HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Letter-Andrew DickmanMiami
T: (305) 758-3621
F: (305) 758-0508
ANDREW W.J. DICKMAN
Attorney at Law
Hon. Joe M. Sanchez
Hon. Tomas P. Regalado
Hon. Angel Gonzalez
Hon. Michelle Spence -Jones
Hon. Marc D. Sarnoff
Miami City Commission
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami FL 33133
November 13, 2008
Naples
T: (239) 434-0840
F: (239) 434-0940
SUBMITTEIJ INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
ITEM vz_.i3 C%J up3 08
Re: Proposed City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Miami River Working
"
Waterfront.
Dear Commissioners:
As you know, I represent the Miami River Marine Group, Inc. The amendments • relating to the
Miami River do not cure the objections issued by the DCA that were based, in part, on
concurring comments from the County and Regional Planning Council.
Specifically, the amendments lack strategies in the coastal management element to protect
working waterfronts; the newly fabricated "data and analysis" is flawed; the amendments are not
consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan; the amendments lack meaningful
strategies for intergovernmental coordination with other agencies including the Miami River
Commission; the amendment lack specific standards and guidelines to allow only compatible and
suitable development near the working waterfront; and the amendments encourage additional
residential development in Hurricane vulnerable areas.
For the following reasons, therefore, the amendments proposed by your planning staff pertaining
to the Miami River should be rejected and repladed with those proposed by the Planning
Advisory Board:
DCA Objection 1: The Coastal Management Element does not include "...strategies that will
be used to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts as defined in s. 342.07..."
as required by Section 163.3178(2)(g), F.S. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies
do not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development. of land and
provide meaningful guidelines for the content of moredetailed land development regulations
related to preserving the recreational and working waterfront of the Miami River. Without
meaningful and predictable strategies establishing a comprehensive plan to guide and control
1
Law Offices of Andrew Dickman, P.A.
P.O. Box 771390 • Naples, FL 34107-1390 • andrewdickman@comcast.net
08-00223cT- bmit}c�,(- �.eter- Ind rew niC1<rna_VV
development along the Miami River, the recreational and commercial uses of the waterfront are
vulnerable to piecemeal displacement by residential uses.
Citations: 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3178(2)(g), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.
DCA Recommendation: The amended goals, objectives, and policies generally de-emphasize
economic development objectives along the River, in favor of mixed use neighborhoods. The
amendments create a policy framework in the Comprehensive Plan similar to a mixed use future
land use category, but without any of the guidelines related to the mix of permitted uses. The City
should provide specific strategies to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts,
which could include an overlay Future Land Use designation for the properties in question. The
strategies must be based on meaningful and predictable standards.
City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise the following Goal PA-3, to
address the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The
additional Objective PA-3.4 and Policies PA-3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4 has been
created to provide specific strategies to address the preservation of recreational
and commercial working waterfronts as defined in s. 342.07 and required by
Section 163.3178 (2)(r) to preserve working waterfronts. Land Use Policies LU-
1.3.6, 1.3.7 and Coastal Management Policies CM-2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.10 have been
included to highlight other strategies within the MCNP that support the
preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts:
MRMG Reply: Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires the City's FLUE designate "proposed future
general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses,
industry...uses of land." The FLUE "...shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding
the area," including "the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development
that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." Also, The FLUE "...must
include, without limitation, regulatory incentives and criteria that encourage the preservation
of recreational and commercial working waterfronts as defined in s. 342.07." (Emphasis added).
Section 342.07(1) makes it abundantly clear that "viable water -dependent support facilities" and
"commerce and the transportation of goods [i.e., shipping]... is not feasible unless there is access
to and from the navigable waters of the state through recreational and commercial working
waterfronts." Section 342.07(2) makes clear that working waterfronts "require direct access to
or a location on, over, or adjacent to a navigable body of water." A water -dependent facility
include "docks, wharfs, lifts, wet and dry marinas, boat ramps, boat hauling and repair facilities,.
commercial fishing facilities, boat construction facilities, and other support structures over the
water."
