the City of Miami as a
"daunting" challenge. (page 30 EAR summary) This need not be so.
We strongly urge that the City of Miami add this element to the Neighborhood
Comprehensive Plan so that Miami can join the ranks of enlightened U.S. Cities in actively
pursuing and preserving its history.
Since the City of Miami did not have this element, we have borrowed heavily from the Fort
Lauderdale Comprehensive Plan format and language. We have adapted it for use by
soliciting comment from owners of designated properties, Neighborhood Associations in
Historic Districts and from Citizens who have educated themselves about the subject. We
agree Historic Preservation can be challenging, but it is also great fun.
Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goals
To Protect the City of Miami's historic, architectural and archeological resources through a
variety of methods, including identification, evaluation, protection, adaptive re -use,
restoration, public awareness and public education.
Objective 1: All historic resources shall be located and identified.
Policy HP- 1.1 A computerized data -base of all the historic and architecturally significant
sites, buildings, and archeological resources in the City shall be kept by the Historic
Preservation Officer. This system will be compatible with the State of Florida's Division of
Historical Resources and updated annually.
Policy HP- 1.2 All sites identified shall be recorded in the manner prescribed by the State
of Florida, Division of Historic Resources or by the U.S. Dept of Interior.
Policy HP-1.3 Institute a liaison mechanism with Dade Heritage Trust, The Historical
Museum of Miami, and the archivists of Miami's Cultural, Educational and Community
Organizations to further identify properties and sites of Historic significance.
Page 54 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
Objective 2: Monitor possible archeological sites uncovered by development for the
purpose of preserving sites of significance.
Policy HP- 2.1 The Department of Historic Preservation shall have an Archeologist on Staff
to work with Archeological firms hired by developers and monitor their findings in the
field.
Policy HP-2.2 The Department of Historic Preservation shall initiate discussions with the
various local universities to institute a field program where students will work with the City
Archeologist under the supervision of the University to assist in field monitoring.
Objective 3: Actively encourage and support the nomination of all eligible buildings,
structures, sites and districts for Historic Designation.
Policy HP -3.1 Devise out reach education programs including annual seminars and
ongoing workshops for residents, students and the development community to teach both
the intrinsic and economic value of preserving historic sites and buildings and the best ways
to accomplish this.
Policy HP -3.2 In conjunction with the Planning and Zoning Dept and the Office of
Economic Development, design worthwhile incentive programs for owners who designate
their property historic. Special efforts should be made to reach the single family
homeowner. Grants for facade repairs and painting, windows and door replacement shall
be budgeted and made available to eligible low income homeowners in designated Historic
Districts.
Policy HP -3.3 Monitor the availability of low -interest loans and grants for the
rehabilitation of historic resources. Where allowable set aside funds from Federal Housing
Programs to be utilized for historic preservation or restoration of eligible structures.
Special consideration should be given to small rental apartment buildings eligible for very
low income rental rehabilitation financing as the City has an extreme deficit of this type of
work force housing.
Policy HP -3.4 Seek out and make application for historic preservation grants from all
available sources for the benefit of the Department. Dept. Staff will assist Homeowner and
Neighborhood Associations, not for profit and for profit organizations, businesses,
individual homeowners, in identifying grant sources, and will assist them in making
application. A list of currently available grants shall be maintained on the Historic
Preservation City web -site with links to the grant sites. Property owners may join a data
base for notifications of all new programs as they become available.
Policy HP -3.5 Provide information and staff technical support in the use of rehabilitation
tax credits or other financial incentives that may be available.
Policy HP -3.6 Create a variance waiver for historically accurate elements such as
driveways, fences, and legally non -conforming accessory structures by making approval
administrative by the Historic Preservation Officer with notification to the Zoning
Administrator.
Policy HP -3.7 Streamline the approval process by developing catalogues of historically
accurate replacement windows, fences, doors, paint, shutters, etc. which will be
administratively approved. Do not use 1960s photos of a 1920s home to force a homeowner
Page 55 of 56
Miami Neighborhoods United
Revisions to the MCNP October 6, 2005
to use historically inaccurate windows, thwarting the entire purpose of historic
preservation.
Policy HP -3.8 Develop an administrative approval process with Dade County for
bistorically accurate custom window and door replacements, garage door replacements, etc.
The Historic Preservation Officer will work with Dade County and the City Building Dept.
whenever a property owner is willing to bear the expense of having custom made
historically accurate replacements and effect an administrative approval.
Policy HP -3.8 Seek collaboration with local academicians who are architectural historians
and local preservationists and add a Historic Preservationist or Historian to the staff of the
Department.
Objective 4: Actively seek the retention of historical and cultural resources which foster
community identity and civic pride. This includes the encouragement of revitalization of
older housing stock, the preservation of low residential density and protection against out of
context and overpowering adjacent development and/or incompatible uses.
Policy HP -4.1 Encourage the preservation and revitalization of existing residential
neighborhoods.
Policy HP -4.4 New development adjacent to or within the neighborhood shall be
compatible with the architecture and scale of the neighborhood. The impacts of
traffic brought about by new adjacent development is a matter of serious
consideration in the review of proposed new adjacent development.
Page 56 of 56
Miami21 your city, your plan
Page 1 of 2
Planning
Department
Arts and Cu lllturre
solraourniie Iltevellollrlrrent
I' Drum IiBased Code
vt uuc Preservation
Parks and Fabric briic Iftesllurn
"Transportation
Punagnarmuovumfurkfmartv
Asllrutsll Ilurnllrrovement II'"rojeets
sll Il.treiting of Code
Ira MUM
City Parks Map
Net Area Map
Quadrant Map
ipil%lk l/PrfASS
Purllrlliir Awareness t;sur paliion
Pu billue Meetings -Future
Puulbillue Meetlings IPoust
Au2ua t lirY Jolin the ICtstslls se
Submit s Question/Suggestion
AfforJ'urllrlle II Io rsiilra2
JtsIlrutroll IIurnIlrrsvealrneaarts
Past II lustery
"rasa Iftoom
Contact As
Ituss,uyIne Iltou lllevsrrt "limes
Milo ilI/tlonthuilly tro
<w<w 0(262112eur2006 µµ
e M e
YVIayor's IYVpessaye
III III IIII
1
Overview
All a au't IYVpliao-rrli 21
I
A.dviisouy "Team
ol111n i.11hmc III':'i i.all
The City of Miami is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Economic prosperity and strong
leadership have converged with natural appeal to bless the City with the greatest urban
renaissance seen in its history. Since 2001, the City has witnessed a 10% increase in
population. This surge is startling when contrasted with the 1 % growth experienced in the
1990s and the 7% total seen from 1970-2000. Estimates suggest that by the end of this
decade, Miami's population may expand by as much as 30%.
Miami's growth is due in part to the worldwide trend towards greater urbanization. By 2025, the
United Nations projects that urban population growth will make up about 90 percent of the
world's population growth, and in the United States, in particular, 85 percent of the population
will live in urban areas. These rates of urbanization are paralleled in cities and countries
throughout the world.
Given the dramatic rate of urbanization, many cities struggle with managing their growth. It is
becoming increasingly evident that growth made in haste and without sound planning will only
lead to further problems. Transportation, abundant green spaces, land conservation and equal
economic opportunity are just a few of the issues that can position a City as a place where
people desire to live or, likewise, desire to avoid. For cities to sustain themselves for
generations to come, growth must be acutely managed. It must be "smart growth".
Miami's answer to the challenge of "smart growth" is Miami 21 — a blueprint for the City of
Miami of the 21 st century and beyond. Miami 21 takes a holistic approach to land use and
urban planning, broadening the scope of a traditional master plan to become a truly
comprehensive plan. Miami 21 will provide a clear vision for the City that will be supported by
specific guidelines and regulations so that future generations will reap the benefits of well-
balanced neighborhoods and rich quality of life.
Miami 21 will take into account all of the integral factors that will make each area within the City
a unique, vibrant place to live, learn, work and play. Six elements, in particular, will serve as the
lynchpins in the development of the blueprint: Form -Based Code, Economic Development,
Transportation, Parks & Public Realm, Arts & Culture, and Historic Preservation.
All of these factors will converge to create a planned approach to the City's growth. City staff,
consultants and the public will work together on the development of the blueprint, ensuring that
all the elements develop jointly and not in isolation. The dialogue between all stakeholders is
necessary. For example, the new form -based code cannot be properly positioned without
knowledge of the infrastructure and transportation mechanisms in each area of the City;
recommendations for the most effective infrastructure and transportation plans cannot be made
without consideration of the appropriate catalysts for economic development; all of these
applications must chiefly consider those factors that contribute to a high quality of life in those
areas (e.g., appropriate businesses, cultural attractions, green space development).
http://asoft12.securesites.net/secure/... 10/4/2005
Miami NeighhOI United
MNU Comments on Affordable Housing
Re the Revised EAR of September 2005
October 7, 2005 Version
Miami Neighborhoods United (MNU), a non-profit (501C3) representing more than 23
home owner's groups within the City of Miami, is deeply concerned about the very low
income members of our community and the accelerated gentrification that is taking place
in our historically minority communities. We request that the following comments serve
as formal comments to the City of Miami and the Department of Community Affairs
regarding affordable housing to both the City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report
for 2005, as well as potential amendments to the City of Miami Neighborhood
Comprehensive Plan, and that these comments be incorporated into the public record,
pursuant to Section 9J-5.004(c) and (e) Florida Administrative Code.
October 2004 Draft of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The affordable housing component of Major Issue #1 of the EAR, 'The Need for, and
Impacts of Equitable Redevelopment and Development' in the October 2004 version of
the EAR, was analyzed by Florida Legal Services, along with Legal Services of Greater
Miami, Inc. and Payton & Associates, LLC in a thirteen page letter dated August 23, 2005
to Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director of the City of Miami Planning Department. MNU
agrees with and supports the analyses and conclusions contained in this letter and hereby
incorporates them into this document (Attachment G).
September 2005 Revised Evaluation and Appraisal Report
The same organizations, as above, made comments in a subsequent letter dated September
21, 2005 addressed to the Planning Advisory Board, relating to the Revised EAR of
September 2005. MNU agrees with and supports the analyses and conclusions contained
in this letter also and hereby incorporates it into this document (Attachment H).
While the Revised EAR of September 2005 attempts to address affordable housing
according to Section 9J-5.010 F.A.C. and other applicable statutory requirements, there is
an alarming lack of attention given to the disappearance of existing housing, especially for
the poorest residents. As noted in the EAR, gentrification is taking its toll on affordable
housing, especially affordable rentals. Merely pointing out that fact, however, does not
address this difficult issue. There are too many living on the edge of homelessness to give
the issue such short attention, and we fear the result could be a surge in Miami's homeless
population.
