96-22117 RESORESOLUTION NO.
96-22117
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING
A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 163.3184(16), FLORIDA
STATUTES CONCERNING MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1994
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH YEAR
2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND DIRECTING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME.
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1994, the City adopted the "1994 Amendments to the City of Miami
Beach Comprehensive Plan" ("1994 Amendments"); and
WHEREAS, after its review, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
("DCA") issued a notice of intent to find the 1994 Amendments not in compliance with Chapter 163
of the Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 1994 a petition was filed by the DCA with the Division of
Administrative Hearings in Case No. 94-4509 GM. In that proceeding, Aaron J. Edelstein, Bernard
S. Edelstein, Mark S. Edelstein, Craig L. Edelstein, Shepard Edelstein, Stortford N.V., Tierre Bay
Apartments, Lido Spa Hotel, and Melvin Simonson were granted intervenor status. During the
course of this proceeding, compliance agreement negotiations were held which have resulted in
proposed modifications to the 1994 Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the attached Compliance Agreement constitutes a stipulation that if the
remedial amendments are accomplished by the City of Miami Beach, the 1994 Amendments, as
modified, will be found in compliance by DCA; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission believe that the attached Compliance
Agreement, which provides for the adoption of remedial plan amendments entitled "Modifications
to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan", will preserve
and enhance present advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources,
overcome present handicaps, deal effectively with future needs, and meet all other pertinent statutory
and regulatory requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the attached Compliance
Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs is hereby approved and the
Mayor and City Clerk are directed to execute same.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 12th day of ember , 199
ATTEST:
C TY CLERK
DJT\kw
f \atto\tum\resos\2000cp la. aPP
2
MAYOR
FORM t PF <
LEGAL DEP
By
Date ..-2Z
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. � q 1p
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jose Garcia -Pedrosa
City Manager
Approval of Co „I'
„/ fiance Agreement with the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs Relative to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami
Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
DATE: September 11, 1996
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Compliance Agreement with
the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs relative to the 1994 Amendments to the City
of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
same.
BACKGROUND
In January of 1994, the City of Miami Beach adopted on first reading and transmitted amendments
to the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). Plan amendments included revised data and analysis, in addition to
amendments to the adopted goals, objectives, policies and future land use map. The subject
amendments reflected stated policy changes of the City of Miami Beach, community input and
policies already achieved, as well as changes necessary to comport with amendments to Florida's
Growth Management statutes. Subsequently, the DCA issued a notice of intent finding the Plan
Amendment not in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act ("Act").
ANALYSIS
Since the time of the amended plan's transmittal to the State of Florida, the City's Planning staff and
its consultant, Robert K. Swarthout, Inc., have been working with the DCA to further refine the plan
document in order to address concerns and observations raised by the DCA. These negotiations and
drafted changes have resulted in a Compliance Agreement proposed by the DCA which provides for
the adoption of remedial amendments by the City. If the remedial amendments are adopted, the
DCA will issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) finding the 1994 Amendments and the Compliance
Agreement amendments in compliance with the Act.
AGENDA ITEM ► \
DATE
Acceptance and execution of the of the Compliance Agreement requires that the City agree to
consider for adoption all remedial actions or plan amendments and amendments to the support
documents at a single adoption hearing within 120 days after execution of the Compliance
Agreement. All remedial actions, plan amendments, and amendments to the support documents are
contained in the Modifications to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, Part 1: Data and Analysis and Part II Goals, Objectives and Policies, which
are attached as an Exhibit to the Compliance Agreement.
Failure to adopt this Compliance Agreement would result in the Administration Commission (the
Govemor and the Cabinet) finding the Comprehensive Plan not in compliance with the Act. Under
such a scenario, the Administration Commission could direct state agencies not to provide funds to
increase the capacity of roads, bridges, or water and sewer systems within the boundaries of the City.
The Administration Commission could also specify that the City shall not be eligible for any grants
and revenue sharing administered by Florida pursuant to Sections 206.60, 210.20, and 218.61 and
Part I of Chapter 212 of the Florida Statutes, to the extent not pledged by pay back bonds.