In short; these provisions require the City to squarely address the "encourage the preservation of'
the Miami River Working Waterfront in its FLUE. Neither FLUE policy submitted by the City
addresses this topic. DCA should require text in the FLUE acknowledging the City's intent to
preserve the Miami River Working Waterfront consistent with the Port of Miami River sub -
element. The City should not be permitted to use the sub -element to emphasize or in any way
promote residential development adverse to the Miami River Working Waterfront. The
proposed phrase "...and provide for residential and mixed use development..." should be •
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
2
stricken and all other objectives and policies must emphasize preservation of the working
waterfront as the priority on the Miami River. The location and need for residential development
should be addressed in the FLUE and Housing Element, not the Port of Miami River sub -
element.
Like the FLUE, pursuant to §163.3178(2)(g), the Coastal Management Element requires "[a]
shoreline use component that ...addresses the need for water -dependent and water -related
facilities..." with "...strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and commercial
working waterfronts as defined in s. 342.07. The component "shall be based on studies,
surveys, and data..."
None of the three Coastal Management policies submitted to DCA remotely satisfy
§§163.3178(2)(g) or 342.07. The "studies, surveys, and data" provided to DCA by the industry
unequivocally depict the Miami River Working Waterfront as a highly significant economic
resource for the City, County, Region and State. Yet, this resource is inexplicably absent from
the City's Coastal Management text. Self-serving ignorance is not an option for the City under
the statutes referenced above. The City should be required to identify the Miami River Working
Waterfront for preservation and be internally consistent with the Port of Miami River sub -
element.
Rule 9-J5.005(6), FAC, requires the above referenced elements (FLUE, Coastal Management,
Port of Miami River sub-elemnt) to "describe how the local government's programs, activities,
and land development regulations will be initiated, modified or continued to implement the
comprehensive plan in a consistent manner." In the comprehensive plan itself, the City must
identify "those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the
strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the goals, objectives, and policies that
describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out
consistent with Section 163.3201, F.S." Each Element listed above (required or optional) "shall
establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide
meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations."
(Emphasis added).
Simply put, the Miami River Working Waterfront must be protected by goals, objectives and
policies in the City comprehensive plan, which must include standards for protecting the
working waterfront and guidelines for the land development regulations (zoning).
"Standards" should be consistency with definitions of working waterfront, water -dependent and
water -related uses with those in State Statute and Rule 9J-5. There should be consistency
between the FLUE and Coastal Managmenet Element with goals, objectives and policies in the
sub -element. There should be an understanding of the existing location of facilities and lands
designated and/or zoning for water -dependent and water -related uses. There should be a
standard for loss or gain of such lands measured in acreage and perhaps location. Perhaps a
standard for mitigation when working waterfront lands are converted to residential or mixed use.
There should be a standard dealing with compatiblity of uses abutting or adjacent to the Miami
River Working Waterfront, possibly based on the type of facility or intensity of use. There
should be a standard for wet and dry slips for marinas on the River and identification and
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
3
resolution of permit road -blocks. There could be standards for the Miami River Working
Waterfront code compliance and safety. What about ensuring within 1 year working waterfront
uses are tax according to current "use" and not "highest and best use" should Amendment 6
succeed? Timelines and benchmarks are tools for making standards "meaningfull" and
"predictable." An overlay district should be explored, but not behind closed doors; in the
sunshine with participation of the public and industry.
The City's newly proposed Objective PA-3.4 and related policies are not "meaningful or
predictable" standards. Providing "technical assistance" for grants, continuing "its support of the
dredging," facilitating "municipal permiting," .and "cooperation with the Miami River
Commission" 1) is highly suspect since the City failed to seek any input from the working
waterfront industries while developing this new set of policies, and 2) is simply aspirational.
These are not standards; they're barely promisses, which is a generous description. The use of
the word "continue" in Policy PA-3.4.4 seems to suggest that the City has supported The Miami
River Working Waterfront although the data shows the City depled its total acreage by 50% in
four years and cavelerly rejected amendments proposed by the industry, the Miami River
Commission, and the City's Planning Advisory Board designed to help the Port of Miami River
working waterfront.
As the Department pointed out in the ORC, Rule 9-J5.005(6) requires clear "guidelines" for
zoning provisions to implement the working waterfront goals, objectives and policies
consistency with §163.3201, more to the point "It is the intent of this act that adopted
comprehensive plans or elements thereof shall be implemented, in part, by the adoption and
enforcement of appropriate local regulations [zoning] on the development of lands and waters
within an area." This statute, as you know, means the City's zoning "shall be based on, be
related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted comprehensive plan as required by
this act." Moreover, §163.3202 requires the City's zoning to be "consistent with and implement
their adopted comprehensive plan."
