2011-3722 Ordinance ORDINANCE NO, 2011 -3722
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, ADOPTING. AMENDMENTS' TO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE NEW OR REVISED AND /OR
UPDATED GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND .POLICIES IN THE FOLLOWING
ELEMENTS;. FUTURE .LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING,
INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSERVATION/ COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, CAPITAL . IMPROVEMENTS,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION; ALL IN
RELATION - TO CERTAIN ITEMS_ .IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S 2005 -2007
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) INCLUDING RESPONSES
TO THE OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS REPORT
(ORC); AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION
- TO SUBMIT THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE . FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND ANY OTHER. REQUIRED.
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES, PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS., pursuant to Section 163.3191(1), Florida Statutes, local governments are
required to prepare and adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) as one component of
the local planning process; and,
WHEREAS, at its September.26, 2007 meeting the'City "Commission adopted the EAR
which was determined to be sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 163.3191, Florida
Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the adopted EAR made certain recommendations for updates .and
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan; and -
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has proposed amendments to the policies of the
comprehensive plan; and .
WHEREAS, the City Commission hereby finds that the adoption. of this Ordinance is in
the best interest and welfare of the residents of City; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, upon first reading of this Ordinance,. authorized
transmittal of the EAR- based. amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the Department of
Community Affairs and review.agencies for the 'purpose of a_review in accordance with Sections
163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3 and 163:3191, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department. of .Community Affairs completed its review of the
proposed EAR- based Comprehensive Plan amendments for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida .
Administrative - Code, and Chapter .163, Part II, Florida Statutes and prepared the Objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) identifying. certain objections to the proposed
amendments; and
. 5
WHEREAS,, the Administration reviewed the Objections and made adjustments to the
language of the proposed amendments in order to respond and comply with the Objections
listed in the ORC Report; and
1 of 3
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, 'upon second reading
public hearing is in agreement with the changes made to the proposed amendments and adopts
such amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY MAYOR AND ,CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
SECTION 1
The City Commission hereby adopts the proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive
Plan according to the recommendations . of the 2005 -2007 EAR, and in response to the
Department of Comm'unity ORC Report at the public hearing held on April 13, 2011.
SECTION 2. .. CODIFICATION:
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami .Beach, and it is hereby
ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of'this ordinance may be
renumbered or relettered to accomplish such - intention, and the word "ordinance" may be
changed to "section "article or other appropriate ` word.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be, and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
This Ordinance is not severable, and if any provision hereof is declared invalid, the Ordinance
shall be returned to the City Commission for reconsideration.
SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be effective :immediately after the adoption hereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April , 2011.
AT EST
CITY CLERK MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LANGUAGE
)AND FOR EXECUTION
C Y ATTORNEY 15ATE
3 2 of .3
i P
First Reading: September 15, 2010
Second Reading: April 13, 2 011
Verified by:
Richar . Lorber, AICP
Acting Planning Director
Strikethreugh denotes deleted language .
Underscore denotes new language
Double underscore denotes amended lanauaae
F: \PLAN \$PLB \Comp Plan Amendments\2008 -2009 comp plan update\2010 EAR based adoption package \EAR adoption
Ordinance(3- 18- 201 1).doc
j
3 of 3`
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:.
An Ordinance Of The Mayor And City Commission. Of The City Of Miami Beach, Amending The City's
Comprehensive Plan To Include New Or Revised And /Or Updated Goals, Objectives And Policies In
Relation To Certain Items Identified In The City's 2005 -2007 Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR).
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Regulatory. Required by State Statutes
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.: Regulatory
Issue:
Should the City Commission adopt and direct the City Administration to submit the adopted amendments to
DCA and any other required state and local agencies.
Item Summa /Recommendation:
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING
'The proposed EAR -based amendments encompass all.the Elements of the Comprehensive Plan except
the Public School Facilities Element for which amendments were not.necessary. These amendments are
based on the evaluation of existing policies as recommended in the EAR, including a new Transportation
Element which replaced the Traffic Circulation, Mass Transit and Ports and Aviation Facilities Elements.
The Department of Community Affairs completed its review of the proposed amendments for consistency
with Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and issued its
Objections,. Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) outlining its findings, which is dated
November-19, 2010. The Administration has responded to issues raised in the ORC Report and modified
the language in the amendments as necessary. Throughout the process of addressing the Objections in
the ORC. Report, Planning Department staff has been in contact with DCA staff to ensure that as amended
the Plan will be in compliance with Statutes and Rules, and a. Notice of Intent (NOI) will be issued, finding
the Plan in compliance.