Also of concern are future demands for affordable housing. Miami is projected to have
approximately 438,000 residents in 2015 (our population in 2000 was about 363,000). If
the income distribution resembles then what it is today, approximately 87,000 individuals
will have extremely low incomes (less than 30% of the county median income); 57,000
will have low incomes (31-50% of the county median income) and 74,460 will have
Page 1 of 9
moderate income (51-80% of the median income); the remaining population is considered
to have middle to high incomes. The three low income categories are all projected to
require housing assistance. In 2010, the city projects approximately 28,000 extremely low
income households, about 19,000 low income households and about 25,000 moderate
income households. Under current policies, new developments in the city is geared to
those with substantial means, 75% of the rental units planned and under construction are
market scale and upscale units; only 25% are tax credit units. Additionally, under current
policies, the city experienced a 14% loss of 10-19 unit structures between 1990 and 2000.
Even if we were to assume that the city's economic initiatives enables a portion of
residents currently eligible for housing assistance to lift themselves economically and the
city's current policies of gentrification result in some of these needy individuals moving
from our city, Miami would still need a solid, specific, plan to address affordable housing
for the most vulnerable and poor. Let's assume for the moment that the city needs to
provide housing assistance for only 1/2 if the residents now projected to need housing
assistance in 2010. The city would need housing for approximately 24,000 households of
extremely low and low incomes and 12,500 housing units for moderate income residents.
Even at half, the numbers are large and the City's efforts to date have been inadequate.
Specific, measurable project goals against which the community can measure the city's
proposed policies are not found in the revised EAR.
In the face of these daunting figures, our City proposes a more diffuse definition of
affordable housing, does not seek specific monies under the Documentary Stamp Surtax
and wishes to substitute "must continue to coordinate with County" instead of previous
language of seeking a fair share of this affordable housing source of funding.
In the face of these daunting figures, our City does not have a coordinated, overarching
housing strategy which has been adopted by the City Commission. The City has no
housing agency (the Department of Community Development's main responsibility is
federal housing programs).
Finally, the Comprehensive Plan and its Evaluation and Appraisal Review of the City's
objectives and policies do not incorporate those strategies generally accepted nationwide
as best practices, such as land trusts and set -asides or inclusionary zoning. Rather the
document proposes less specific language, less practical policies and no way to measure
success or failure.
For these reasons, MNU takes the following positions on objectives, policies and goals
that are targeted for amendment as described in the EAR:
1. Future Land Use Element. MNU supports changes to Policy LU-1.17, LU-
1.3.7, LU-1.3.8, LU-1.3.14, and LU-1.4.2. MNU supports changes to
Objective LU-1.2 and LU-1.3.
MNU does NOT support changes to Policy LU-1.2.3, LU-1.3.1, LU-1.3.2,
LU-1.3.5, LU-1.3.6, LU-1.3.9, and LU-3.1.1. MNU does not support these
proposed policy amendments because each takes away the focus from
currently predominantly poor minority areas. While we understand the
concept the City is promoting, to change the paradigm from concentrated areas
2
of poverty to mixed housing throughout the city, there is no safeguard in place
to protect the poor where they are TODAY. It is possible, in fact likely, that
developers will choose to develop affordable housing (not for the poorest of
the poor) everywhere else first, as it is more profitable, before embarking on
projects in the most blighted and poor areas. MNU is open to supporting these
policy changes IF the language were to specify that money had to go to the
designated zones FIRST and then to other areas of the city.
Removal of references to NDZ and other similarly described areas is internally
inconsistent because the Housing Element specifically points to provisions in
the City of Miami Consolidated Plan, which references these designated areas,
to fill in segments of the EAR, therefore these designations should remain in
place.
2. Housing Element. Goal HO-1 is acceptable as long as the amendment
language is additional only and does not take the emphasis off of low income
housing. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Housing element
except Objective HO-1.1 which is NOT acceptable. The City failed to
increase the stock of affordable housing and can not put off this obligation.
Instead, a tiered approach would be less objectionable. For example, a 10%
increase by 2007 and another 5% by 2010, keeping with the timeline for the
Consolidation Plan, which outlines the issues and points out that they may be
an impediment to carrying out the strategic plan:
Sill
Growing shortage of affordable housing for very low income families (particularly
rental)
Deteriorating housing stock (over 80 Percent of homes in the City of Miami and
the NDZ were constructed before 1979)
Low production of affordable housing compared to need
•
•
•
• Scarcity of affordable sites due to escalating costs of real estate
• High cost of land and construction and low profit margin to developers
• Lack of capacity among non-profit developers to meet need
• Reduction in government funding for affordable housing
• Shortage of qualified buyers who can meet FNMA or FHMC standards
• High cost of housing (homeownership and rental) compared to salaries
• Lack of protection for tenants facing displacement
•
High number of housing units built before 1978 that are be potential lead hazards
• High poverty rate (1st in the nation)
• Low median household income (1st in the nation; almost half of national median)
• Low percent of labor force participation (1st in the nation)
• Poor credit, low wage incomes and high job turn -over among low to moderate
income families
3
• Language barrier in providing services to non-English speaking residents. Miami
has a high share of foreign born residents (2nd in the nation)
• Third lowest share of population with a high school degree in the country
• High concentration of public schools with a grade of "D" in Miami -Dade County.
The majority are located in the Neighborhood Development Zones
• Highest concentration of lead -based poisonings in Miami -Dade County is found
within the Neighborhood Development Zones
• Highest concentration of non -elderly uninsured persons in Miami -Dade County,
mainly in the Allapattah and Little Havana area
MNU Recommendations
We propose that the following ten new Objectives be included in the revised EAR report,
and included in the Comprehensive Plan amendments as needed. Most of these
suggestions are found in the Consolidated Plan but are not included in the revised EAR
report. The bulk of these suggestions may be found on pages 20-23 and 131-135 of the
Consolidated Plan.
New Housing Objective #1:
Develop the Institutional Structure and Coordination of housing strategy
within the City, in cooperation with the county (especially the Miami -
Dade Housing Authority and Miami -Dade Office of Economic
Development), the state and federal governments, and with private
developers, community development corporations, private funding
sources and other private agencies
Policies:
1. Encourage the establishment of neighborhood based task forces
that would focus on affordable housing issues and goals. These
task forces would result in public private partnerships that
would be charged with implementing plans for affordable
housing and overseeing public and private resources aimed at
achieving affordable housing goals within the neighborhood
or political district. These task forces would advise the City
collectively on its affordable housing issues and other issues
including Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and EAR
documents. The appropriate City and County agencies would
4
have representative seats on the partnership. Once approved by
the Commission, the goals of the collective task forces would
become budget priorities of the City Commission.
2. Create a housing department within the City administration
that will be responsible for creating a housing strategy for
housing coordinated with economic development and social
services that will inform the anti -poverty strategy by June, 2006.
3. Facilitate greater efficiency in the use of resources through
collaboration and coordination between departments.
4. Place full-time housing counselors in every NET office by
June, 2006 and distribute door-to-door flyers on availability of
counselors.
5. Endorse a performance -based operation for all of the City's
departments and divisions as well as contracted sub -recipients
where goals and priorities equal accomplishments.
6. Put into effect a performance based request for proposal process
for all categories of funding.
7 Fortify the partnering and collaboration of local government
agencies, private organizations, and non -profits to increase
leveraging potential.
8. Publicly market the City's assets and aggressively leverage
other financial support.
9. Establish a unified vision and focus for the Model Blocks, the
Neighborhood Development Zones and the Community
Business Corridors.
10. Work with developers to achieve acceptable environmental
standards while not compromising the health and safety of the
public.
11. Prepare a plan for the City which identifies gaps in the
continuum of services and support projects which fill those
gaps.
5
New Housing Objective #2:
Create a Land Acquisition Program for Infill
Policies:
1. Set aside a portion of acquired lands in a land trust to be
administered by the designated local public -private partnership
for extremely low to moderate income housing.
2. Develop an inventory of city, county and privately owned
vacant lots in the city by June, 2006.
3. Make government -owned properties available for development
by clearing encumbrances and liens.
4. Make privately -own vacant lots available for development by
purchase (City sell to private affordable housing developer at
substantially less than market value), foreclosure on code
violations, and eminent domain.
5. Make land available for scattered -site developments.
6. Assemble parcels of land for large-scale projects.
7 Initial priority of City's Land Acquisition Program for Infill
will be the acquisition and disposition of parcels in the Model
Blocks.
New Housing Objective #3:
Identify Additional Funding for Affordable Housing
Policies:
1. Support all low income tax credit projects approved by the
locally established housing partnership.
2. Work with Fannie Mae and other financial agencies to establish
targeted incentives and benefits for "non traditional" low
income neighborhoods.
6
3. Review and make public by January, 2006, the amount of
money in the Miami Housing Trust Fund, the source of funding,
the monies owed but not yet collected and the possibility of
increasing source of funds.
4. Tighten the definition of affordable housing so that housing
provided for extremely low, low and moderate income
households always receives first priority, and assign monies to
those groups for which the relative lowest number of units are
available at the time money assigned.
5. Adjust regulations so that monies may be focused on Model
Blocks.
New Housing Objective#4:
Help Expedite the Tax Credit Process (New Program)
Policies:
1. The City will assist developers by making sure that the items on
the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit program application
checklist that apply to the jurisdiction are completed promptly.
2. Provide matching funds for Tax Credit Assistance projects.
New Housing Objective #5:
Develop a Mixed -Housing Set -Aside Program (New Program)
Policy:
Create a program by January 2006 whereby developers seeking
subsidies, MUSPs, or zoning variances from the City will be required
to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing for extremely
low, low and moderate households or to pay an impact fee which
would be used exclusively for affordable housing.
New Housing Objective #6:
Create Special Districts for Business Development Corridors
Policy:
Over the next five years, the City will work to obtain special district
designations for all of the Business Development Corridors with the
7
Model Blocks and will seek to attract mixed -use and mixed -income
projects for these corridors.
New Housing Objective #7:
Provide Additional Affordable Housing Incentives
Policies:
1. Expedite permitting for affordable housing projects.
2. Review of legislation, policies and plans that impact affordable
housing.
3. Exempt affordable housing projects from any possible impact
fee requirements.
4. Exempt affordable housing from interim proprietary and
general services fee.
5. The two exemptions listed above would apply to projects that
are located within the Model Blocks only.
New Housing Objective #8:
Provide training/workshops to developers on City programs and
regulations
Policy:
Coordinate training and workshops with all City departments and
county to expedite the development process and increase the
number of developers familiar with the City's regulations.