Many years ago the City adopted zoning "SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District" specifically to
implement the Port of Miami River sub -element:
This district designation is intended for application in areas appropriately located
for marine activities, including industrial operations and major movements of
passengers and commodities. In view of the importance of such activities to local
economy and the limited area suitable and available for such activities, it is
intended to limit principal and accessory uses to those reasonably requiring
location within such districts, and not to permit residential, general commercial,
service, office or manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront activities
except for office uses in existing office structures. For the purposes of section
3(mm) of the City of Miami Charter, this district shall be construed as an
industrial district. (Emphasis added).
Adoption of the new City proposals for the River "and provide for residential and mixed use
development" and removing "[t] Port of Miami River, a group of privately owned and operated
commercial shipping companies located at specific sites along the Miami River, shall be
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
4
encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economically viable component of the city's
maritime industrial base" violates the comprehensive plan — zoning nexus provision cited above.
There are no references to the comprehensive zoning overhaul called "Miami 21" the City is
currently drafting, which proposes serious detrimental regulations for the Miami River Working
Waterfront.
All of the proposed Miami River -related amendments rely on adoption "land development
regulations" as its comprehensive planning program. The goals, objectives, policies, standards,
findings and conclusions within the proposed comprehensive plan must be supported by relevant
and appropriate data which is gathered in a professionally accepted manner.' The data and
analysis are not part of the adopted plan and will be discussed at length below. It is the goals,
objectives and policies constituting the operative, adopted parts of the plan having the force of
law. Essentially, the requirement for these provisions, and the definitions supplied by the rule,
mean that comprehensive plans must establish in black and white the fundamental value
judgments that will govern land use decisions within a given jurisdiction.
Several administrative orders have ruled that a policy in a plan that says simply that the local
government will subsequently adopt a land development regulation that addresses a specific rule
requirement is unacceptable. The compliance of a plan amendment must be based exclusively
on the Plan itself and cannot rely upon land development codes. Plans cannot resort to criteria
outside of the plan.3- The plan itself must contain a policy which provides some guidance, value
or "policy" judgment on each issue required to be addressed in Rule 9J-5. Simply deferring to
LDR's does not provide the same level of attention to the issue because LDR's, which can be
amended, revised or repealed without the procedural safeguards that apply to plan amendments,
do not have the same legal status as policies in a plan.4 A statement in a plan those
implementing policies will be addressed later, through LDRs, would not render the plan "in
compliance," because it would not fulfill requirements of section 163.3177(9)(e), Fla. Stat. or
Rule 9J-5.005.
The important issue raised by this analysis concerns the level of detail and specificity that must
be included in a plan in order for it to be found in compliance. Most local governments have
fought attempts to require a great level of detail in plans. They did not want to give away their
ability to exercise discretion when later deciding the content of more specific land development
2
3
4
Section 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. The professionally acceptable standard is discussed in a
Department Declaratory Statement, Clay Cou y v. Dep't of Community Affairs, 13 FALR
1457 (DCA Dec. Stmt. March 11, 1991).
DCA et. al v. Monroe County, ER FALR 95:148 (Final Order issued December 12,1995),
(citing DCA v. Escambia County, ER FALR 92:138 (Final Order issued July 22, 1992) .
DCA et: al v. Monroe County, ER FALR 95:148 (Final Order issued December 12,1995)
(citing DCA v. Escambia County, ER FALR 92:138 (Final Order issued July 22, 1992).
See e.g.Hiss v. Sarasota County and Department of Community Affairs, (Admin Comm.
Case No. ACC-90-014, June 6, 1991), aff d Hiss v. Sarasota County, 602 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1992).
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
5
regulations or in deciding whether a specific development proposal was consistent with the plan.
Obviously, the more vague the plan, the greater range of decisions that will be consistent with
that plan. This is still the preferred approach of local governments, who typically want greater
latitude to approve of development proposals, or in some cases disapprove of them, without
strictly complying with a predetermined standard. However, judicial interpretations of the
consistency requirement have begun to greatly diminish the ability of a local government to
disapprove of something that is consistent with their plans, thus removing much of the discretion
the governing body thought it had reserved for itself.