The Administration recommends that.the City Commission approve the proposed ordinance on second
reading public hearing and direct the Administration to transmit all applicable documents to the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) and other required reviewing agencies.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board held a `special meeting on August 10, 2010, duly advertised pursuant to the
requirements of State Statutes for Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and by a 4 -1 - vote (2 members
absent) recommended that the City Commission direct the Administration to transmit all applicable .
documents to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other.required reviewing agencies.
The City Commission approved the amendments on first reading public hearing on September 15, 2010.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds:
3 ..
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
The proposed Ordinance may have a fiscal impact depending on the cost of capital improvements that
- maybe necessary to, comply with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Com rehensive Plan.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Trackin
Richard Lorber or Mercy Lamazares
Sign-Offs:
Department Di ector A istant City M ager City -Manager
TAAGENDA\M11 \4 -13 =11 \Comprehensive Plan- bas sum 2nd rdg.doc
AGENDA ITEM
ffn Bm` �E AC RS F
W
DATIE �..�
1
- MAMIBEACH.
City of'Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: April 13, 20.11
Second Reading Public Hearing
SUBJECT: Adoption of Proposed amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE NEW OR REVISED AND /OR
UPDATED GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE FOLLOWING
ELEMENTS; FUTURE LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING,
INFRASTRUCTURE, CONSERVATION/ COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND HISTORIC " PRESERVATION; ALL IN
RELATION TO CERTAIN ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE CITY'S 2005 -2007
EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) INCLUDING RESPONSES
TO . THE OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS REPORT
(ORC) AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION
TO SUBMIT THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO' THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed
ordinance on second reading public hearing and direct the Administration to submit all
applicable documents to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other required
reviewing agencies.
BACKGROUND
Chapter 163.3191, F.S., requires that local governments adopt an Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) once every 7 years assessing the progress in implementing the
local government's comprehensive plan (Plan). The latest EAR was done during the
period of 2005 -2007 and adopted by the City Commission on September"26, 2007. The
EAR included a number of recommendations, which gave the City the opportunity to
revise the Plan to address changing issues and conditions. Although there are other
opportunities to periodically revise the Plan, these revisions often occur as the result of
outside development applications.
City Commission Memorandum
Comp Plan EAR -based amendments—' 2"d
reading public hearing
April 13, 2011 Page 2
A number of public discussions occurred during Planning Board meetings, which
discussions were generally advertised as part of the Board's agenda items, opening an
avenue for public input and discussion. Following the recommendations of the EAR,
amendments to the different elements of the Plan are being proposed, including some
that are non - substantive,, such as updating obsolete language (i.e., changing names of
agencies or updating applicable /correct references to the City Code).
ANALYSIS
The proposed EAR -based amendments encompass all the Elements of the
Comprehensive Plan except the Public School Facilities Element for which amendments
were not necessary. These amendments are based on the evaluation of existing
policies as recommended in the EAR, including a new Transportation Element which
r replaced the Traffic Circulation, Mass Transit and Ports and Aviation Facilities Elements.
At the September 15, 2010 meeting, the City Commission directed the administration to
transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and other required reviewing agencies. DCA completed its
review of the- proposed amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, Florida
Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part Il, Florida Statutes and issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) outlining its findings, which
is dated November 19, 2010 and is attached. The response to the ORC and how the
proposed EAR -based amendments have been modified in response to the report are
included in the amendment package. A summary of the response is attached to
facilitate the review.
Some highlights of the Objections in the ORC Report are as follows:
• The proposed policies in the EAR -based amendments did not fulfill the City's
responsibility, as an Energy Economic Zone (EEZ) Pilot Program community. To this
end Policy 3.4 of the Transportation Plan was amended to include the different
initiatives that would integrate multimodal transportation facilities.
Some of the policies being amended included permissive words such as "encourage"
and "promote" and did not include measurable, intermediate end results to be
achieved. The policies affected were corrected to include mandatory language such
as "shall and in the case of Policy 8.2 of the Housing Element, initiatives found in
the City's "Green Building Ordinance such as - priority review and° inspections of
"green" projects, and refunds of application and review fees within the limits of funds
appropriated annually by the City Commission.
• Inclusion of concurrency related facilities, including the timing requirements
established by Statute and Rule in Land Use Element Policy 6.2.
• Correction of the definition of Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) based on the
definition pursuant to Section 163.3178(2)(h) and inclusion of the new CHHA
Category 1 Evacuation Zone. This new map was prepared by the South Florida
Regional Planning Council based on the Statewide Regional Evacuation Plan,
released in December 2010.
City Commission Memorandum
Comp Plan EAR -based amendments — 2" reading public hearing
April 13, 2 011 Page 3
•, Clarification of undefined or ambiguous terms, inclusion of dates defining deadlines,
such as "by 2012" or similar.
• Identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone the Future Land Use Map of the City's
Comprehensive Plan; revise the Future Land Use Element to include policy
consistent with the City's application; and include the Sustainability Plan in the Data
and Analysis portion, of the plan.
Throughout the process of addressing the Objections in the ORC Report, Planning
Department staff has been in contact with DCA staff to ensure that as amended, the
Plan will be in compliance with Statutes and Rules, and a Notice of Intent (NOI) will be
issued, finding the Plan in compliance. Due to the voluminous nature of these
documents, a CD containing the complete .documents was submitted with the recent
Letter to Commission. Notwithstanding, hard copies are available to you upon request.
In addition, the documents are included in the agenda materials on the City's website for -
'the April 13, 2011 City Commission meeting.
It should also be . noted that the City's Water Supply Plan, :adopted by the. City
Commission on October 27, 2010, Ordinance No. . 2010-3704 has been found in
compliance as of December 15, 2010. All the proposed amendments proposed as part
of the Water Supply Plan are now part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and therefore
are no longer shown underlined.
PLANNING BOARD
The Planning Board held a special meeting on August 10, 2010, duly advertised
pursuant to the requirements of State Statutes for Comprehensive Plan Amendments;
and by a'4-1 vote (2 members absent) recommended that the City Commission direct
the Administration to transmit all applicable documents to, the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) .and other required reviewing agencies.
The City Commission approved the proposed amendments upon first reading public
hearing at its September 15, 2010 meeting.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the proposed
ordinance, amending the City's Comprehensive Plan on second reading public hearing
and direct the Administration to submit all applicable documents to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) and other required reviewing agencies for final review and
finding that the amendment package is in compliance.
Pursuant to Chapter 163.3184 (15) (a), Florida Statutes, the procedure for transmittal of
a proposed plan amendment shall be by affirmative vote of not less than a majority of
the members of the governing body present at the hearing and shall be by ordinance.
The local governing body shall hold ' at least two advertised public hearings on the
proposed plan amendment as follows:
1. The first public hearing shall be held, at the transmittal stage. It shall be held on a
weekday at least 7 days after the day that the first advertisement is published. This
public hearing took place during the City Commission meeting on September 15, 2010.
City Commission Memorandum L
Comp Plan EAR -based amendments - 2" reading public hearing
r
April 13, 2011 Page 4
2. The second public hearing shall be held at the adoption stage and shall be held on a
Weekday at least 5 days after the day that the second advertisement is published.
Although this section of the Statute is silent on the size requirement for the ad, in an
abundance of caution it is suggested that the ad be no less than 2 columns wide by 10
inches long in a standard size newspaper, and the headline in the advertisement shall
be in a type no-smaller than, 18 point. It should be noted that the advertisement for this
public hearing appeared in the "Local" section of the Miami Herald on Wednesday,
March 23, 2011
JZ_�
JMG /JGG /RGL /ML
}
TAAGENDA\201 1\4-13-1 1 \Comprehensive Plan =EAR based memo 2nd rdg.doc
STATE OF FLORIDA `
DEPARTMENT - OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
``Dedicated
to making Florida a - better -place to call home"
CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM
Governor l Secretary
November 19, 2010
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower ;
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139,
Dear Mayor Bower:
The Department of Community Affairs completed its review of the City of Miami Beach-
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No." 10 -1 ER), which was received on
September 17, 2010. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate
state, regional, and local agencies for their review, and their comments are enclosed. • The
Department reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J -5, .
Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and prepared the
'attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings
concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. The Department identified eight objections and
eleven comments related to the amendment.
My staff and I are available to assist the City in addressing the issues identified in our
report. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Pable, AICP, at (850) 922 -1781.
Sincerel ,
a
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
MM/bp
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency` Comments
cc: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager, City of Miami Beach
Richard Lorber, Acting Planning and Zoning Director, City of Miami Beach
Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
2655 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD ♦ TALLA.HASSEE, FL .32399 -2100
850 -488 -8466 "(p) ♦ 850 - 921 -0781 (f) ♦ Website: www.dca.stateJI.us
♦ COMMUNITY PLANNING 850 - 488 -2356 (p) 850 -488= 3309 {f) ♦ FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST 850-922-2207 (p) 850- 921 -1747 (f)
♦ HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 850-488-7956(p) 850-922-5623(f)
I
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
FOR
City of Miami Beach
Amendment 10 -IER
November 19, 2010
Division of Community Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J- 11.010
5
INTRODUCTION .