New Housing Objective #9:
Streamline the RFP Process and Provide Multi -Year Funding
Policy:
Simplify the funding process by reducing the paperwork and the time
required for applicants complete the RFP applications, and provide
multi -year funding under RFP.
New Housing Objective #10:
Increase the Capacity of Non-profit Housing Providers
8
Policies:
1. City will provide local government matching funds for
Community Development Corporations (CDCs) applying for tax
credit financing for affordable housing projects.
2. Encourage CDCs to partner with private developers by
awarding extra credit points in the RFP applications if they
have a 51 % partner that is non-profit.
October 7, 2005
9
MNU EAR Comments December 2004
I. Major Issues
The approach of the draft EAR is generally problematic in several ways:
1. It backs away from the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Florida statues
to set concrete Goals, Objectives and Policies which will provide the guidelines and constraints
to land use plans and regulations, zoning regulations and ordinances to implement the said
Goals, Objectives and Policies. The intent of the statute is also to provide a set of Goals,
Objectives and Policies against which specific progress can be measured. The Florida Statutes
provide for periodic amendments and reviews (the EAR process itself), following a defined
process for adjusting Goals, Objectives and Policies with substantive review by all interested
parties. Many of the proposed revisions to the MCNP are:
A.) actually reversing this process, by stating that Policies will result from new and on-
going changes to regulations or by deferring to Projects and Plans prepared
separately. This is an unacceptable way to set Goals, Objectives and Policies and is
contrary to the spirit of the Statutes. Possibly a new section is needed in the MCNP
to set out how new neighborhood and other special district plans should be
developed and establish basic measures to insure compliance with the MCNP.
Specific Policies should also be established for things like design guidelines, setting
out basic criteria. Approval and amendment processes should also be spelled out in
the MCNP, possibly by type of plan or project.
B.) removing targets (specific dates, projects, etc.) and other measures of
accountability, for the sake of flexibility. This is also unacceptable. The process is
in place to make appropriate amendments to adjust targets and other measures of
accountability when necessary and according to a specific process. In my comments
there are several suggestions to add targets, such as specific contamination and air
quality measurements.
2. Issues identified are not fully and clearly addressed. The Issue Description and Analysis
sections of the Major Issues are good descriptions of the issues identified, such as 1.B.
Preservation and Enhancement of Natural, Historic, Archeological and Recreational Resources.
However, the proposed changes to not address major corrective action going forward nor minor
solutions to help resolve the issues. Specific examples are included in Section II of these
Comments.
3. As a related issue to (2), the wording of the EAR is not specific enough for later preparation
of specific amendment language. The EAR should be a clear statement of the details to be
encompassed by the amendments. It would be more appropriate to have preliminary drafts of
the actual amendments available so as to insure that the language of the revisions described in
the EAR correctly portrays what the amendments will include.
4. All inter -governmental and inter -departmental input to Goals, Objectives and Policies should
have been completed before the Draft was finalized. The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to
provide the framework within which different departments will work and interface with county,
regional, federal and other governmental bodies. If an amendment of the MCNP is necessary
MNU EAR Comments December 2004
for a particular solution it can be submitted, through due process, during the bi-annual
amendment cycle.
5. Very long term Goals:
The Comprehensive Plan does not clearly spell out the ultimate objectives and constraints of
the City. Given the fixed physical boundaries of the City, likely future water supply limitations
and environmental impact of a large population center, the City must include in the MCNP a
requirement to calculate estimates of maximum population by area within the City and provide
for the specific tools and controls to effectively manage growth to those maximums. The
MNCP should also clearly state that the City will be mix of high density centers of population
and commerce together with large areas of single family residential sections which will be
preserved within mixed use neighborhoods,. "Urban Infill" must be more clearly defined with
specific goals and specifically exclude residential neighborhoods and other areas which will not
be devoted to high density residential or commercial use.
The City is not going to be able to forever absorb both domestic and international immigration
and provide the quality of life that the current citizens wish to attain and preserve. Economic
development and better living conditions for the City's poor are very important goals, but the
City must recognize that it is a receiving and distribution point for international immigration.
The City cannot and should not attempt to be the final destination for unlimited immigration.
The MCNP must clearly state that planned population growth limitations in each area of the
City are a necessary and permanent requirement. The MCNP must include a process to
establish and periodically reset population growth limitations for each neighborhood based on
actual levels of service available and a process to control approval of permits for development
and redevelopment. Transportation concurrency must be specifically addressed in this context
along with all other Level of Service requirements and transportation concurrency must be
based more on actual usage than on capacity including public transit. I recognize that incentives
are necessary to induce residents to use the growing public transit system, but we cannot accept
gridlock along the way. Recognizing the overall objectives of urban infill and mixed use
neighborhoods to minimize automobile use, a greater degree of planning of density increases
by each specific neighborhood and land use section is imperative. Areas which eventually will
be successful in reducing vehicular traffic through walking and usage of public transit will
initially add to the arterial and collector roadway usage and these stages of development must
be foreseen in setting population growth parameters for each neighborhood. Obviously this
effort must be carried out with very close coordination with Miami -Dade County. Ideally it
would be a joint, combined activity.
The growing economic cost of traffic delays on arterial and collector roadways to City and
county businesses and residents is already exceeding the economic benefit of growth. Without
more detailed planning and control of growth through programmed limitations on development
and redevelopment, the economic cost and the impact on quality of daily life will worsen to
totally unacceptable levels.
Air quality is also a major concern. Uncontrolled growth of carbon -fueled vehicular traffic is
leading to a major health hazard for both travelers in the traffic corridors and residents and
MNU EAR Comments December 2004
employees in places of employment anywhere near the arterial and collector roadways. Go to
any tall building with a view of the whole City during rush hour and see for yourself.
Development of Coastal lands. When the original MCNP was written, there was considerable
undeveloped coastal land in the City. However, the City must now preserve all open space that
remains adjacent to the coast, Biscayne Bay and the other waterways in and around the City.
With the exception of marinas and waterfront restaurants, there is NO need for other new
income -producing activities (commercial or residential) or other development to be on the
water. To preserve remaining open spaces as open spaces for passive recreation creates the
greatest economic value for the City, both short term and long term. All income producing, and
therefore tax generating, activities can exist within walking distance of the open space and be
just as lucrative to the private owners and to the City as though they were on the waterfront.
Our "Magic City" is quickly disappearing before our eyes and if major changes to update the
Comprehensive Plan to today's reality are not made, the economic impact will be exactly the
inverse of the Goals expressed in the MCNP, ... as tourism and international business are
negatively impacted over time ... along with deterioration of the quality of daily life of the
residents.
6. Changes/additions to the MCNP and EAR process. In order to provide a formal review of the
EAR and all other MCNP and Zoning changes by interested parties, we strongly request the
addition of a formal review of all drafts and amendments and waivers by neighborhood
representatives and other Registered Interested Parties prior to scheduling of PAB first reading
and the rest of the process. This must be established with a scheduled, formal notification of
registered homeowner/neighborhood associations and other Registered Interested Parties, with
ample time for review and to respond. There should then be a long enough period in the
schedule, between the response by Registered Interested Parties and presentation to the
Planning Advisory Board, to incorporate substantial modifications.
I also recommend a formal process for review of all development and redevelopment projects
of greater than X acres and less than 20 acres (with and without requests for land use or zoning
waivers or changes) by Registered Interested Parties.
7. Given the expanded use of the term `neighborhood' to refer to "mixed use neighborhoods",
specific Goals, Objectives and Policies should be added to address the concerns, Goals and
Objectives of the single-family and multi -family residential `sections' or `districts' within the
mixed use neighborhoods. The concerns about setbacks, transitions, commercial encroachment,
etc. all relate specifically to residential `sections' and must be addressed separately and
specifically. Such amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would clarify for all residents how
their residences will be treated and hopefully eliminate many unfounded fears.
8. Population Assumptions. As requested by the Planning Advisory Board during the first
presentation of the Draft on November 17, 2004, if the formal EAR requires Census based
forecasts, then the EAR must also contain projections of populations prepared by the City or its
consultants, which are more in line with the reality we see as `reasonable man' planners. Since
MNU EAR Comments December 2004
such projections are difficult to make with great confidence, it is even more important to work
with the population growth planning process recommended above.
Miami Neighborhoods United
Response to EAR of the City of Miami Dated November 2004
Miami Neighborhoods United, having met with Messrs. Provance and Ruck of the Planning
Department, requests that the Commission direct the Planning Department staff to work with
Miami Neighborhoods United in a continual dialogue to address our neighborhood and other
issues relating to improvements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP).
For example:
1. Future Land Use Policy should specifically exclude from the Urban Infill Area designation
(in addition to Virginia Key, etc.) both single-family and duplex residential sections in
residential neighborhoods. This FLU Policy should also be modified to specify that single-
family and duplex residential sections within residential neighborhoods are not part of
"mixed -use neighborhoods" and will be protected from commercial and higher density
residential development. To this end, existing timeframes for sunsetting of all existing,
legal non -conforming uses and elements should be maintained.
2. Transportation concurrency must be specifically addressed in the Future Land Use element,
and land use regulations thereunder, to plan population growth by area within the City
(including limitation of permit issuance) in accordance with actual usage of existing arterial
and corridor roadways rather than on capacity including underutilized public transit.
Growth must be contained and managed during development of the public transit
infrastructure in order to minimize the economic cost of congestion and preserve health and
quality of life for citizens and visitors.
3. Concurrency with all other Levels of Service (in particular, relative to current capacity of
public schools, parking and parks) must also be taken into consideration more effectively in
the Future Land Use element, and land use regulations thereunder, most likely through
planned growth limitations referred to in (2.) above.
4. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space and the Coastal Management elements must be
revamped to provide emphasis on:
A.) preservation of remaining vacant and coastal land in the City;
B.) proactive growth of parks, recreation and open spaces and related facilities with
increased Levels of Service Standards;
C.) reversal of proposed changes such as to limit "recreational activities that require
public facilities and infrastructure to areas where capacity is available" (Policy LU-
1.7); and
D.) preservation of remaining coastal lands — prohibiting alterations of the existing
coastline by landfill, artificial or `natural' barriers, so as to preserve physical and
visual access and recreational use.
5. The addition of a complete new step, in urban planning and regulation processes, for
concerned citizen groups (including Miami Neighborhoods United and others) to review
drafts/request modifications/review revised drafts/ and finally concur or dissent in writing
on each plan/regulation/exception before the Planning Department's first presentation to the
Planning Advisory Board or City Commission. This step should be added to the existing
processes for the EAR, Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning atlas changes, zoning text
amendments, Major Use Special Permits, and all street or ally closures. In addition, it is
recommended that concerned citizen groups participate during the initial drafting stages
with both the Planning Department and outside consultants, in order to minimize
unnecessary conflicts during later approval stages. Consensus building and transparency
from the outset will greatly improve the overall process in both costs and time.