Section 163.3202(4) allows the Department to reject "one or more land development regulations
if it has reasonable grounds to believe that a local government has totally failed to adopt any one
or more of the land development regulations required by this section." Further, "[i]f the
[Department] determines that the local government has failed to adopt regulations required by
this section, it may institute an action in circuit court to require adoption of these regulations."
Given the obvious proposed amendments for the Miami River, I would respectfully request that
you review these regulations in conjunction with your courtesy review of the comprehensive
plan amendments, in order to get the whole picture.
DCA Objection 2: The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are not based on data and
analysis in support of the required strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and
commercial working waterfronts.
Citations: 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), and 163.3178(2)(b), F.S.; Rules 9J-5.012(2)(a) and 9J-
5.012(2)(h), F.A.C.; and Policies (19)5 and (21)13, State Comprehensive Plan
DCA Recommendation: The City should provide data and analysis in support of the required
strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts. At a
minimum, the data and analysis must include the information identified in the citations noted
above.
City Response: The City of Miami has obtained new data and analysis of the
relative market and economic based redevelopment and/or reuse impacts of
changing the designation to the Miami River adjacent waterfront industrial parcels
to allow for non -working waterfront uses. Strategies PA-3.1.6, PA-3.1.7, PA-3.1.8
and PA-3.1.9 have been identified through this analysis to preserve and encourage
the use of recreational and commercial working waterfronts along the River. This
assessment and analysis has been provided as Appendix -III of the ORC
Response. The citations that have been referenced above have been identified in
Appendix- III of the ORC Response.
MRMG Reply: Section 163.3177(1) requires that the "comprehensive plan shall consist of
materials in such descriptive form, written or graphic, as may be appropriate to the prescription
of principles, guidelines, and standards for the orderly and balanced future economic, social,
physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area." Subsection (6) requires that the
FLUE designate "proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for
residential uses, commercial uses, industry..." which "shall be shown on a land use map or map
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
6
series which shall be supplemented by goals, policies, and measurable objectives." The FLUE
and FLUM "shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the
amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the
area; the character of undeveloped land; ...the need for redevelopment..."
Section 163.3178(2) mandates that the "coastal management element required by s.
163.3177(6)(g) shall be based on studies, surveys, and data; be consistent with coastal resource
plans prepared and adopted pursuant to general or special law; and contain... [a]n analysis of the
environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impact of development and redevelopment proposed in
the future land use plan..." (subsection "b").
Rule 9J-5.012(2)(a) mandates that the Coastal Managemen Element inventory the "existing land
uses in the coastal planning area," the "need for water -dependent and water -related development
sites shall be estimated," "areas in need of redevelopment;" include an "analysis of the economic
base of the coastal planning area based on the future land use element," and a map or map series
showing existing land uses and detailing existing water -dependent and water -related uses shall
be prepared." Subsection (h) requires that the "[e]xisting infrastructure in the coastal planning
area shall be inventoried, including: roadways, bridges or causeways,..." This subsection also
requires an analysis of the "demand upon, capacity of, and area served by the. existing
infrastructure," "estimate [of] future needs for those facilities listed above, and which shall
address the fiscal impact in terms of estimated costs, funding sources and phasing of any needed
improvements."
Finally, the State Comprehensive Plan at §187.201(19)(b) requires that the City's comprehensive
plan "[e]nsure that existing port facilities and airports are being used to the maximum extent
possible before encouraging the expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to
support economic growth." Moreover, subsection (21)(b)(13) mandates that the City's plan
"[p]romote coordination among Florida's ports to increase their utilization."
All elements in a comprehensive plan, including "all goals, objectives, policies, standards,
findings and conclusions" must be "clearly based" upon relevant and appropriate data.5 This
support data is used in the determination of compliance and consistency. This compliance
review requires an evaluation of "whether the data was collected and applied in a
professionally acceptable manner."6 (Emphasis added). The science and art of planning
fundamentally requires, that data be gathered and analyzed before determining what the plan
should be. Thus, in Department of Community Affairs and Metropolitan Dade County v. City of
Islandia, an adopted plan was easily found not in compliance when the city commission first
5
Sections 163.3177(8), 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.
Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
7
voted to designate the entirety of its jurisdiction as appropriate for residential development and
then subsequently hired a consultant to prepare a plan for submittal to the DCA.7
Rule 9J-5 places emphasis on the need for scrutiny of data and analysis to support an assumption
that a particular strategy is reasonably calculated to work. For example, the Rule requires that
"[a]l1 background data, studies, surveys, analysis and inventory maps not adopted as part of the
comprehensive plan... be available for public inspection while the comprehensive plan is
being considered for adoption and while it is in effect."8 (Emphasis added).
Also, the Rule requires that "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions
within the comprehensive plan and its support documents shall be based upon relevant and
appropriate data.i9 Where underlying data is crucial to a determination as to how a goal,
objective or policy will operate, such data must be submitted for a compliance determination or
administrative hearing.'°
Rule 9J-5005(2), F.A.C., provides in pertinent part:
(a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions... Shall be
based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each
element. To be based on data means to react to it in appropriate way and to the
extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the
time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. ... [T]he DCA will
review each comprehensive plan for the purpose of determining whether the plan
is based on the data and analysis described in this chapter and whether the data
were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner... (Emphasis
added).
(b) This Chapter shall not be construed to require original data collection by local
government; however, local governments are encouraged to utilize any original
data necessary to update or refine the local government comprehensive plan data
base so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. (Emphasis added).
(c) Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources. ...The
data used shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government
desires original data or special studies. Where data augmentation, updates, or
special studies or surveys are deemed necessary by local government,
appropriate methodologies shall be clearly described or referenced and shall
meet professionally accepted standards for such methodologies. (Emphasis
added)
7
Department of Community Affairs and Metropolitan Dade County v. City of Islandia, 12
FALR 3132, ER FALR 90:130, AC Case No. ACC 90-001 (June 20, 1990), DOAH Case No.
89-1508 (Lerner, March 27, 1990).
8 9J-5.005(1)(c), F.A.C.
9 Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.
10 Sheridan v. Lee County, (DCA Final Order No. 93-158-FOF-CP, June 28, 1993).
Submitted into thepublic
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
In Austin et. al. v. City of Cocoa and DCA, it was held that there must be data that supports any
assurances articulated in the adopted goals, objectives and policies — such as preservation of
working waterfronts."
Every plan amendment (of whatever scope or impact) need not itself comply with every data,
analysis, goal, objective and policy requirement. However, each amendment, as a distinct
planning decision, must comply with each requirement that it implicates, such as preservation of
working waterfronts, the nature of the criterion and the plan amendment is critical. For instance,
all plan provisions, including amendments, must be supported by data and analysis. A plan
amendment that is unsupported by the data and analysis is inconsistent with this criterion.12
In Clay County v. Dep't of Comm. Affairs, the DCA discussed the requirement that data be
gathered and applied in a professionally acceptable manner, and in a declaratory statement found
that a county's population projections failed to meet this standard because Clay County's
population projections to not be professionally acceptable.
The City's decision to secretly prepare the Lambert report and release it only days before the
adoption hearing characterizes its desire to seek a justification for NOT protecting the Miami
River Working Waterfront. This information was hidden from public inspection deliberately.
See 9J 5.005(1)(c), F.A.C. The City has denied the right of the public to participate in the
planning process to the fullest extent possible. See Section 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. In fact, the
report's transparent conclusion that properties identified on "map 3" for redevelopment goes to
the ultimate strategy of the City. Aside from the numerous methodology errors, this particular
map grossly miscalculates acreage existing and impacted. For example, group 1, 2 and 6 in truth
are 7 parcels not 5; are 23 acres not 11.44; and are the three small scale FLUM amendments
reversed by the Third District Court of Appeal. The Lambert report fails to consider this acreage
as existing waterfront industrial land, which accounts for the pathetically, disingenuous
statement that 15.5 acres .remain in the City. Truthfully, this figure is 25 percent (1/4 of all
riverfront land is designated for working waterfront). The Lambert report is the ONLY
document contending that the working waterfront is in decline in the City and . residential
development, therefore, is appropriate. The volumes of data in other publicly scrutinized,
particularly by the Miami River Commission and Miami River Marine Group — the experts -,
view the Miami River Working Waterfront (in the City and in the County) as an asset to be
preserved. See the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, Miami River Master Plan, Economic
Analysis of the Miami River Marine Industry, etc. This so called data and analysis in the
surprise Lambert report has clearly flawed methodologies that do not meet professionally
accepted standards, and the data used is not the best available existing data; it's fabricated
purchased data from a biased consultant instructed to find certain desired conclusions.