Also, since the City is required to include a Coastal Management Element in its Comprehensive Plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(g), Florida Statutes, the Administration Commission might specify
that the City is not eligible for funding pursuant to Section 161.091, Florida Statutes. The
Administration Commission may also specify that the City's noncompliance shall be considered
when the Department of Environmental Protection considers permits under Section 161.091, Florida
Statutes and when the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund considers whether
to sell, convey any interest in, or lease any sovereignty lands or submerged lands until the Coastal
Management Element is brought into compliance. Finally, the State holds the right to contract with
the Regional Planning Council or others to produce a plan for the City that would be in compliance
with state law. All local governments have complied with this process, to date, and clearly it would
be in the City's best interest to do the same.
If the City Commission approves the execution of the Compliance Agreement, a public hearing will
be scheduled for September 25, 1996 to consider for adoption the remedial plan amendments
incorporated into the document entitled Modification to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami
Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Compliance Agreement, in the
form attached hereto, and direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same.
JGP
JG/cs
f: $all:plan/comp1
F:\PLANISALLVANE7\COMP 1. WPD
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Petitioner,
vs.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
Respondent.
and
AARON J. EDELSTEIN, BERNARD S.
EDELSTEIN, MARK S. EDELSTEIN,
CRAIG L. EDELSTEIN, SHEPARD
EDELSTEIN, STORTFORD, N.V.,
TIERRA BAY APARTMENTS, and LIDO
SPA HOTEL and MELVIN SIMONSON,
Intervenors.
CASE NO.:94-4509GM
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department),
and Respondent, The City of Miami Beach, hereby stipulate and
agree as follows:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following
words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act, as codified in Part II,
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
b. Agreement: This Compliance Agreement.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Plan Amendment:
The comprehensive plan amendments adopted by City of Miami Beach
on June 2, 1994 by Ordinance No. 94-2928.
d. DOAH: The Florida Division of Administrative
Hearings.
e. In compliance or into compliance: Consistent with
Sections 163.3177, 163.3178 and 163.3191, Florida Statutes,
Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, the applicable regional policy
plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
f. Notice: The notice of intent issued by the
Department to which was attached its statement of intent to find
the plan amendment not in compliance.
g. Petition: The petition for administrative hearing
and relief filed by the Department in this case.
h. Remedial Action: A remedial plan amendment,
submission of support document or other action described in the
statement of intent or this Agreement as an action which must be
completed to bring the plan amendment into compliance.
i. Remedial Plan Amendment: An amendment to the plan
or support document, the need for which is identified in this
agreement, including its exhibits, and which the local government
must adopt to complete all remedial actions. Remedial plan
amendments adopted pursuant to this Agreement must, in the
opinion of the Department, be consistent with and substantially
similar in concept and content to the ones identified in this
Agreement or be otherwise acceptable to the Department.
J.
Statement of Intent: The statement of intent to
find the plan amendment not in compliance issued by the
Department in this case.
2
k. Support Document: The studies, inventory maps,
surveys, data, inventories, listings or analyses used to develop
and support the plan amendment.
2. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between
the parties and no verbal or written assurance or promise is
effective or binding unless included in this document.
3. Approval by Governing Body. This Agreement has been
approved by the City's governing body at a public hearing
advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation in the manner prescribed for
advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes.
This Agreement has been executed by the appropriate officer as
provided in the City's charter or other regulations.
4. Changes in Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to relieve either party from adhering to the law, and
in the event of a change in any statute or administrative
regulation inconsistent with this Agreement, the statute or
regulation shall take precedence.
5. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement
shall be deemed to affect the rights of any other person under
the law.
6. Attorney Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own
costs, including attorney fees.
7. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective
upon the last date of signing by the Department or the City.