Parks and Parkland Issues
Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami
By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005
Miami Parks — The facts and problems
A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts
B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient
C. Current Impact Fees are deficient
D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
are deficient
E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent
II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed
A. Immediate correction of Impact Fees and other considerations.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' participation in drafting the revised Evaluation
and Appraisal Report
C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21
D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process
III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active, reoccurring participation in drafting
amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the
Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders' active participation in drafting Miami 21
Goals, Regulating Plan and Form Based Code
C. Initiate a plan to locate a substantial number of parks in four commission Districts
which are deficient.
D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center.
IV. Long Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with other
high density population cities.
B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation.
C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation.
V. Conclusions
Page 1 of 18
Parks and Parkland Issues
Presentation to the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami
By Miami Neighborhoods United, July 7, 2005
Introduction
We are here today because the entire membership of Miami Neighborhoods United has serious
concerns about the deficient amount of parkland in Miami. We are here to express the long-
standing and critical need for more parkland given our impending population explosion,
especially in four commission districts, which are incredible deficient.
Our parks are used 365 days a year. We have nearly that many days of bright sunshine and
most of the year we have good rainfall. These ingredients make it possible for Miami to create
incredible parks, showcasing plant material able to grow only in South Florida. We are stuck
with some incredibly small parks, but we can transform them into wonderful oasis where
residents will be able to relax in as well as play in, with the addition of plant material and
creative features. Our parks can be the envy of any city. But we have much planning to do
and most importantly there must be a commitment of this Commission and Mayor to embrace
the recommendations we will make.
I. Miami Park Acreage — The facts and problems
A. Miami level of service compared to other cities — three charts
Miami is rated as a high population density city and the first chart you will see compares
Miami to other similar cities. This study was conducted by the Trust for Public Land in 2002.
You will see Miami ranks 12 out of 12 cities in term of park acreage per 1000 residents..
We will look briefly at medium -high and medium low population cities and you will see that
Miami is again last. If we had added some parkland between 2002 and now we could have
maintained our 3.1 acreage figure but we declined to 2.9 acres. If we showed you the low
population density cities such as Jacksonville, Miami would still be last. In total we are last
out of 55 major US cities.
Page 2 of 18
Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003,
Appendix III Page 37
City
Minneapolis
Washington, D.C.
Oakland
Boston
Baltimore
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Long Beach
New York
Chicago
Miami
Average
Total
High Population Density Cities
Population Acres All
Parkland
383,000 5,694
572,000 7,576
399,000 3,822
589,000 5,451
651,000 5,749
3,695,000 30,134
777,000 5,916
1,518,000 10,621
462,000 2,792
8,008,000 36,646
2,896,000 11,676
362,000 1,138
20,312,000 127,215
Acres per 1000
Persons
14.9
13.2
9.6
9.3
8.8
8.2 Median
7.6
7.0
6.0
4.6
4.0
3.1-2.9
8.0
6.3 Ave by Population
* NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county,
metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city.
Miami was at 3.1 acres per thousand residents in 2002 but because population has been
added and no parks have been added the ratio has diluted to 2.9 acres per thousand
residents.
Page 3 of 18
Medium -High Population Density Cities
City Population Acres All Acres per 1000 Persons
Parkland
San Diego
Portland, Ore.
Cincinnati
Dallas
Arlington, Tex
Las Vegas
Denver
Seattle
St. Louis
Sacramento
Pittsburgh
Toledo
Detroit
Cleveland
San Jose
Fresno
Average
1,223,000
529,000
331,000
1,189,000
333,000
478,000
555,000
563,000
348,000
407,000
335,000
314,000
951,000
478,000
895,000
428,000
38,993
12,959
7,000
21,670
4,151
5,416
6,251
6,024
3,385
3,694
2,735
2,206
5,890
2,884
3,858
1,323
31.9
24.5
21.1
18.2
12.5
11.3
11.3
10.7
9.7
9.1
8.2
7.0
6.2
6.0
4.3
3.1
12.2
Median
Source: The Trust for Public Land "The Excellent City Park System", May 2003,
Page 4 of 18
Miami also ranks last as well if we compare ourselves to Medium -Low Population Density
cities such as Tampa, which we included for comparison purposes.
City
Medium -Low Population Density Cities
Populatio Acres All Acres per 1000
n Parkland * Persons
El Paso 564,000 26,372 46.8
Albuquerque 449,000 17,746 39.5
Colorado Springs 361,000 10,150 28.1
Phoenix 1,321,000 36,944 28.0
Louisville/Jefferson 694,000 14,209 20.5
County
Fort Worth 535,000 10,554 19.7 Median
Tulsa 393,000 7,110 18.1
Memphis 650,000 10,490 16.1
Milwaukee/ 940,000 15,115 16.1
Milwaukee County
Indianapolis 792,000 11,868 15.0
San Antonio 1,145,000 16,503 14.4
Columbus 711,000 8,494 11.9
Tampa 303,000 3,408 11.2
Houston 1,954,000 21,252 10.9
New Orleans 485,000 5,228 10.8
Atlanta 416,000 3,235 7.8
Mesa 396,000 2,862 7.2
Tucson 487,000 3,175 6.5
Average 12.2
* NOTE: "All Parkland" includes all parks and preserves owned by municipal, county,
metropolitan, state and federal agencies within the boundary of the city.
In Summary, the Miami ranks 12 out of 12 of high density population cities. If we compare all
cites in the study, Miami ranks 55 out of 55 cities.
Page 5 of 18
B. Current standard in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan is deficient.
The Miami Comprehensive Plan has as no goal or objective to increase the amount of
parkland, recreation space, or other open space. It only states:
Policy PR-1.4.4: The acceptable Level of Service Standards for the City of Miami with regards
to Recreation and Open Space will be a minimum of 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000
residents.
The Trust for Public Land study of 2002 said Miami had 3.1 acres of park land per thousand
residents. Miami's actual park acreage has been adjusted down to 2.9 acres per 1000 residents
because Miami has added population but has made no significant progress in adding new
parkland. This is a 3.2% decline in level of service is just three years. When the estimated
60,000 new residents move into their new condos over the next 36 months our parks Level of
Service will decline from 2.9 to 2.46 acres per thousand residents.
Almost 41 % of our reported 1195 acres of parkland is on Virginia Key. Of the remaining 709
acres of parkland, we need to subtract 68 acres which are offshore islands and not easily
accessible to the public and 52 acres from Watson Island which has been counted, but
technically is not parkland and which will substantially be leased to private enterprise.
The addition of twelve acres of the Little Haiti Park will not compensate for the loss of parks
space on Watson Island and Bicentennial Park with major buildings be constructed at those
locations. Additional parkland has already been lost to various facilities being built in various
parks and the contemplated police horse stables in Lummus Park represent a further loss of
parkland.
Refer to Chart Four: Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District
Please note that 79% percent of our total park acreage lies in Commission Distinct 2, proof that
four Commission Districts desperately need more parkland. Residents in four Commission
Districts had made this request when meetings were held for the Comprehensive Plan but the
results of those meeting were ignored by the administration.
The Comprehensive Plan has no stated goal of how parks should be maintained, or the amount
of plant material or other features usually found in parks outside Miami.
C. Current Impact Fees are deficient.
Miami Impact Fees on new construction do not provide sufficient funds for the purchase of
parkland to even maintain the level of level of service we had in 2002, much less make an
improvement to the overall level of service. When population is added to the city, there must
be provisions that the 3.1 acres per thousand residents (thru a combination of on and off site
public accessible green space) be maintained which means any new projects should meet at
least that standard.
Page 6 of 18
The current policy of collecting only fifteen cents per square foot for parks from construction in
the downtown area on the theory that the downtown already has Bicentennial Park and needs
no additional parks is simply wrong. This practice ignores the fact that Bicentennial Park has
been paid for by property taxes collected on property all over the city. Residents who live in
the four districts west of downtown have paid for Bicentennial Park and other district two parks
but yet have no significant parks in their neighborhoods.
The Impact Fees collected for parks currently are not set aside for the purchase of new park
land as they should be but are used for multiple purposes.
Current Impact Fees vary according to seven development areas and in most cases, including
the downtown area, residential buildings pay less fees for parks than non residential buildings.
This practice ignores the purpose of a residential building is to house additional population.
On the other end of the fee spectrum, non residential buildings in all areas of the city except in
the downtown area pay no fees toward parks.
With every new building permit issued our problem becomes worse and the cure more difficult.
We have also learned that many Impact Fees over the last four years have not been collected.
Audit Number 05-010 dated February 25, 2005, shows that between October 2001 and July 31,
2004 only $7 million of Impact Fees were collected on all construction projects in Miami. The
Audit found that over $1.336 million went uncollected and $62,580 dollars were overcharged.
MNU has not learned if the undercharged Impact Fees have been collected.
D. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
are deficient.
The Planning Department has not responded to MNU requests for open dialogue relating to
revisions to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
The Parks Committee of MNU has identified many flaws in the Parks & Recreation section of
the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
Mayor Diaz and the city web site both speak about increasing parkland but no plan to acquire
new parkland has been revealed beyond the Homeland Security Bond program. That program
money is being used substantially to construct buildings and little is being invested to acquire
new parkland.
E. Neighborhood participation in the development of Miami 21 goals was totally absent.
Aside from initial meetings with neighborhoods scheduled to begin later this week, there has
been no known process or meetings which has involved neighborhoods in the development of
the goals of Miami 21. At this date, MNU and other neighborhood groups are doubtful their
input will be heard in regard to the further development of Miami 21, its Regulating Plan and
the form based zoning code.
Page 7 of 18
II. Immediate Corrective Actions Needed
A. Immediate Correction of Impact Fees and other Considerations.
As presented above, there is a significant deficit in providing for additional parkland,
specifically because new residents are allowed to move into new residences without adequately
contributing toward the creation of new parks.
A family, which buys a single family home, pays a premium for green space outside their four
walls, for a front, side and back yard. Multi family buildings, be they rental or ownership,
should provide their residents with some on site green space, plus perhaps a pool and or some
exercise area. Consider that space as a back yard. But where is their front yard? We submit
that parks are the front yards, the public yards for everyone to enjoy and new residents need to
contribute to, not dilute our parkland acreage.
The Parks Level of Service of 3.1 acres per 1,000 persons, which we had in 2002, must be
maintained as the minimum standard. When new residents are added to the city, there must be
a requirement that residential buildings provide a combination of on site and off site parks
space open to the public equal to at least 3.1 acres per thousand residents.