11
12
Austin et. al. v. City of Cocoa and DCA, ER FALR 89:0128 (Admin. Comm. Case No.
89-31, DOAH Case No. 88-6338GM (Adm. Com. Sept. 29, 1989) (See Rec. Order at 106,
paragraph 62).
Wilson et al v. City of Cocoa and Department of Community Affairs, ER FALR 91: 142
(DCA 1991)( Rec. Order at 45).
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
9
DCA Objection 3: The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are inconsistent with the
City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report for the following reasons:
a. Page 2 of the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) notes that one of the major issues
is "the need for, and impacts of equitable redevelopment and development ". The text of the EAR
notes that "Despite its function as an international business, trade and tourism center, the City
of Miami faces a number of economic challenges, including great disparities in wealth and
income, high unemployment and poverty rates in comparison to other U.S. cities of its size.
Economic development initiatives, including job creation and training programs, efforts to
attract new and support existing businesses and employers, and strategies to strengthen the
City's role in the regional, national, and international economies must be supported by the
MCNP. Redevelopment efforts should include economic development and job creation initiatives
at the neighborhood level. The role of infill, and in particular brownfield redevelopment, in the
City's economic development strategies should be addressed as well." The EAR places great
importance on economic development, but the EAR based amendments related to the Port of
Miami River Sub -Element are inconsistent with the noted major issue.
b. Page 12 of the City's EAR notes that "Another important effort relates to redevelopment along
the Miami River. The City, Miami -Dade County, and the Miami River Commission have worked
together towards developing a program that would foster appropriate development along the
• Miami River. Currently the City is developing a market analysis and economic development
study for the River. Ultimately, the intent of this study is to recommend proposed development
opportunities for the Miami River." City staff confirmed that the noted economic development
study for the Miami River has not been completed. Therefore, it is premature to create a policy
framework in the Comprehensive Plan that favors residential development, absent the data and
analysis which justifies that land use pattern.
Citations: 163.3177(1), 163.3178(2)(g), 163.3191(10), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.012(2)(a), F.A.C.; Goals
(21) and (24), and Policies (19)5, (21)1, (21)4, (21)12, (22)12, (24)4, (25)8, State
Comprehensive Plan; Goal 2, 8, and 17, and Policy 17.7, Strategic Regional Policy Plan; and
Pages 2 and 12 of Miami's Adopted EAR
DCA Recommendation: Regarding "a ", the City should provide data and analysis which
explains how the continued loss of water dependent and water related uses is consistent with the
major issue identified in the EAR. Regarding "b ", the City should provide
City Response: The City of Miami has obtained new data and analysis of the
relative market and economic based redevelopment and/or reuse impacts of
changing the designation to the Miami River adjacent waterfront industrial parcels
to allow for non -working waterfront uses. This study describes the market
potential for water dependent and water related uses and rather analyzes the
market impact of allowing for a broader range of use including residential, retail,
hotel and office on lands which are currently restricted to working waterfront
activities. This assessment and analysis has been provided as Appendix -III of the
ORC Response. PLEASE SEE ORC APPENDIX -III
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
10
MR1VIG Reply: The Department astutely recognized the inconsistency between the City's EAR
declaration that "[e]conomic development initiatives, including job creation and training
programs, efforts to attract new and support existing businesses and employers, and strategies to
strengthen the City's role in the regional, national, and international economies must be
supported by the [comprehensive plan]" and the proposed amendments. Additionally the ORC
observed that the EAR touts a "market analysis and economic development study for the Miami
River" which has not been completed. Not only has it not been completed, it was scrapped
altogether because the initial conclusions prepared by the consultant were not acceptable to the
City's vision for the River. The City's surprise, un-vetted, Lambert report is not sufficient to
overcome this objection, as stated above.