3
8. Purpose of this Agreement; Not Establishing Precedent.
The parties enter into this Agreement in a spirit of cooperation
for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and unnecessary
litigation and in recognition of the desire for the speedy and
reasonable resolution of disputes arising out of or related to
the plan amendment. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of
this Agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many
factual and legal issues and is not an endorsement of, and does
not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any
other circumstances or by any other local government.
9. Department Powers. The Department is the state land
planning agency and has the power and duty to administer and
enforce the Act and to determine whether the plan amendment is in
compliance.
10. Exhibits. Exhibits A and B are hereby incorporated by
reference.
11. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its
notice and statement of intent to find the plan amendment not in
compliance, and filed the petition in this case to that effect.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition, the parties agreed to
resolve the issues in the petition, notice, and statement of
intent through this Agreement. It is the intent of this
Agreement to resolve fully all issues between the parties in this
proceeding.
12. Dismissal. If the City of Miami Beach completes the
remedial actions required by this Agreement, the Department will
4
issue a cumulative notice of intent addressing both the
compliance agreement amendment and the initial plan amendment
subject to these proceedings. The Department will file the
cumulative notice of intent with the DOAH. The Department will
also file a request to relinquish jurisdiction to the Department
for dismissal of this proceeding or for realignment of the
parties, as appropriate under Section 163.3184(16)(f), Florida
Statutes.
13. Filing and Continuance. This Agreement shall be filed
with DOAH by the Department after execution by the parties. Upon
the filing of this Agreement, the administrative proceeding in
this matter shall be stayed by the hearing officer in accordance
with Section 163.3184(16)(b), Florida Statutes.
14. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. Both parties
hereby retain the right to have a final hearing in this
proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement, and
nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of such right.
The Department or any other party to this Agreement may move to
have this matter set for
other party whose action
proceeding in good faith
15. Description of
hearing if it becomes apparent that any
is required by this Agreement is not
to take that action.
Provisions not in Compliance and,
Remedial Actions; Legal Effect of Agreement. Exhibit A to this
Agreement is a copy of the statement of intent, which identifies
the provisions not in compliance. Exhibit B contains remedial
5
actions needed for compliance. This Agreement constitutes a
stipulation that if the remedial actions are accomplished, the
plan amendment will be in compliance.
16. Remedial Actions to be Considered for Adoption. The
City of Miami Beach agrees to consider for adoption by formal
action of its governing body all remedial actions described in
Exhibit B no later than the time period provided for in this
Agreement.
17. Adoption or Approval of Remedial Plan Amendments.
Within 120 days after execution of this Agreement by the parties,
the City of Miami Beach shall consider for adoption all remedial
actions or plan amendments and amendments to the support
documents. This may be done at a single adoption hearing.
Within 10 working days after adoption of the remedial plan
amendment, the City shall transmit 5 copies of the amendment to
the Department as provided in Rule 9J-11.011(5), Florida
Administrative Code. The City also shall submit one copy to the
regional planning agency and to any other unit of local or state
government that has filed a written request with the governing
body for a copy of the remedial plan amendment and a copy to any
party granted intervenor status in this proceeding. The
amendment shall be transmitted to the Department along with a
letter which describes the remedial action adopted for each part
of the plan amended, including references to specific portions
and pages.
6
18. Acknowledgement. All parties to this Agreement
acknowledge that the "based upon" provisions in Section
163.3184(8), Florida Statutes, do not apply to the remedial
amendment.
19. Review of Remedial Amendments and Notice of Intent.
Within 30 days after receipt of the adopted remedial plan
amendments and support documents, the Department shall issue a
notice of intent pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes,
for the adopted amendments in accordance with this Agreement.
a. In Compliance: If the adopted remedial actions
satisfy this Agreement, the Department shall issue a cumulative
notice of intent addressing both the plan amendment and the
compliance agreement amendment as being in compliance. The
Department shall file this cumulative notice with DOAH and shall
move to realign the parties or to have this proceeding dismissed,
as may be appropriate.
b. Not in Compliance: If the remedial actions are
not adopted, or if they do not satisfy this Agreement, the
Department shall issue a notice of intent to find the plan
amendment not in compliance and shall forward the notice to DOAH
for consolidation with the pending proceeding.