We ask this Commission to place a 45 day moratorium on the issuance of all building permits
larger than a duplex residential unit in order that your Planning and Finance Departments can
develop a new Impact Fee Schedule. We recommend that the impact fee for parks be
standardized throughout the City. If the Mayor is serious in creating "One Miami", as he has
publicly stated, then there must be equality among neighborhoods. Such a schedule must take
into consideration that property tax payers all over this city have paid for downtown parks and
that new residents of Miami need to pay their fair share toward parks, which they will enjoy.
New bonds and property taxes should not be an option for maintaining a 3.1 acre per 1,000 for
new residents.
During the 45 day moratorium, this Commission should consider adding a requirement such as
Tampa imposes, which requires that 35% green space be left around buildings located on
waterfront property. Tampa and other cities require 10% green space to be included around
other buildings. Tampa has one developer who voluntarily makes 15% of his units available at
less that $200,000. For comparison purposes Tampa has 50,000 fewer residents but provides
fourteen swimming pools, while Miami has ten.
Park Impact fees collected must be set aside exclusively for the purchase of additional
parkland, there must be a time frame for land acquisition and park improvement and the
process needs to be detailed in the Comprehensive Plan. This Commission must assure that
Impact Fees for Parkland Purchase are segregated in a separate account with transparent
administration and oversight.
MNU will work with the Planning and Finance Departments, the Parks Advisory Board and to
prepare recommendations of new Park Impact Fees for the Commission.
Page 8 of 18
Any parkland covered by buidlings larger than 1500 feet , including existing and new buildings
on Watson Island, Bicentennial Park and the Meese Golf Course must be replaced with green
parkland elsewhere before any project is allowed to proceed so as to avoid a further decline in
parkland.
We recommend that each of you set aside 90 minutes to review the drawings and video tapes of
the Bicetennial Park charette to see if granting of four acres to each of two musuems truly
represented the desires as spoken and drawn by the 280 participants.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders participation in drafting the Revised Evaluation
and Appraisal Report.
Please instruct the Planning Department to work constructively with MNU on changes to the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report relating to the Parks and Recreation section.
C. Assure neighborhood participation in Miami 21.
Please insure that the Miami 21 project puts in place a process for participation in drafting and
review of proposed plans together with both the Miami 21 consultants and the Planning
Department. There is no such explicit process described in any Miami 21 materials made
available so far.
For instance, the public was told on April 16 that there is already model form based zoning
codes for several areas of the City. MNU and other stakeholders need immediate access to
such models and to all other planning goals being used.
As far as MNU has been able to investigate, no contract has yet been signed to formally engage
Duany Plater-Zyberk and therefore no Scope of Work or other information concerning the
contract has been made available to the public or to MNU. A more explicit process should be
incorporated in the contract, to insure timely and broad neighborhood participation in the
setting of goals and the planning process
The initial schedule announced on April 16 for the first quadrant does not seem tenable based
on the current situation and total lack of information.
D. Integrate Current Parks and Waterfront Advisory Boards into Planning Process
The Parks Advisory Board and the Waterfront Advisory Board should have more access to
information and planning activities and much more latitude in making recommendations to this
Commission, also including participation by Miami Neighborhoods United and other
stakeholders of Miami in a transparent, open process.
Page 9 of 18
III. Short Term Corrective Actions Needed
A. Assure MNU and other stakeholders of active and reoccurring participation in
drafting amendments to the Parks & Recreation section and all other sections of the
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.
Major modifications of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan are necessary namely
because it fails to address a major finding of the consultant's report which stated that residents
in four out of five districts expressed the need for more park space in their neighborhoods.
Nearly every line of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan needs revision, as current
Goals, Objectives and Policies are inadequate, vague and not measurable in most instances.
The plan needs details and time frames for achievement. For example, there needs to be
specific goals added to address the kind and amount of plant material and other standard
features found in most parks.
The MNU Parks Committee looks forward to working closely with the Planning Department,
the Parks Advisory Board and Waterfront Advisory Board in reviewing and drafting all parks -
related proposed amendments going forward. Please instruct the Planning Department to work
with your Parks Advisory Board, your Waterfront Advisory Board and MNU.
B. Assure MNU and other stakeholders active participation in drafting Miami 21 Goals,
the Regulating Plan and the Form Based Code
We commend you for launching the Master Plan study for our parks being conducted by
Goody, Clancy and Associates as part of Miami 21 and look forward to working closely with
them and with the Planning Department on the Plan and necessary amendments to the MCNP.
Please insure that the Miami 21 process incorporates full disclosure and that participation and
input is taken seriously.
C. Initiate a plan to locate substantial number of parks in four commission districts,
which are deficient.
The completed Master Plan for parks must include the addition of parks and greenways in
neighborhoods of the city where none exist. The city should work toward an initial goal of
providing a park within one half -mile walk of every residence. The future goal will be to
provide a park within one -quarter mile as recommend by the Trust for Public Land.
To finance additional parkland MNU strongly recommends that in addition to increasing
impact fees specifically for parkland acquisition that you also allocate a substantial portion of
property tax dollars coming from new construction toward the purchase of parkland. Other
sources of monies should also be identified. These new monies can be leveraged with state,
Page l0ofl8
federal and private grants to be able to reach the new, much higher Standard of parkland per
thousand residents.
D. Establish a Concurrency Information Center
MNU recommends the establishment of a Concurrency Information Center, which shall
provide to the public, upon request, information on existing and anticipated capacities and
Levels of Service of all services addressed. This information shall reflect existing facility and
service capacities, planned and committed facility and service capacity increases or extensions
and existing and committed service demands. Tampa has such a center.
IV. Long Term Corrective Action
A. Set a Level of Service Standard for parkland acreage which is competitive with
other high density population cities.
Miami's Level of Service Standard for parkland per thousand residents must be radically
increased to a level somewhere between the average acres per 1,000 by population of high
population density cities which is now 8.02 and the median city which happens to be Los
Angles at 8.2 acres.
MNU will be conducting detailed investigations and analyses in preparation for discussion with
the consultants and Planning Dept. on this issue.
B. Establish an Independent Board to Manage Parks & Recreation.
The Independent Board should be given management authority including developing the
budget for parks operation and mainenance, including the disposition of park bond funds. With
staff assistance, the Independent Board should be responsible for establishing at least one Park
Trust group for every NET area. There shoud be allowace for every park to have a trust group
if the neighbhood so choses. Each trust group should be the liason between the needs of the
neighborood and the Independent Board.
A separate Park Land Acquisition Board should oversee the funds set aside exclusively for park
land acquisition and improvement.
Neighborhood trust groups can be elected by city residents as is done in Minneapolis,
Minnesota which has one of the finest parks systems in the United States.
C. Increase operation funding for Parks and Recreation
Parks need to be considered as a service provided to the residents of Miami and to our visitors.
Large open spaces, while they can serve to host commercial activities on an infrequent basis,
should not be considered a major factor in designing a park. Our parks should include play
Page 11 of 18
fields but the remaining area should be green, planted and shaded to serve residents without
having to generate revenue.
Consideration should be given to establishing a police force dedicated to patrolling parks and
additional funding must be dedicated toward regular replacement of plant material,
maintenance and programming in order that our parks can grow greener as they should, given
our unique twelve month growing climate.
V. Conclusions
Immediate action is necessary to collect Park Impact Fees for purchase of additional parkland -
on a standardized basis from all new development projects across the whole City.
The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan was written many years ago and needs a
complete re -write based on the City's current situation and future growth goals. It needs
specific, measurable goals and objectives with detailed policies so residents can be assured that
the quality of life will not flounder from one administration to another.
Miami 21 is a tremendous, positive effort on the part of the Mayor and the Commission to
create a wonderful vision for Miami and the legal/regulatory infrastructure to accomplish it.
However, there are immediate, short-term and long-term needs, which must be addressed if we
are to raise our parks and other attributes of our city to world -class status.
Page 12 of 18
APPENDIX A
Are Parks Important?
Sure, parks are nice. But are they important? Do parks contribute to a
community's health and vitality in the same way traditional urban infrastructure does?
Recent studies say yes. Parks have a far-reaching impact on neighborhood economics,
health, education, and safety.
• According to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans living closer to parks are
more likely to exercise regularly, leading to weight loss, increased energy, and better
overall health.
• Economic surveys conducted by private and public sector agencies confirm that parks
increase residential and commercial property values.
• Studies show that urban parks deliver significant environmental benefits, filtering
pollutants from the air and helping to control storm water runoff during rainy seasons.
• Teachers report that parks enhance education by serving as destinations for local field
trips and outdoor classrooms that illustrate natural and life science lessons.
• Police departments document sharp declines in juvenile arrests after recreational
facilities open in low income neighborhoods.
• Urban planners agree that well -maintained parks improve communities by increasing
neighborhood cohesion. After parks open, neighbors are more likely to interact, take
pride in their communities, and form neighborhood watch and other local improvement
groups.
Parks aren't an "extra" that can be ignored in tough economic times. As a part of the
urban infrastructure, they're as essential as roads, bridges, and utilities. A TPL white
paper, "Parks for People: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space,"
presents additional research describing the importance of park space in urban areas. The
white paper is available at www.tpl.org/pforp.
Source: No Place To Play by The Trust for Public Land
Page 13 of 18
Appendix B ENDNOTES
i The Trust for Pubic Land plans to expand this Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
analysis to include additional cities as data become available. We encourage other
metropolitan areas to improve their data collection practices and participate in future park
access analyses. To stay informed as additional information becomes available, sign up for the
Parks fror People edition of TPL's Landlink electronic newsletter at ww.tpl.org/newsletter
2 Increasing Physical Activity: A Report on Recommendations of the Task Force on
Community Preventive Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 26,
2001, p. 1 ("Increasing Physical Activity"), available at:
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5018a1.htm. See also, Emily B. Kahn, Leigh T.
Ramsey, Ross C. Brownson, Gregory W. Heath, Elizabeth H. Howze, Kenneth E. Powell,
Elaine J. Stone, Mummy W. Rajab, Phaedra Corso, and the Task Force on Community
Preventive Services, "The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity,"
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2002;22 (4S), pp. 87-88.
3 See, for example, John L. Crompton, The Impact of Parks and Open Space on Property
Values and the Property Tax Base, (Ashburn, Va.: National Recreation & Park Association,
2000). Mark R. Correll, Jane H. Lillydahl, and Larry D. Singell, "The Effect of Greenbelts on
Residential Property Values: Some Findings on the Political Economy of Open Space," Land
Economics, as cited in "Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway
Corridors," 4th Edition, National Park Service, 1995, p.14, available at:
www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econall.pdf.
4 USDA Forest Service Pamphlet #R1-92-100, cited in "Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas,"
Web page, Colorado Tree Coalition, Available at: www.coloradotrees.org. See also David J.