DCA Objection 4: The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are inconsistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. For example, the adopted version of Goal CM-2 notes that the City
commits to "...preserving traditional water -dependent and water -related uses...and minimizing
user conflicts." The proposed version remains the same. The adopted version of Goal PA-3
reads as follows: "The Port of Miami River, a group of privately owned and operated
commercial shipping companies located at specific sites along the Miami River, shall be
encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economically viable component of the city's
maritime industrial base." In contrast, the proposed version of Goal PA-3 reads as follows:
"Development along the Miami River shall encourage residential and mixed use development
and continue to provide for water -dependent and water -related commercial, industrial, and
recreational uses along the Miami River, while acknowledging the history of the marine
industrial use along the River as a vital economic development." The revised version of Goal
PA-3 now "encourages" residential and mixed use development, but will only `provide for" the
water -dependent and water -related uses. It does not meet the standard set by Goal CM-2 to
preserve water -dependent and water -related uses, and includes no provisions to minimize user
conflicts. The City has not provided strategies to preserve recreational and commercial working
waterfronts.
Citations: 163.3177(1-2), 163.3178(2)(g), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.012(2)(a), F.A.C.; Goals (21) and
(24), and Policies (19)5, (21)1, (21)4, (21)12, (22)12, (24)4, (25)8, State Comprehensive Plan;
Goal 2, 8, and 17, and Policy 17.7, Strategic Regional Policy Plan; and Pages 2 and 12 of
Miami's Adopted EAR
DCA Recommendation: The City should resolve the inconsistencies these amendments create in
the comprehensive plan related to its desire to preserve traditional water -dependent and water -
related uses and minimize user conflicts.
City Response: City of Miami proposes .to revise the following Goal PA-3, to
address the inconsistencies between the Coastal Management Element Goal CM-2
and Miami River Sub -Element related to the City's efforts to preserve
recreational, commercial and industrial water -dependent, water -related uses. Land
Use Policies LU-1.1.3, 1.6.9 have been included to highlight other strategies
within the MCNP that support the preservation of traditional water -dependent and
water -related uses and minimize user conflicts:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
11
MRMG Reply: As addressed above, the internal inconsistency between the FLUE, Coastal
Management Element, and the sub -element only can be resolved if the City embraces the
legislative requirement to preserve the working waterfront on the River. The new proposals
emphasize residential over working waterfronts.
DCA Objection 5: The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies do not include strategies
to ensure effective intergovernmental coordination among the governmental entities that have
planning responsibilities related to the Miami River, including the Miami River Commission,
Miami -Dade County, and the South Florida Regional Planning Council, all of which objected to
the proposed amendments.
Citations: 163.3177(4) and (6)(h), F.S., Rules 9J-5.012(3)(c)14, 9J-5.015(3)(c)6, F.A.C.; and
Policy (15)4 and (25)8, State Comprehensive Plan
DCA Recommendation: The City should identify strategies in its goals, objectives, and policies
to ensure effective intergovernmental coordination along the Miami River, including those
actions identified in the citations noted above.
City Response: The City of Miami proposes to create Policy PA-3.4.4 to provide
specific strategies to ensure effective intergovernmental coordination among the
entities that have planning responsibilities related to the Miami River. The City
has also established Objectives PA-3.3 and Policy PA-3.3.1 to support
intergovernmental coordination related to the Miami River:
MRMG Reply: Newly proposed policy PA-3.4.4 is meaningless without standards and
guidelines for how the City will coordinate with the numerous other agencies and regulators of
the River particularly the working river. Currently, the comprehensive plan has a similar policy
and when challenged by the City, its response is that it participates as a member of the Miami
River Commission. That's not enough. The Miami River Commission opposes the amendments
submitted to the Department, so does the County and RPC. The City vehemently refuses to
recognize the MRC's award winning "Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan" because it
contains provisions to protect the Miami River Working Waterfront. The new language is
equally meaningless.
DCA Objection 6: The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies do not ensure
compatibility and suitability ()fuses along the Miami River.