20. Effect of Amendment. Adoption of any compliance
agreement amendment shall not be counted toward the frequency
restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to Section
163.3187(1), Florida Statutes.
7
This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed
to by the parties.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly
authorized.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OF MIAMI BEA
4( 2;
Charles Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
1-i9-96,
Date
8
Attest:
o Vand,u,v,
City Clerk Robert Parcher
FORM APPROVED
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF LEON
This instrume as acknowledged before me this// day of-f,"m&-L, 1996, by
A--14.41-1 /7/l �1�d 4?J /,t,v'LA /2.
Division of Resource Planning and Management, Department of Community Affairs, who is
personally know to me and who did not take an oath.
My commission expires:
IWO
Hi
r,✓ /t
o .ry Public ' j. ••'�or`ss�J NF6'•
J. `� P
* ®.o
#CC 308615 • o
G t '• a;;Wiefir#4. (:)
Name (typed, printer Aampptta„�0
SCG ;3 U4�/ 5
Commission Number
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENTOF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
IN RE: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH •
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT)
ADOPTED BY - ) DOCKET NO. 94-1-NOI-1316-
ORDINANCE NO. 94-2928 ) (A) -(N)
ON June 2, 1994
The Florida Department of Community Affairs hereby issues its
Statement of Intent to find the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive
• Plan Amendment 94-1, adopted by Ordinance No. 94-2928 on June 2,
1994, Not In Compliance based upon the changes made to the plan,
• as adopted. The Department
"in compliance," as defined
Statutes (F.S.), because it
finds that the plan Amendment is not
in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida
is not consistent with Section
163.3177, F.S., the State Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), for the following reasons:
I. FUTURE LAND USE MAP
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in amendment 94-1 is not
supported by data and analyses demonstrating the cumulative impact
of the FLUM changes on hurricane evacuation times, and on
residential densities in the Coastal High Hazard Area.
[Rules 9J-5.005(5); 9J -5.006(2)(e); 9J -5.006(3)(b)5. and (c)1.;
9J -5.012(2)(e)1.; 9J -5.012(3)(c)3., 4. and 7., F.A.C.]
2. The FLUM in Amendment 94-1 does not reflect all of
the goals, objectives, and policies in the plan.. The policies
with which the FLUM amendments are inconsistent are: Conservation/
Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 9.2, that the City shall
approve no future land use plan/zoning map amendments that increase
residential densities; CCME Policy 5.1, that infrastructure expen-
ditures that subsidize additional development in the City (the
CHHA) shall be prohibited; Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1, that
permitted City population densities shall be reduced to better con-
form with the Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study.
In addition, the Traffic Circulation Element no -longer
supports the FLUM, because no analysis has been submitted by the
City of the potential traffic impacts of an increase in maximum
permitted intensities by up to 20% citywide. The Infrastructure
Element no longer reflects the needs created by the future land
uses shown on the FLUM, because the City has not submitted data and
analyses showing the potential impact on demand for these services
created by the allowable increase in the maximum permitted
intensities of development of up to 20% citywide.
[Rules 9J -5.005(5)(b); 9J -5.007(2)(b); 9J-5.011, introductory
paragraph and (1)(f)l.b. and c., (2)(b)2., and (2)(c)1., F.A.C.]
3. Amendment 94-1 reducing the amount of land that is shown
on the FLUM in the Recreation Open Space category is not based on
data and analysis regarding the new City need for recreation and
open space lands as shown by the future land uses on the FLUM.
[Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), and 9J -5.006(2)(c)2. and 3., F.A.C.]
2
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Provide data and analyses that: a) compares maximum
residential densities and intensities, and maximum nonresidential
.
intensities permitted by the plan and FLUM before the amendment to
those that would be permitted after the amendment; b) analyzes the
demands on the traffic circulation system and on other public
facilities and services that would be created by the amendment; c)
demonstrates the relationship between the maximum number of
residential units and nonresidential floor area to projected
population; d) estimates the effect of the amendment on hurricane
• evacuation times, and on residential densities in the CHHA. Revise
the FLUM to be consistent with the data and analysis.