Nowak, "The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality," USDA Forest Service, available at
www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/gif/trees.pdf, and Jeff Beattie, Cheryl Kollin, and Gary Moll, "Trees
Help Cities Meet Clean Water Regulations," American Forests, Summer 2000, p.18.
5 See Peter Harnik, "The Excellent City Park System: What Makes It Great and How to Get
There;" The Trust for Public Land, 2003 and "Healing America's Cities: How Urban Parks Can
Make Cities Safe and Healthy," The Trust for Public Land, 1994.
6 See Robert J. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush, "Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods —
Does It Lead to Crime?" Research in Brief National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of
Justice, Feb. 2001, pp. 1-2. Available at: www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/nij/186049.pdf.
Page 14of18
Appendix C Miami Parks Acreage by Commission District
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
African Square Park
Albert Pallot / Magnolia Park
Allapattah Mini Residential
Allapattah Mini Park Site
Allen Morris AMCO
Antonio Maceo Park
Armbrister Park
Athalie Range Park
Bay of Pigs
Bayfront Park
Baywood Park
Belfonte - Talcocy
Belle Meade Mini Park
Bicentennial Park
Billy Rolle / Coconut Grove Mini Park
Biscayne Heights Mini Park
Biscayne Park
Blanche Park
Brickell Park
Broward Circle Mini Park
Bryan Park
Buena Vista Park
City Cemetery
Coconut Grove Tennis Courts
Coral Gate Park
Coral Nook Park
Crestwood
Cuban Memorial Plaza
Culmer Mini Park
Curtis Park
David T. Kennedy Park
Miller Dawkins
Dinner Key Picnic Islands #4,5,6
Dorsey Park
Douglas Park
Eaton Park
E. G. Sewell Park
Elizabeth Steele Mini Park
Elizabeth Virrick Park
Ernesto Lecuona Park
Fern Isle Park
Flagami Mini Park
Fort Dallas
Gibson Park
0.33
0.40
3.65
0.25
27.70
1.00
10.33
8.41
3.00
.10
5.13
61.30*
1.87
.40
30.30 **
.17
.04
7.32
1.50
2.20
10.00
.30
20.89
56.70***
2.52
10.00
6.21
0.50
4.65
0.65
0.20
0.25
1.00
2.07
3.62
.25
1.02
1.17
11.85
3.09
1.20
1.00
0.60
8.04
Page 15 of 18
MNUParksPre sentationFINALHW SHA.doc
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
Glen Royal Mini Park
Grapeland Park
Grove Mini Park
Hadley Park
Henderson Park
Highland Circle Mini Park
Jose Marti Park
Juan Pablo Duarte Allapatah Comstock Park
Kenneth Myers Park
Kinloch Park
Kirk Monroe
Legion Park
Legion Park Picnic Island #2
Lemon City Park
Lincoln Park
Little River Commerce
Lummus Park
Margaret Pace Park
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Silver Bluff Mini Park
Martel Park
Maximo Gomez Domino Park
Melrose Park
Merri Christmas Park
Miami River Rapids
Miami River Walk
Moore Park
Morningside Park
Morningside Picnic Island #3
North Bay Vista
0.50
Oakland Grove
0.20
Pace Park Picnic Island #1
Paul Walker Mini Park
Peacock Park
Pine Heights Mini Park
Plaza De Cubanidad
Pullman Park
0.40
Rainbow Village Park
1.52
Range Park #1
0.11
Reeves Park
3.44
20.00
9.16
3.49
2.60
0.85
0.25
10.00
1.44
13.70
11.49***
0.22
5.90
12.00
.50
0.60
5.39
0.70
42.38
19.28
11.02
0.12
9.40
0.20
0.50
3.50
5.60
0.11
0.25
29.70
0.25
2.30
0.50
19.60
Page 16of18
MNUParksPre sentationFINALHW SHA.doc
Riverside Park
Roberto Clemente Park
Robert King High Park Carlos Arboleya Campground
Shenandoah Park / Pool
Simonhoff Park
1.50
Simpson Park
South Bay Vista
0.20
4.89
3.50
8.21
17.00
10.00
Park Name Approximate Acreage by Commission District
1 2 3 4 5
Southside Park 2.23
Spring Garden Point Park 1.14
Stearns Park 5.40
Torch of Friendship Park na
Town Park 0.86
Triangle Park 0.50
Twelve Avenue Mini Park na
Unity Hall Park 0.26
Virginia Key 486.00
Virrick Gym 4.46
Wainwright Park 21.44
Watson Island 51.96 ****
West Buena Vista 1.10
West End Park 6.94
Williams Park 5.03
Woodson Park 0.40
Total Acreage by Commission District 88.42 944.79 25.05 41.90 95.56
Total Acreage for entire city 1,195.72
Percentage of acreage in each district 7.39% 79.03% 2.09% 3.50%
7.99%
* Approximately 30 acres or 50% is covered with cement structures and retail, which renders most of the park
useless for normal park activities.
** Approximately 8 acres or 30% will be covered with two massive museum buildings, which will eliminate
the only opportunity in the entire city where residents could have the opportunity to escape to a great natural
green park and not be able to view buildings. The land remaining after the construction of two massive
museums will not be large enough to provide any type of natural experience. The only other substantial green
area remaining where a resident will be able to have a natural experience to escape the concrete of Miami
will entail taking a trip to Virginia Key which is not quickly or easily accessible by any Miami resident.
*** The 68.18 acres on the picnic islands are not easily assessable by any Miami resident.
**** Approximately 45 acres of Watson Island has been or will be covered with buildings used for
commercial purposes.
Page 17of18
MNUParksPre sentationFINALHW SHA.doc
The above four instances effectively means 151 acres counted in Commission District Two or ten percent of
our total park acreage is not available for traditional park uses. In addition 486 acres on Virginia Key are not
easily accessible to the vast majority of Miami residents.
Page 18of18
MNUParksPre sentationFINALHW SHA.doc
VALORY GREENFIELD
MIRIAM HARMATZ
ARTHUR J. ROSENBERG
CHARLES F. ELSESSER
JONEL NEWMAN
ATTORNEYS
Planning Advisory Board
City of Miami
Miami, Florida 33130
FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 450
Miami, Florida 33137
Telephone: 305-573-0092
Fax: 305-576-9664
September 21, 2005 KENT R. SPUHLER
Re: City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revisions
Planning Advisory Board Hearing - September 21, 2005
Dear Members of the Board:
DIRECTOR
We are writing on behalf of numerous poor residents of the City of Miami served by Legal
Services of Greater Miami, Inc. to provide additional comments for your consideration and
incorporation in the recently issued revised Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). We
recently submitted comments to the Planning Department for their consideration and inclusion in
this draft. We have attached a copy of that letter as we believe that its comments are relevant to
the final revised EAR.
Initially, we do not believe that the amount of time provided to the public is sufficient and would
request that this hearing be continued for an additional month so that interested members of the
public may be able to participate. Due to the extremely short time to review the revised EAR,
our additional comments are necessarily brief.
Insufficient Time for Review - The Revised EAR which you are asked to consider was
posted for the first time on the City website on Friday morning - September 16, 2005.
Since City offices and most other offices were closed for a large part of Monday,
September 19, 2005 and all of September 20, 2005 due to Hurricane Rita, interested
members of the public would have little more than one working day to download, review
and comment on a 242 page document (plus exhibits). We are sure that you would agree
that this is not sufficient time to promote a good faith public input process. We therefore
believe that you should reschedule this hearing for the next meeting of the Planning
Advisory Board to provide members of the public with an opportunity to fully review the
proposal and to present their comments to you.
• Housing Element Comments - Despite the brief period of time, we have the following
initial comments with respect to the additions made to the Objective Achievement
Planning Advisory Board
City of Miami
September 21, 2005
Page 2
Analysis portion of the EAR. We believe that the additions are internally inconsistent
and contradictory in that initially, they emphasize the desire to provide more affordable
housing for middle income groups but then they quote the City's Consolidated Plan that
emphasizes providing for low income groups. Essentially, the EAR borrows from the
Consolidated Plan in order to demonstrate some level of measurement and then ignores
the measurements which the Consolidated Plan contains. The essential measurements of
the Consolidated Plan, reflecting the extremely difficult affordable housing picture in
Miami, are not reflected in the policies or measurements contained within the revised
EAR.
Housing Element Comments - Despite the concerns raised by the State Department of
Community Affairs, there are virtually no new measurements added. The revisions to
the EAR admit that "data that would allow a precise measurement of Objective HO-1.1
is not maintained." Again, no measurement of Objective HO-1.1 or any of the following
housing elements, let alone precise measurements, are attempted. Some specificity has
been added to the implementation status of the policies. This increased specificity could
lend itself to designing indicators tailored to those specific policies so that
measurements could be made or that data could be maintained in the future. However,
there has been no attempt to do so.
While we thank you for this opportunity to comment, we do not believe that we have had an
opportunity to adequately review the revised EAR. Many members of the public, including
members with an active interest in this process, have not had any opportunity to review it and
may not even be aware of its release last Friday. We would therefore repeat our request that this
matter be continued until the next meeting of this Board to provide a sufficient time for public
review.
Sincerely,
Charles Elsesser, Jr. Esq.
Florida Legal Services Inc
3000 Biscayne Blvd. #450
Miami, FL 33137
Elisabeth Chaves
Payton & Associates, LLC
1200 Suntrust International Center
One Southeast Third Ave.
Miami, FL 33131
Planning Advisory Board
City of Miami
September 21, 2005
Page 3
John Little, Esq.
Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.
3000 Biscayne Blvd. #500
Miami, FL 33137
FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 450
Miami, Florida 33137
Telephone: 305-573-0092
Fax: 305-576-9664
VALORY GREENFIELD
MIRIAM HARMATZ
ARTHUR J. ROSENBERG
CHARLES F. ELSESSER
JONEL NEWMAN
ATTORNEYS
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami
Planning Department
444 S.W. 21 Avenue, 31-d Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
August 23, 2005 KENT R. SPUHLER
Re: City of Miami Evaluation and Appraisal Report Revisions
Dear Ms. Gelabert-Sanchez:
DIRECTOR
We are writing on behalf of numerous poor residents of the City of Miami served by Legal
Services of Greater Miami, Inc. to provide preliminary comment for your consideration and
incorporation in the forthcoming revisions to the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. We
have reviewed the Evaluation and Appraisal Report submitted by the City to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs and have also reviewed the Department's April 28, 2005
letter finding the City's adopted EAR insufficient. We are also aware that you are currently
drafting revisions to the adopted EAR in an effort to comply with the identified insufficiencies.