Citations: 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Rules 9J-5.003(23), 9J-5.003(128), 9J-5 .006(3)(c)1 - 2, 9J-
5.012(3)(c)9, and 9J-5.019(4)(c)21, E.A.C.; Policies (15)4, (15)6, and (16)6, State
Comprehensive Plan; and Policy 8.3 and Goal 20, Strategic Regional Policy Plan
DCA Recommendation: The City should address compatibility and suitability as part of the
strategies to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts. As currently proposed,
there is no assurance that residential development would not occur along the River in a
piecemeal manner and create incompatible land uses. The City should comprehensively plan for
the Miami -River corridor's future.
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
12
City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise the following Goal PA-3, to
ensure compatibility and suitability in efforts to preserve recreational and
commercial working waterfronts. The additional Policies PA-3.1.1, 3.1.4, 3.1.5,
3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.1.8 and 3.1.9 have been created to provide specific strategies
through Land Development Regulations to accommodate the coexistence of
residential and water -dependant and water -related industrial uses. Land Use
Policies LU-1.1.3, 1.6.9 has been included to highlight other strategies within the
MCNP that will ensure compatibility and suitability of uses along the Miami
River:
MRMG Reply: The Department's correctly objected to the lack of standards and guidelines for
"compatibility and suitability" of residential development with the working waterfront. The City
should be required to adopted the definitions found in Rule 9J-5.003 for Compatibility ("a
condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a
stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or
indirectly by another use . or condition" and Suitability ("the degree to which the existing
characteristics and limitations of land and water are compatible with a proposed use or
development"). As mentioned above, development policies for residential should be addressed
in the FLUE and Housing Elment, not the sub -element, albeit to ensure that residential is not
"compatible" or "suitable" with the required goal of preserving the working waterfront. Any
residential should be an accessory to the water -dependent use, not the otherway around.
DCA Objection 7: The 2007 Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) map produced by the Miami -
Dade County Office of Emergency Management is the most recent CHHA map for Miami -Dade
County. Miami -Dade County staff confirmed that the 2007 map indicates that the CHHA extends
up the Miami River to an area between 32nd Avenue and the salinity dam. The amendments
create a policy framework which would facilitate increased residential densities in the CHHA.
They do not direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high -hazard
areas, and they do not demonstrate how hurricane evacuation times would be maintained or
reduced.
Citations: 163.3178(9)(a-c), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6 and 7, F.A.C.
DCA Recommendation: The City should demonstrate how the proposed amendments to the
goals, objectives, and policies will allow the City to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation
times.
City Response: City of Miami proposes to revise the following Policy CM-4.3,
and create. Policies CM-4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 4.3.6, 4.3.7 to ensure how hurricane
evacuation times would be maintained or reduced in the CHHA zone and meet the
requirements of 163.3178(9)(a-c), F.S., and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6 and 7, F.A.C. .
Miami River sub -element Policy PA-3.1.2 will be revised to reference Objective
CM-4.1. Coastal Management Polices CM-4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2 has been included to
highlight how current MCNP Polices has allowed the City to maintain or reduce
hurricane evacuation times:
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk__
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
13
MRMG Reply: Related to the River, any emphasis onnew residential development which
replaces working waterfront lands should be stricken to keep permanent and seasonal
populations out of the coastal high hazard area. Plenty of other lands in the City are designated
residential but not developed. The City has not demonstrated a need for more residential,
especially in hazardous areas on the River. The simple solution to this Objection is to remove
references to residentialdevelopment from policies intended to protect the Miami River Working
Waterfront.
For the reasons stated above, I recommend that you do not adopt the amendments
pertaining to the Miami River Working Waterfront. The proposed amendments adopted by the
City's Planning Advisory Board (attached) contain goals, objectives and policies thoroughly
examined by the public at numerous public hearings and are supported by the Miami River
Commission and the Miami River Marine Group. If your primary concern is code compliance of
waterfront properties (including city and county owned), may I suggest this goals does not
require a complete rewrite of the Comprhensive Plan. Thank you for your time and attention to
these comments.
Sincerely,
ANDREW DICKMAN
attachment
cc: Fran Bonhsack, Miami River Marine Group
Brett Bibeau, Miami River Commission
Frank Herhold, Marine Industries Association of SW Florida
David Dickerson, National Marine Manufacturers Association
Bill Pable, Florida Department of Community Affairs
Submitted into the public
record in connection with
item PZ.13 on 11-13-08
Priscilla A. Thompson
City Clerk
Andrew Dickman, P.A.
14