2. Provide data and analyses which demonstrate that the
future land uses shown on the FLUM reflect all of the goals,
objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Revise the
FLUM, as necessary, to ensure the FLUM reflects all of the
goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Make
appropriate revisions in other plan elements that are required to
be based upon, or to reflect, the needs derived from the future
land uses showm on the FLUM.
3. Provide data and analyses which support the amendment's
deletion of recreation and open space lands from the FLUM. Alter-
nately, revise the FLUM to depict recreation open space lands
consistent with the data and analysis of need for such lands.
II. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1. Policy 1.2 regarding permitted uses is self amending
because it permits any kind of land use in any FLUM category
without going through the plan ameldment process. The policies, in
effect, do not establish a range of permitted uses in each future
land use category. At the discretion of the City Commission, the
policies can be changed to permit any lald use, without a plan
amendment and without a defined public participation process. The
policies create mixed uses in all residential and commercial land
use categories without providing standards for the implementation
of such mixed uses - eg., specific lists of permitted uses;
composition of mix standards; and standards to ensure the
compatibility of adjacent land uses. The policies include
potentially higher density limits and higher bonus floor area ratio
limits which would allow an increase in the density and intensity
of permitted uses that is not supported by data and analysis.
[Rules 9J-5.005(2); 9J -5.006(2)(c) and (d); 9J -5.006(3)(c)1., 2.,
and 7.; and 9J -5.006(4)(c), F.A.C.]
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Delete the policy language which allows the City Commis-
sion to permit any land use in any future land use category. If
flexibility is desired, provide language which establishes the
other land uses which may be permitted in each category; provide
4
( •
standards for the composition of the mix of land uses thatwould
result; provide standards to ensure the compatibility of adjacent
land uses in each category; provide an administrative procedure
to be adopted in the land development regulations which includes
public participation; and provide other appropriate measures for
the implementation of mixed uses in each future land use category.
Provide data and analyses, including resident and seasonal
population projections, that support the twenty percent
increase in intensity that the amendment permits in each future
land use category; that supports the density standards proposed in
each future land use category that permits residential land uses;
and that supports the mixed uses that would be permitted by the
amendment. Provide clear policy language that separates the
maximum permitted residential densities from the maximum permitted
nonresidential intensities.
III. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1. The amendment to Policy 5.2 only names the land
development regulations that will be part of the strategy for
implementing the control of connections and access poin,:s of
driveways and roads to roadways. It does not provide access
control guidelines and standards which describe how the
implementing regulations to control access to roadways will be
carried out.
(Rules 9J-5.003(68); 9J-5.005(6); and 9J -5.007(3)(c)2 F.A.C.]
(..
B. Recommended Remedial Notions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Include in.Policy 5.2, guidelines and standards for the
control of connections and access points of driveways and roads to
roadways.
IV. INFRASTRUCTURE: SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE. AND
POTABLE WATER ELEMENT
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1. The amendment to Policy 6.5 postpones the development of
water conservation implementing activities until an unspecified
date in 1995. This policy,would allow implementation to take place
more than one year after its adoption. In addition, the policy
contains no standards or guidelines. The policy is vague because
it refers to certain implementation techniques (Xeriscaping,
reduced lawn watering, use of low water plumbing fixtures) as
techniques to be "promoted, if feasible." The plan includes no
criteria for determining the "feasibility" of water conservation
techniques. The policy requires land development regulations to be
revised to "promote" water conservation techniques, not to require
the use of such techniques. The policy does not address
implementation activities for establishing and utilizing potable
water conservation strategies and techniques.
[Rules 9J-5.005(6) and 9J -5.011(2)(c)3., F.A.C.]