As you know the City of Miami is in the midst of a development boom unprecedented in the
City's recent history. The City's "Large Scale Development Report" indicates over 70,000 units
of housing either recently constructed or planned in the City in the near future solely in the
major residential projects. Virtually, none of the units in that report are affordable to Miami
households working at low wage jobs. Not only are the poor being excluded from living in these
newly developed projects, increasingly these projects are being built in neighborhoods - such as
Little Haiti, Edgewater, Wynwood, and Overtown - where they are displacing those very same
families.
"Gentrification" - the economic displacement of lower income communities by higher income
households - fueled by this development boom is a major policy concern in all of low income
communities in the City. These communities are seeing their neighborhoods changing rapidly.
First, tenants are driven out by increasing rents. Then, poor long time homeowners are forced to
sell due to aggressive code enforcement. Elderly homeowners are enticed into selling their
homes to speculators for a fraction of their escalating value. School attendance diminishes as the
number of children dramatically decrease. Stores close as their clientele move elsewhere.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 2
Ultimately the neighborhood dramatically changes. While some could argue that it is an
improvement, all too often it is an improvement that is not enjoyed by the neighborhood's long
time residents.
We are writing because we believe that the City's EAR of its Housing Element, written in the
midst of these dramatic changes, not only ignores the impact of these developments on the
housing needs of its poorest residents but actually proposes changes that will fuel the rapidly
accelerating loss of affordable housing. Our concerns are consistent with the insufficiencies
found by the Department of Community Affairs but are more fundamental than mere failures to
provide sufficient data. Rather, we believe that the City's policies are designed to decrease the
housing opportunities for its lowest income residents and to massively increase residential
opportunities for far wealthier households at the expense of the residents of many of the City's
oldest and most storied communities and neighborhoods.
Overview
Specifically, our concerns complement the Department's finding that the EAR fails to meet the
requirements of § 163.3191(2)(G), in that it fails to specifically provide any quantifiable
assessment of the progress made by the City in achieving its Housing Element Objectives -
specifically Objectives HO-1.1 and HO-1.2.
We believe that the Housing data will show, and we believe the City agrees, that the City has
failed to meet the sole quantifiable goal of its Housing Element, i.e., the City's commitment to
increase the stock of affordable housing within the City by at least 10% by 2005. However, we
disagree fundamentally with the City's two fold response to that failure as it is set forth in the
EAR.
First, the City simply attests to "some progress" in achieving Objective HO-1.1 and "progress" in
achieving Objective HO-1.2. As recognized by the State, this response simply abdicates the
City's responsibility to fairly assess the degree to which the City's policies have impacted the
development and preservation of affordable housing throughout the City.
The second response of the City is equally pernicious. Rather than undertaking a hard look at
the impact of the City's policies on the housing of its poorest residents, the City simply changes
the language to focus its policies on higher income households, including specifically
affordability for moderate income and middle income.
We believe that these responses mask an approach that provides little if any positive assistance
toward the provision of affordable housing for the City's most needy households. The
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 3
combination of a failure to measure results and a refocusing of resources on higher income
households simply permits the City to continue with a development policy in which affordable
housing for the most needy is disappearing at an extremely rapid pace while virtually all new
"affordable housing" is focused on households of 80% of median or above.
We believe that if the City were to adopt and apply the type of measurable goals that we (and the
Department) recommend, the dramatic loss of affordable housing within the City would become
clear. Moreover, those same measurements would argue against the changes recommended in
the EAR to focus the scarce City housing resources toward moderate and middle income
households.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE MEASUREMENT OF THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OBJECTIVES
Lack of Measurable Progress
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) found five major shortcomings with the City of
Miami's Adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), adopted on December 9, 2004. The
DCA roundly criticized the EAR's lack of "sufficient data and analysis to adequately evaluate
whether the plan objectives within each element, as they relate to major issues, have been
achieved, as required pursuant to § 163.3191(2)(g), F.S." DCA Letter to City of Miami, April
28, 2005. Section 163.3191(2)(g), Fla. Stat., requires that the report shall present:
(g) An assessment of whether the plan objectives within each element, as they relate to
major issues, have been achieved. The report shall include, as appropriate, an
identification as to whether unforeseen or unanticipated changes in circumstances have
resulted in problems or opportunities with respect to major issues identified in each
element and the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the issue (emphasis
added).
The DCA reported that despite the Miami comprehensive plan containing a number of objectives
in a readily measurable form, the city failed to directly evaluate any of their objectives.
Moreover, the DCA continued, criticizing the City for failing to even attempt evaluation of those
less directly measurable goals:
Most of the comprehensive plan objectives are not measurable or not directly measurable,
and for that matter neither are many, perhaps most, of the associated policies. Perhaps
because of this, the EAR tends, for objective after objective, to reach the generalized
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 4
conclusion that the City has made progress in achieving the objective... The EAR for the
most part does not provide sufficient data and analysis to enable a more precise
determination of the extent to which the policy has been achieved.
The DCA then recommended that the EAR be revised "to evaluate directly those comprehensive
plan objectives that are stated in measurable terms." For those items not patently measurable, the
DCA recommended the appropriate data be provided to substantiate the EAR's conclusions.
The use of readily measurable indicators throughout the comprehensive plan would allow the
EAR process to have meaning and would avoid the criticisms levied by the DCA. The EAR's
lack of direct evaluation of Miami's progress towards affordable housing is understandable when
the document it is evaluating and assessing lacks specificity and measurable indicators.
Moreover, it is too easy for the EAR to assume progress has taken place when it does not have to
substantiate its conclusions.
Developing Indicators
Indicators serve as yardsticks or measures of progress. They determine how a strategy or policy
can be measured, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy/policy. Choosing the
proper indicator and deciding how and when it will be evaluated are both important steps
towards systematically assessing the success of the comprehensive plan's elements.
Four important criteria to consider when creating indicators are:
1) Relevancy — Does the indicator provide meaningful information to citizens and the local
government? Does the information provided help to better accomplish the various
objectives and larger goals? Does it tell an outsider what is most important and pertinent
about the community?
2) Measurable — Can it be clearly and unambiguously assessed? Most often, they are
quantifiable.
3) Understandable — Is it easily interpreted and analyzed by both citizens and the local
government? A community indicator is only as useful as its interpretation and use by
residents of the community It should be clear and obvious in terms of which direction of
change represents "getting better" and which represents "getting worse." The more
understandable a set of indicators, the more they will be catalysts for positive action.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 5
4) Affordable/accessible — Indicators must be affordable; otherwise, they will never be used.
The burden they place on the agency responsible for their measurement must be assessed.
Indicators can also help provide internal consistency in comprehensive plans. Often times,
various elements of the plan overlap and interrelate. If the same or similar indicators are used to
measure these interrelating elements, then their impact on one another can be better understood.
Rather than inserting them within the plan, an appendix can contain all the indicators, including
information such as how often they should be measured and what party is responsible for their
measurement.
Suggested Indicators for Affordable Housing
• Supply and demand for affordable housing
• Percent of income paid for housing
• Homelessness
• Home purchase affordability gap for buyers with (a) median renter household
income and (b) median household income
• Home ownership rate
• Apartment vacancy rate
• Trend of housing costs vs. income
• Public dollars spent for low income housing
• Housing affordable to low-income households at 30%, 50% and 80% of median
income
• Distribution of affordable housing throughout city
• Waiting time for subsidized housing
• Annual applicants for affordable housing
• Single family housing growth compared to population growth
• Yearly percentage increase in number of dwelling units
• Number of houses versus population
• New multi -family units as percent of total new residential units
• Number of rehabilitated affordable housing units
• New privately -owned housing units
• Housing that is inadequate, overcrowded, or costs over 30% of income
• Percent of households able to afford buying median single family house
While these suggested indicators provide a strong measure of the demand for and supply of
affordable housing in the city, like indicators should be developed to evaluate how well specific
strategies and/or policies remedy the need for affordable housing. For example, Policy HO-1.1.2
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 6
provides for the continued participation in the county Documentary Stamp Surtax Program.
Indicators designed to measure this policy could include:
• Total amount of funds for affordable housing generated annually by Documentary
Stamp Surtax Program.
• Designated uses for funds generated by Program.
• Number of affordable housing units created with Program funds.
In the same vein, the indicators provided above should be linked to the appropriate policy. For
example, the "distribution of affordable housing throughout city" indicator measures the
effectiveness of Policy HO-1.2.3, which provides:
The City's housing programs will provide for low and moderate -income, low density
housing in scattered site locations as an alternative to the geographic concentration of
low-income housing.
The City's Consolidated Plan uses indicators, which can be found in tables summarizing its
specific housing policies. The tables give the housing objective and then name the
accompanying program used to achieve the objective, the funding source, the performance
measure, the projected performance over the next five years, and the measured performance over
the past five years.
To date, the EAR's only assessment of the comprehensive plan's affordable housing objectives is
whether the policies linked to the objectives have been implemented. There has been no attempt
to evaluate the plan's success so far in any measurable way. Moreover, the EAR seeks to delay
the only measurable "indicator" present in the affordable housing section of the comprehensive
plan. The comprehensive plan called for a 10% increase in the stock of affordable housing by
2005. The EAR pushes this goal off to 2010.
THE FOCUS OF THE EAR ON HOUSING FOR MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS CONTRADICTS THE CITY'S OWN CONSOLIDATED PLAN AND
ANY REASONABLE QUANTIFIABLE ANALYSIS
Despite the fact that the City has failed to undertake any quantifiable analysis of its changing
affordable housing needs or its ability to fulfill those needs, the City consistently recommends
refocusing its housing programs so as to serve higher income households. Indeed, the focus
away from serving the lowest income households is almost a theme of the EAR Housing Element
recommendations.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 7
The City's sole recommendation with respect to Housing Element Policy HO-1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1,
and 1.2.4, virtually all of the policies currently focused on the development and preservation of
housing for the City's most needy residents, is to revise the policies "in order to allow the
inclusion of, and assistance to, middle income households." In addition, the City recommends
deleting a requirement that there be a "variety of housing types" in City center neighborhoods -
presumably abandoning any effort to insure continued access to housing for lower income
households in the rapidly developing downtown.
The redirecting and refocusing of resources on higher income households directly contradicts the
City's own studies regarding the need of its residents. Indeed, the City's own Consolidated Plan,
developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development paints a
picture of severe housing need for the poorest households in the City. The plan specifically
documents the "gentrifying" impact of development on the City's poorest communities.
