File Ref. #063
teF "# 0:>3 - ~ I b I 1"'I"f Y
BEFORE THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
FLORIDA, A MUNICIPALITY OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
STUART REED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Cl
\..0
co
<-
c=
r-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY COMMISSION,
:::0
m
()
""-' en m
:;r: _
(j) ~ <
/ ~ _ m
"'T1 .. 0
("') CD
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO VftIFIED
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3215(1). FLORIDA STATUTES
-I
w,.,(:'
C-,:
['.-
rri
Defendant.
The City of Miami Beach City Commission (hereinafter the "City") , by and through its
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Section 163.3215(4), Florida Statutes, hereby files its answer
and affirmative defenses to the Verified Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Stuart Reed ("Plaintiff')
and states the following:
ANSWER
1. The City is without knowledge of and, therefore, denies the allegations in paragraph
1 of the Complaint.
2. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint that the "Local
Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" set forth in Part II of Chapter 163 of
the Florida Statutes concerns the powers and responsibilities of "incorporated municipalities and
counties," however, the City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 2.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
3. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint that Plaintiff alleges
to have filed the Complaint with the City Commission and that Section 163.3215(1), Florida Statutes
authorizes actions for injunctive and other relief; however, the City denies all remaining allegations
in paragraph 3.
4. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the Complaint that venue for cases
brought under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, shall lie in the county or counties where the
actions or inactions giving rise to the cause of action or alleged to have occurred; and that the subject
parks and recreational facilities are situated in the City of Miami Beach; however, the City denies
the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.
5. The City denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 5 of the Complaint
that the City Commission approved a parks facility improvement plan at a City Commission meeting
on May 20, 1998. The City denies the allegations in the second sentence in paragraph 5 that the
City Commission's approval is inconsistent with the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan. The
City denies the allegations in the third sentence in paragraph 6 that the Plaintiff may seek
invalidation of the City Commission's approval of the parks facility improvement plan, and a
temporary and permanent injunction against the issuance of any development orders and other forms
of development approval pursuant to the subject park facility improvement plan.
6. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint that, on November
8, 1994, a $15 million bond issue for the construction, renovation and rebuilding of parks and
recreation facilities was approved by the electorate in a special election of the City of Miami Beach.
7. The City admits the allegations in the first sentence in paragraph 7 of the Complaint
that subsequent to the approval of the bond issue, the Miami Beach Department of Recreation,
2
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Culture and Parks ("Department of Recreation") prepared a park facility improvement plan, and on
April 13 and 14, 1998, the Department of Recreation presented its proposed park facility
improvement plan to the public at "community meetings." The City admits the allegations in the
second sentence in paragraph 7 that the Plaintiff attended both "community meetings," however, the
City neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations in the second sentence in paragraph 7 that
the Plaintiff commented at said meetings that the proposed park facility improvement plan was
inconsistent with the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan's Recreational and Open Space Element and
Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element, due to insufficient knowledge. The City is
without knowledge of and, therefore, denies the allegations in the third sentence in paragraph 7 that
the Plaintiff commented that the proposed park facility improvement plan ignored significant
recreational facility deficiencies and primarily planned to improve recreational facilities that are in
good condition and meet the City's recreational needs.
8. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Complaint that the Plaintiff
drafted a letter which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1 which speaks for itself; however, the
City is without knowledge of and, therefore, denies the allegations that said letter was delivered on
April 20, 1998 to the Mayor and each of the Commissioners. The City denies all remaining
allegations in paragraph 8.
9. With regard to the allegations in the first sentence in paragraph 9 of the Complaint,
the City admits that at the City Commission meeting on May 20, 1998, a Commission Committee
Report was given with regard to the joint meeting of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
and the Neighborhood Committee regarding a presentation of proposed improvements to City parks
and recreation facilities pursuant to the $15 million General Obligation Parks Improvement Bond
3
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Program; however, the City denies all remaining allegations in the first sentence in paragraph 9.
With regard to the allegations in the second sentence in paragraph 9, the City admits that Stuart Reed
attended the City Commission meeting on May 20, 1998; however, the City is without knowledge
of and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations in the second sentence in paragraph 9. The City
denies the allegations in the third sentence in paragraph 9.
10. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Complaint that the park facility
improvement plan approved by the City Commission ignores recreational facility deficiencies
identified in Exhibit 1 to the Complaint.
11. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Complaint that, as a result of
the City Commission's approval, significant recreational facilities deficiencies will be ignored in the
implementation of the park facility improvement plan.
12. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 12 of the Complaint that, as a result of
the City Commission's approval, the shoreline and waterways of the Biscayne Bay will continue to
be subjected to neglect and degradation, which will exacerbate the degraded condition of important
recreational, scenic, open space and natural resources.
13. The City is without knowledge of and, therefore, denies the allegations in the first
sentence in paragraph 13 of the Complaint that the Plaintiff relies upon the City's parks and
waterways for recreation, exercise and relaxation. The City denies the allegations in the second
sentence in paragraph 13 that the park facility improvement plan was approved by the City
Commission on May 20, 1998, that said plan ignores significant recreational facility deficiencies,
and that the ongoing neglect of these facility deficiencies will impair Plaintiffs recreational interests
and the recreational interests of other Miami Beach residents.
4
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
14. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint that Chapter 163,
Part II, Florida Statutes, the "Local Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act," requires each local government in Florida to prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan
containing certain mandatory elements such as land use, traffic circulation, conservation, coastal
zone management, and the adequacy of facilities and infrastructure; however, the City denies all
remaining allegations in paragraph 14 on the basis that they are statements of opinion or argument
and not allegations of fact.
15. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint that after a local
government has adopted its comprehensive plan, Section 163.3194(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes
requires that all actions taken by the local government in regard to development orders, in regard to
land covered by such plan or element, be consistent with such plan or element as adopted.
16. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 16 that Section 163.3194(3) of the
Florida Statutes "defines" consistency. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 16(a) of the
Complaint, the City admits that Section 163.3194(3)(a) Florida Statutes is repeated verbatim from
the Florida Statutes. However, the City denies the allegations in paragraph 16(b) of the Complaint
on the basis that Section 163.3194(3)(b) of the Florida Statutes is not repeated verbatim from the
Florida Statutes as certain language is missing therefrom. The City denies all remaining allegations
in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
17. The City denies the first sentence in paragraph 17 of the Complaint that the Local
Comprehensive Planning Act provides for citizen enforcement of the consistency requirement on
the basis that this allegation is essentially a characterization or statement of opinion and not an
allegation of fact. The City denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 17 in that
5
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY -1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
Section 1634.3215(1) of the Florida Statutes speaks for itself and the Plaintiffs characterization is
essentially argument and not an allegation of fact.
18. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 18 on the basis that Sections 163.3215(1)
and 163.3215(4), Florida Statutes, speak for themselves and, further, the City denies the allegations
that Plaintiff complies with the condition precedent to seeking judicial relief and the City denies that
the Plaintiff served an original copy of the Verified Complaint with the City Commission within the
specified time frame.
19. The City admits that it adopted the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan, and all amendments thereto, pursuant to the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; however, the City denies all
remaining all allegations in paragraph 19.
20. The City denies the first sentence in paragraph 20 ofthe Complaint that the Plaintiff
is an aggrieved or adversely affected party as defined in Section 163.3215(2), Florida Statutes
(1997). The City neither admits nor denies the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 20
that the Plaintiff utilizes the City's parks and the Biscayne Bay and waterways for recreation,
exercise, and relaxation and wishes to continue to do so in the future, due to insufficient knowledge.
21. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 21 of the Complaint that, as a result of
the alleged City Commission's approval of the park facility improvement plan, Plaintiff will suffer
an adverse effect to interests protected or furthered by the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan,
including interests relating to safety, land use, recreation, environmental resources, and compatibility
of development.
22. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 22 of the Complaint that the park facility
6
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
improvement plan is inconsistent with Policy 1.2 of the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, Recreation and Open Space Element and the City denies that Policy 1.2 reads
as follows:
By 1998, the City shall develop a detailed park facility improvement
plan to address facility deficiencies.
23. The City denies the allegations in the first sentence in paragraph 23 that the park
facility improvement plan approved by the City Commission does not address significant facility
deficiencies identified by Plaintiff in Exhibit 1. In addition, the City denies the allegations in the
second sentence in paragraph 23 that the park facility improvement plan approved by the City
Commission upgrades park facilities that are currently in good condition and satisfy the City's
recreation interests. The City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 23 on the basis that said
allegations are essentially arguments or statement of opinion and are not proper allegations of fact.
24. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 24 of the Complaint that the Goal in the
Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element
reads, in part, as follows:
Provide public improvements....in a manner maintaining or
improving the marine and terrestrial animal habitats, vegetation, land,
air, water, and a visual, aesthetic quality of Miami Beach for present
and projected future populations.
However, the City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 24 that the approval of the park
facility improvement plan is inconsistent with said Goal.
25. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 25 of the Complaint that the park facility
improvement plan approved by the City Commission does not provide public improvements in a
manner maintaining or improving the marine and terrestrial animal habitats, vegetation, land, air,
7
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE. MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
water, and a visual, aesthetic quality of Miami Beach for present and projected future
populations.
26. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 26 of the Complaint that Policy 1.6 of
the Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element
reads as follows:
The use of causeways, roads, rights-of-way and canal easements at
shoreline shall continue to be expanded to provide public: access for
water dependent and water-related activities and to protect public
access to beaches renourished with public funds.
However, the City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 26 that the approval of the park
facility improvement plan is inconsistent with Policy 1.6.
27. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 27 of the Complaint that the park facility
improvement plan approved by the City Commission does not expand the use of causeways, roads,
rights-of-way and canal easements at shoreline to provide public access for water dependent and
water-related activities.
28. The City admits the allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint that Policy 3.1 of
the Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element
reads, in part, as follows:
Those public access areas including street ends, municipal parking
facilities and municipal parks along coastal waters will be
maintained...or redesigned to provide greater access to Biscayne Bay
and the Atlantic Ocean...regardless of the land use designation of
those areas.
However, the City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 28 that the approval of the park
facility improvement plan is inconsistent with Policy 3.1.
8
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
29. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint that the park facility
improvement plan approved by the City Commission does not maintain or redesign any public areas,
including street ends, municipal parking facilities, and municipal parks along coastal waters to
provide greater access to Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean regardless of the land use designation
of those areas.
30. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint that Policy 3.3 of
the Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Conservation/Costal Zone Management Element
reads as follows:
The City shall design and construct signage along major
thoroughfares to direct the public's attention to public shoreline parks
and water-related facilities by 1998.
In addition, the City denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint that the
approval of the park facility improvement plan is inconsistent with Policy 3.3.
31. The City denies the allegations in paragraph 31 of the Complaint that the park facility
improvement plan approved by the City Commission does not provide signage along major
thoroughfares to direct the public's attention to public shoreline parks and water-related facilities.
32. The City denies all allegations in the Complaint which are not specifically admitted
or denied herein.
AFFIRMA TIVE DEFENSES
33. The "City Commission" of the City of Miami Beach is not the proper entity which
would be subject to the procedures under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes concerning the filing
of a Verified Complaint or the institution of an action for injunctive or other relief.
34. There is no subject matter jurisdiction, as Plaintiff has not timely filed a Verified
9
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Complaint within thirty days after the alleged inconsistent action has taken place, in that the $15
million General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996 (Park Improvement Projects) were approved pursuant
to the action of the public via a citizen referendum on November 8, 1994, and the City of Miami
Beach Parks Master Plan Bond Program ("Parks Bond Program") was adopted in 1996 by the City
of Miami Beach.
35. There is no subject matter jurisdiction as the City of Miami Beach's implemention
of the $15 million bond issue in the Parks Bond Program is not "action on a development order
under Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes which materially alters the use or density or intensity of
use on a particular property that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan adopted under this
part."
36. Plaintiff has no standing and is not an aggrieved or adversely affected party pursuant
to Section 163.3215 of the Florida Statutes.
37. The City of Miami Beach's Parks Bond Program and all activities to implement said
Program under the $15 million bond issue are consistent with the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan including, but not limited to, all of the Goals and Policies in the Recreation and
Open Space Elementw and the Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element.
38. The City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan has been found to be in
compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
Act by the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs.
39. The City of Miami Beach is not required to address and implement simultaneously
all of the possible park improvement programs consistent with the City of Miami Beach's Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan.
10
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
40. All of the alleged concerns and facility deficiencies identified by the Plaintiff and/or
the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals referenced by the Plaintiff have or will be addressed
either pursuant to the Parks Bond Program or pursuant to other programs implemented by the City
of Miami Beach.
Respectfully submitted,
MURRA Y H. DUBBIN
City Attorney
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Legal Department - Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, Fl 33139
(305) 673-7470
By: ~~J..,,1^-')-y.uCJ
DEBORA 1. TURNER
First Assistant City Attorney
Fla. Bar No. 379081
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREB Y CERTIFY that the foregoing was filed this 16th day of July, 1998, with the City
Clerk, City of Miami Beach, 1st Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139
and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Maillhand delivery/facsimile
this 16th day of July, 1998 to STUART REED, ESQ., Historic City Hall, 6th Floor, 1130
Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
1")
By: 0 /tt1tJ(.-; V-f..:>7/X () .\....
DEBORA 1. TURNER
First Assistant City Attorney
DJTlbfg
F:\ATl'()\'I1IRMCOMPPI.AN. VER\Sn IARTRD_ANS
11
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY - 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE - MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139