6
2. The amendments to Objective 3 and its implementing'
policies do not identify the programs and implementation actions to
correct "environmentally detrimental discharges." The term
"environmentally detrimental" is not defined. Objective 3 and its
policies are not supported by data and analyses which demonstrate
that the policies under Objective 3 are suffcient or appropriate
to meet the stated objective.
[Rules 9J -5.005(2)(a); 9J -5.006(3)(b)4.; 9J -5.006(3)(c)4.;
9J -5.012(3)(b)1., 2.; 9J -5.011(2)(b)1.; 9J -5.011(2)(c)1., 2.;
9J -5.012(3)(c)1., 2., 3., 12., 13., 14.; 9J -5.016(3)(b)1.;
9J-5.016(3)(c)2.c.3., F.A.C.)
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Change the date for the revision of water coriservetion
implementing regulations to not later than one year after the
adoption of the amendment; provide standards, other specific
guidelines, and specific implementation programs or activities for
establishing and utilizing potable water conservation strategies
and techniques. Require compliance with the water conservation
standards, guidelines, and strategies in the plan upon the adoption
date of the amendment.
2. Provide definitions, standards, and implementation
activities for the elimination of environmentally detrimental
stormwater discharges. Provide data and analyses supporting
Objective 3 and its polici.ls.
7
V. CONSERVATION COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1. There is no data and analysis in amendment 94-1 to support
the revisions to Policy 3.7.
2. Policy 2.15 does not identify '&e programs and
implementation actions to address environmentally damaging
stormwater discharges. The amendment is not supported with data
and analyses which show that all of the environmentally damaging
stormwater outfalls were upgraded in a manner that corrects water
quality consistent with Conservation Coastal Management Element
Objective 2, and with Infrastructure Element Objective 3. The
amendment does not define the terms "environmentally damaging,"
or "economically and technically feasible."
3. Policy 3.6 exempts marinas from complying with the
conditional use criteria implementing the plan until 1998. The
extension is not supported by data and analyses and is contrary to
the protection of coastal resources, general hazard mitigation,
and hurricane evacuation.
[Rules 9J-5.005(6); 9J -5.012(3)(c)1., 3., 4., and 8.; and
9J -5.013(2)(c)1., 5., and 6., F.A.C.]
4. Objective 5 and its implementing policies do not include
any means to effectively incorporate the objectives and recommen-
dations of the Hurricane Andrew Mitigation Report (FEMA-955DR-FL)
into the plan. The amendment is not supported with data and
analyses of post -disaster mitigation needs.
[Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J -5.012(3)(c)3., F.A.C.].
5. The amendment to Policy 8.2 allows public facility
expansions within unidentified redevelopment zones throughout the
coastal high hazard area (which covers the entire city).
[Rules 9J -5.012(3)(b)5. and (3)(c)12.; and 9J -5.016(3)(b)2.,
F.A.C.]
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. The City should include data and analysis to support
Policy 3.7.
2. The City should include data and analysis to support
Policy 2.15. The City should include a complete list of all
damaging stormwater outfalls and what improvements were made to
each of those outfalls. The City should analyze whether or not
those improvements were sufficient to meet water quality standards.
The amendment should include definitions, standards, and
implementation activities for the elimination of environmentally
damaging stornwater discharges.
3. Revise Policy 3.6 to require marinas to comply with plan
provisions that are in effect upon the effective date of the plan
amendment.
4. The City should include an analysis of post -disaster
needs, and incorporate the recom,endations of the various FEMA
Mitigation Reports into the plan by developing specific objectives
and policies to adequately address post -disaster redevelopment.
5. Revise Policy 8.2 to limit expansions of the total city-
wide capacity of public facilities in the CHHA. Define redevelop-
ment zones, include a map depicting their locations Li the City,
provide standards, criteria, and an administrative procedure for
the designation of redevelopment zones.
VI. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ELEMENT
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan amendment are as follows:
1.
Amendment 94-1
permit City expenditures
changes Objective
for the expansion
6 and
Policy 6.1 to
of public facilities
within that part of the Coastal High Hazard Area that is landward
of the Conservation Protection Area (Atlantic coast high velocity
flood zones). This amendment does not limit expenditures for
public facilities in the Coastal High Hazard. Area. (See also the
inconsistent provision cited above in section V. A. 5.)