In the last five years, the City of Miami's urban core has undergone a dramatic
transformation that has had a profound impact on the housing market. Once regarded as
blighted high crime areas, many of the distressed urban core neighborhoods that were
targeted during the last Consolidated Plan are now considered among the Nation's most
sought-after real estate markets. Although this renewed interest in the urban core has led
to a surge of new construction and a dramatic increase in property values, the lives of the
low to moderate income residents living in or near these neighborhoods have not
improved. In many ways, their living conditions have become more difficult. Indeed, all
of the distressed neighborhoods in the City of Miami experienced the following in
various degrees:
• Loss of businesses
• Loss of residents
• Loss of affordable housing
All of these factors indicate that the City of Miami is experiencing signs of
gentrification. This is evident by the dramatic increase in real estate values, the shortage of
affordable housing, and the growing interest of investors in urban core communities,
where many of the City's low income families reside. Clearly, the effects of gentrification
have had a positive impact on some communities by helping to improve the housing stock,
attracting new businesses and increasing the tax base; however, it has also lead to the
displacement of low income residents, conflict among old and new residents and the
disruption of the social fabric of existing neighborhoods in some communities.
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, XII. Housing Strategy.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 8
Moreover, contrary to the City's assertion that "progress" is being made towards its goal of
preserving and increasing the availability of affordable housing for its poorer residents the
Consolidated Plan documents the City's inability to either produce housing or prevent the loss of
affordable housing for its lowest income residents. The Consolidated Plan states:
Finding 6.• The City of Miami's stock of affordable multi family rental units are declining
and not being replaced with new construction
The Market Study also determined that the City of Miami experienced a loss in multi-
family structure types between 1990-2000. The City lost 14% of its units in 10-19 unit
structures (2,028 total units) and 4 percent of its units in the 5-9 unit structures (581 units).
These structures types traditionally support affordable rental housing in older urban
neighborhoods.
Finding 9:...
The lack of rental affordability is likely to increase as contract rents begin to catch up with
market rents. Also, the dwindling supply of multifamily structures, e.g. 5-9, 10-19 unit
structures, will tighten the rental market and impact rent prices.
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment, and the Plan
continues:
The following is a description of obstacles that the City of Miami faces in trying to
meet the underserved needs in the jurisdiction...
Housing
• Growing shortage of affordable housing for very low income families
(particularly rental)
• Deteriorating housing stock (over 80 Percent of homes in the City of Miami
and the NDZ were constructed before 1979)
• Low production of affordable housing compared to need
• Scarcity of affordable sites due to escalating costs of real estate
• High cost of land and construction and low profit margin to developers
• Lack of capacity among non-profit developers to meet need
• Reduction in government funding for affordable housing
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, XII. Housing Strategy, and finally the Plan states:
Severely cost burdened households are defined as those spending more than
50 percent of their household income on housing costs, including utilities. In 2000, 20%
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 9
of households were severely cost burdened in the City of Miami. A total of 26,899
households were spending more than 50 percent of their household income on housing.
That proportion is estimated to remain constant to 2010 when almost 30 thousand
households are predicted to be severely cost -burdened.
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment.
None of this data or research is utilized by the EAR to measure accomplishments or to dictate
policy. This is not surprising in that all are inconsistent with both the City's finding of "progress"
towards its Housing Policy goals and the City's EAR recommendations to focus more policy
attention and funds on higher income households. In fact the policy recommendations of the
Consolidated Plan, based on the Plan's extensive documentation and projections, directly
contradict the policy recommendations of the EAR.
These projections suggest that housing assistance programs should be targeting the
extremely low-income [those earning less than 30% of median income] population (38
percent) first, then the moderate -income [those earning between 50 and 80% of median]
population (35 percent) and thirdly the low-income [those earning between 50% and 80%
of median] population (27 percent)...
Priority Housing Needs:
Projections suggest that the first priority for housing assistance programs should be given
to the extremely low-income population since this group will make up the largest percent
of the population in need of assistance (38%).
City of Miami Consolidated Plan, VI. General Housing Needs Assessment.
Finally, we cannot overemphasize the utility for the City to apply the measurable criteria
suggested above to its own performance. Much of the data has already been collected in the
City's Consolidated Plan and could easily be incorporated into the EAR of the Housing Element.
We believe it would demonstrate that the City's "progress" is significantly lacking and that a
radical restructuring and redirection of City housing policy is needed, not towards more assistance
for the higher income families but towards the protection and maintaining of the long time
residential neighborhood and their existing inhabitants. We believe that a good faith effort to
evaluate the existing City Housing Element policies requires such an examination and we look
forward to its incorporation in your proposed revisions to the Department of Community Affairs.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 10
SUGGESTED POLICY PROPOSALS FOR THE CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
As we have stated we believe that the City has not done enough to preserve and increase housing
for the most needy households. More importantly, we believe the City can do better. We propose
for the City's consideration the following series of proposals which we believe could assist in the
furtherance of this goal.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING: As a condition for approval, require residential developments
above a certain size to include a specified number affordable units.
LAND ASSEMBLY ASSISTANCE: There are many vacant privately owned lots in Miami's
distressed neighborhoods (such a Liberty City and Little Haiti). The City should collaborate with
experienced infill developers and private lenders in an aggressive strategy of acquisition followed
quickly by new construction.
• Fact: A capable developer experienced with working in low income neighborhoods
has no trouble obtaining construction loans PROVIDED THAT the following two
items are available:
• readily available and reasonably priced building lots
• subsidized purchase loans for the home buyers.
• Barriers:
• Even in distressed neighborhoods land is becoming increasingly expensive.
• Government sponsored 2nd mortgage loan programs (such as Surtax and
SHIP) place a cap on the size of the purchase prices that can qualify. For
this reason higher land cost can't always be absorbed into the development
cost of a house and then passed on to the customer in the form a higher
sales price.
• In other words, overly high land prices may make an otherwise desirable
acquisition economically unfeasible
• Solution - Forgivable Matching Acquisition Loans: The City should partner with
selected lenders and experienced infill developers by providing forgivable loans
that could be matched with private sector financing for use in property acquisition.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 11
• The amount of each forgivable loan would vary from deal to deal
(depending on how much acquisition subsidy was needed in order to make
the proposed new affordable home in question economically feasible). The
loans would be forgiven if the house, when constructed, was sold to a
qualifying low income purchaser.
• Once this funding mechanism was in place the participating developers
would proceed to aggressively seek out the owners of vacant parcels and
negotiate standard purchase contracts with the appropriate financing
contingency clause (such clauses are needed because each acquisition
would be subject to a quick decision by the lenders regarding approval or
disapproval).
• Bureaucratic delays in making disbursements must be avoided because
most acquisitions are required to be closed within 30 days after the
purchase contract has been signed.
COMPREHENSIVE INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE LAND: Create a comprehensive
inventory of the ALL vacant lots in distressed neighborhoods. The inventory of properties should
posted to a website in a user friendly format that allows potential developers to easily browse
through the available properties. The inventory should have "clickable" aerial photos to zoom in
on particular neighborhoods. The ideal system would have in one location information on
ownership, code enforcement liens, back taxes, zoning, infrastructure, etc.
LAND ASSEMBLY - LIEN FORECLOSURE: The City of Miami has a huge inventory of
unpaid lot clearance citations affecting vacant parcels in distressed neighborhoods. The City
should formally record the citations in the Public Record so as convert them into liens under the
provisions of a state statute. This should be followed by an aggressively policy of judicial
foreclosure. At present most of these so called "liens" are never recorded in the Public Record.
An aggressive program of judicial foreclosures would provide an incentive for the owners to sell
some of these long vacant parcels to people who would actually use them for a productive
purpose. Many of these parcels, especially those located in the most distressed neighborhoods,
would end up being owned by the City thus becoming available for redevelopment.
ALLOW "GRANNY FLATS": Adjust the zoning codes to allow construction of more
"accessory dwelling units" (ADUs), also known as granny flats, garage apartments, carriage
houses, or ancillary units. For some home owners, the most attractive aspect of ADUs is the
potential for extra income from renting out the units. ADUs offer density without making the
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 12
street appear overbuilt.
EASE ACCESS TO PREDEVELOPMENT FINANCING. Developers of single family
affordable infill housing need easier access to financing for pre -development and construction
costs. Small-scale developers, without the deep pockets, need pre -development financial
assistance to cover the extraordinary costs associated with building scattered site houses distressed
neighborhoods.
PRE -DESIGNED AND PRE -PERMITTED PLANS: The City of Miami should authorize the
creation of a variety of pre -designed units with pre -approved building permits. The designs should
then be made available at no cost to infill developers building affordable single family homes in
distressed neighborhoods. This idea would go beyond the present "cookie cutter" approval process
(wherein a developer of a multi -unit project has only to get a design approved and permitted the
first time that it is used). The cookie cutter approach is helpful but a small infill developer STILL
has to hire an architect to create the initial design and he STILL has to hassle with getting that
initial design approved, and he STILL is limited to using that one design only.
SPEED UP THE PERMITTING PROCESS. The approval process needs to be streamlined
and accelerated for scattered site, single family infill development. Suggestions include: "One -
Stop Shopping" (all services surrounding the permitting process should be obtained from one
designated department); set mandatory deadlines for smaller projects, assignment of facilitators,
fast tracking smaller infill projects; pre -application meetings; adhere to minimum standards
(reviewers should not be able to required small infill developers to build above and beyond the
stated minimum code standards); self help inspections (allow inspections by certified architects
rather than county staff)
HOUSING LINKAGES: local government could condition approval of larger commercial or
office building projects with a requirement that affordable housing units be provided.
EMPLOYER SPONSORED HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAMS: Encourage large
businesses to include homeownership assistance in the benefits package offered to employees at
the workplace. Such a program could include a partnership with the local public/private
affordable housing developer network with the employer either helping individual employees with
down payment assistance or paying into a fund for such assistance.
ALLOW PAYMENT OF GOVERNMENT FEES AFTER COMPLETION OF
CONSTRUCTION: Allow governmental permit, impact and utility connection fees to be paid at
the time an affordable house constructed in a distressed neighborhood is sold rather collecting
them "up front". Such fees are a burden to small builders because they cannot be financed.
Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
City of Miami Planning Department
August 23, 2005
Page 13
Conclusion
We thank you for this opportunity to submit these preliminary comments. We would
appreciate your forwarding to us a copy of your proposed revised EAR when it is released for
public comment and we look forward to submitting additional comments after reviewing it.
Sincerely,
Charles Elsesser, Jr. Esq.
Florida Legal Services Inc
3000 Biscayne Blvd. #450
Miami, FL 33137
John Little, Esq.
Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc.
3000 Biscayne Blvd. #500
Miami, FL 33137
cc: Secretary, Department of Community Affairs
City Commission, City of Miami
Elisabeth Chaves
Payton & Associates, LLC
1200 Suntrust International Center
One Southeast Third Ave.
Miami, FL 33131