[Rules 9J -5.012(3)(b)5. and (3)(c)12.; and 9J -5.016(3)(b)2.,
F.A.C.]
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise Objective 6 and Policy 6.1 to limit expansions of
the total citywide capacity of public facilities in the CHHA.
Define redevelopment zones, include a map depicting their locations
.in the City, provide standards, criteria, and an administrative
procedure for the designation of redevelopment zones. Ensure that
the changes to Objective 6 and Policy 6.1 are consistent with
Policy 8.2.
10
VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan are as follows:
1. The adopted comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent
with the State Comprehensive Plan, including the following
provisions (Rule 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
a) Goal(8)(a) and Policy (8)(b)12.: To eliminate the
discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff
• , ,
into the waters of the state.
b) Goal (9)(a) and Policy (9)(b)3.: To avoid the
expenditure of state funds that subsidize development in high -
hazard coastal areas.
c). Goal (10) (a) and Policy (10)(b)11.: To expand state and
local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas.
d) Goal (16)(a) and Policy (16)(b)6.: To consider in land
use planning the impact of land use on water quality; the
availability of land and other natural resources to meet demands;
and the potential for flooding.
e) Goal (18)(a) and Policies (18)(b)1. and 5.: To encourage
land development in a way that maximizes the use of existing
facilities, and to encourage local government financial self-
sufficiency.
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the actions describe'1 above in Sections I.B.
through VI.B.
11
VIII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
A. Inconsistent Provisions: The inconsistent provisions of
the plan are as follows:
1. The adopted comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent
with the South Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan,
including the following provisions (Rule 9J-5.021, F.A.C.):
a) Regional Goal 8.4 and Policies 8.4.2 and 8.4.5: To
regulate the quality and quantity of stormwater discharge and to
protect the water quality of the surrounding area;
b) Regional Goal 9.1 and Policy 9.1.2: To discourage
development in the Coastal High Hazard Area that will be subsidized
by public monies;
c) Regional Goal 10.6 and Policy 10.6.1: To encourage parks
and recreational facilities in those areas lacking such facilities.
d) Regional Goals 18.1 and 18.2 and Policies 18.1.1 and
18.2.2: To wiximize the use of existing public facilities, and to
allocate the costs of new public facilities equitably on the basis
of the benefits received by existing and future residents.
B. Recommended Remedial Actions: These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the actions described above in Sections I.B.
through VI.B.
12
CONCLUSIONS
1. The plan amendment is not consistent with'theComprehensive
Regional Policy Plan.
2. The plan amendment is not consistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The plan amendment is not consistent with Civipter 9J-5, F.A.C.
4. The plan amendment is not consistent with the requirements of
Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes.
5. The plan amendment is not "in compliance," as defined in
Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
6. In order to bring the plan into compliance, the County may
complete the reco=ended remedial actions described above, or adopt
other remedial actions that eliminate the inconsistencies.
Executed this 21day of
Tallahassee, Florida.
13
JCL,
Charles G. Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
, 1994, at
EXHIBIT B
Commission to preserve and enhance present advantages, encourage
the most appropriate use of land, water, and other resources,
overcome present handicaps, deal effectively with future needs, and
meet all other objectives set forth in Section 163.3161, Florida
Statutes and all other pertinent regulatory requirements.
SECTION II. FINDINGS.
The City of Miami Beach Mayor and City Commission hereby make
the following findings:
1. Since readoption of the Comprehensive Plan on September
16, 1992, the City has undertaken an on-going planning process
including town meetings, and the gathering and analysis of updated
data from the 1990 United States Decennial Census, Florida
Department of Transportation, and other relevant sources.
2. Based upon the aforesaid data and analysis, and in order
to meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes
(1993), and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code, the
City's Planning, Design and Historic Preservation Division
recommended proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
entitled "1994 Amendments to the City of Miami Beach Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan", including data and analysis and amendments to
the adopted goals, objectives and policies, and to the Future Land
Use Map.
2
3. On December 2, 1993, the City of Miami Beach Planning
Board, sitting as the City's Local Planning Agency, held a public
hearing regarding proposed amendments to the City's Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, after which the Board recommended that the City
Commission authorize the transmittal of the amendments to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
4. On January 6, 1994, the Mayar and City Commission held a
properly advertised public hearing, approved the amendments by
Resolution No. 94-21018, and ordered their transmittal to the
Department of Community Affairs.
5. After receiving comments on the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendments from the State Department of Community Affairs, the
City of Miami Beach Planning, Design and Historic Preservation
Division and the City's planning consultant revised the City's
proposed Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the comments of the
State Land Planning Agency.
6. On June 2, 1994, the City adopted the revised "1994
Amendments to the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan" ("1994
Amendments").
7. After its review, the DCA issued a notice of intent to
find the 1994 Amendments not in compliance with Chapter 163 of the
Florida Statutes.
3
8. On August 16, 1994, a petition was filed by the DCA with
the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case No. 94-4509 GM. In
that proceeding, Aaron J. Edelstein, Bernard S. Edelstein, Mark S.
Edelstein, Craig L. Edelstein, Shepard Edelstein, Stortford N.V.,
Tierre Bay Apartments, Lido Spa Hotel, and Melvin Simonson were
granted intervenor status. During the course of this proceeding,
compliance agreement negotiations were held which have resulted in
proposed changes to the 1994 Amendments.
9. The Mayor and City Commission believe that the attached
"Modifications to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami Beach
Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" will preserve and enhance present
advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and
resources, overcome present handicaps, deal effectively with future
needs, and meet all other pertinent statutory and regulatory
requirements.
10. The Mayor and City Commission deem it in the best
interests of the general welfare of the City of Miami Beach and its
citizens to adopt the aforesaid "Modifications to the 1994
Amendments to the City of Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan."
4
SECTION III. ,ADOPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1994 AMENDMENTS.
That the Mayor and City Commission hereby adopt the document
entitled "Modifications to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami
Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan", as transmitted to the State
and as set forth in the Appendix hereto, as an amendment to the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
SECTION IV. SUPPORT MATERIAL NOT ADOPTED.
That "Part I: Data and Analysis" and all other support
material set forth in the document transmitted to the State on
January 6, 1994, and as modified in the Appendix hereto, are not
formally adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Only
the following are formally adopted as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan: 1) the goals, objectives and policies set
forth in Part II; 2) the requirements for capital improvements
implementation set forth in Part II; 3) the procedures for
monitoring and evaluation set forth in Part II; and 4) the future
land use map and other maps indicating future conditions set forth
in Part II. All other material transmitted to the State on
January 6, 1994, and as modified in the Appendix hereto, shall be
considered to be support material which is not formally adopted.
5
SECTION V. SUBMISSION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE 1994 AMENDMENTS
TO DCA.
That the City Administration is hereby authorized and directed
to send the "Modifications to the 1994 Amendments to the City of
Miami Beach Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" as set forth in the
Appendix hereto, along with the data and analysis as set forth in
the appropriate Appendix hereto, and all other required
documentation to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and to
execute all pertinent documents.
SECTION VI. PUBLICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
That the City Administration is directed to publish the
"Modifications to the 1994 Amendments to the City of Miami Beach
Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan" as set forth in the Appendix hereto
and is hereby authorized to make such minor technical changes in
content and form as are necessary to accomplish this purpose.
ggcTION VII. REPEALER.
That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION VIII. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this
6
Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by
such invalidity.
SECTION IX. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of
, 1996. The effective date for these
Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be as specified by state
statute and rule.
PASSED and ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
DJT\kw
P:\ALTO\$ALL\RIM\2000CPLA.ORD
CITY CLERK
7
day of , 1996.
MAYOR
FORM APPROVED
L AL DET.
By
Date