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's .
review of the City of Miami Beach proposed Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J -5, F.A.C., and
Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might betaken
to address the cited objection. Other approaches maybe more suitable in specific situations. Some of
these objections may have been raised initially by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a
difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment,
the Department's objection would take precedence.
The City City should address each of these objections when the amendment is resubmitted for our
compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the
amendment is not in compliance: The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data -
and analysis, items which the City considers not to be applicable to its amendment.. If that is the case, a
statement justifying its non - applicability pursuant to Rule 9J- 5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The
Department will make a determination as to the non -- applicability of the requirement, and if the
justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed.
The comments which follow the objections and recommendations are advisory in nature.
Comments will not..form a basis for determination of non- compliance. They are included to call attention
to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles,
methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and
reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state
review agencies, other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the
Department and may not form a basis for Departmental objections unless they appear under the
"Objections" heading in this report. t
2
TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES
Upon receipt of this letter, the City has 120 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or
determine that the City will not'adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local
government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s, 163.3184, F.S., and Rule 9J- 11.011, F.A.C.
The City must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with
the provisions of Chapter 163.3189(2)(a), F.S.,
Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to the
Department:
■ Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments;
■ A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed;
■ A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the J
ordinance; and
A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's.
Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a
compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent.
In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to
Rule 9J- 11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive
Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council.
Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)(c), F.S., requires the Department to provide a courtesy
information statement regarding the Department Notice of Intent to citizens who furnish their names and
addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In
order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the
names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information to the Department. Please provide these
required names and addresses to the Department 'when you transmit your adopted amendment
package for compliance review. In the event there are no citizens requesting this information, please
inform us of this as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in
electronic format.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT '10 -IER
City of Miami Beach
,I. Consistency with Rule 9J -5, F.A.C., and Chapter 163, F.S.
This Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report- pertains to the City of Miami
Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments (10 -1ER).
A. The Department identifies the following objections and recommendations to the proposed
amendment.
1. Objection 1 (Future Land Use Element and Map) The FLUM in Appendix A of the EAR
based amendments does not identify the long term planning period that it represents.
Authority Sections 163.3177(5)(a) and (6)(4), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.005(4), F.A.C.
Recommendation The. City should add the date of the long term planning horizon to its
FLUM.
• 2. Objection 2 (Greenhouse Gases) — The City proposes Transportation Policy 14, Housing,
Objective 8, and-Housing Policies 8.1 to 8.6 as objectives and policies pertaining to green
house gas emissions. Of the 8 referenced objectives and policies, 7 utilize permissive words
such as "encourage ", ``promote ", "collaborate ", or "to the extent funds allow ". The following
objections pertain to greenhouse gases:
a. Lack of Specific, Measurable End Result — The objectives listed above do not include the
specific, measurable, intermediate end result to be achieved for energy efficiency and the
policies listed above do not - include meaningful and predictable standards for achieving the
objectives. Regarding Transportation Policy 3.4, it is not clear what the policy means,
what a "commercial roadway project" is, and how this policy will be implemented.
b. Energy Economic Zone EEZ) Pilot Program - The proposed policies do not fulfill the
City's responsibility as. an EEZ Pilot Program community to do the following: ail.) Develop
a model to help communities cultivate green economic development; b.) Encourage
renewable electric energy generation; c.) Manufacture products that contribute to energy
conservation and green jobs; and d.) Further implement Chapter 2008 -191, Laws of
Florida, relative. to .discouraging sprawl and developing energy - efficient land use patterns
and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
Authority Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (c), (d), (f), and (9), and 377.809, F.S.; and Rules 9J-
5.003(82), (90), 9J- 5.005(6) F.A.C.
Recommendation The recommendation is summarized by each component of the. objection,
as follows:
a. Lack of Specific, Measurable End Result The City should revise the objectives to include
the specific, measurable outcome the City intends to achieve. Revise the policies to
include meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards that will be applied to
4
development to achieve the objectives. The policies should identify the guidelines and
standards the City can apply right away and include specific actions for implementing
additional energy conservation measures that will take longer to implement.
b.. EEZ Pilot Program — The City should incorporate all activities as outlined in the City's
application and Sustainabilty Plan which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and vehicle miles traveled.
3. Ob i eetion 3 (Capital Facilities) Land Use Policy 6.2 does not list all concurrency related
facilities, such as water supplies and schools. Also, the policy is not consistent with the varied
concurrency timing requirements by type of infrastructure established by Section
163.3180(2)(a -c), F.S.
Authori : Section 163.3180(2)(a -c), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.0055(3), F.A.C.
: Recommendation : The City should amend Land Use Policy 6.2 so that it lists all concurrency
related facilities and reflects the appropriate concurrency timing requirements established by
the cited'Statute and Rule.
4. Objection 4 (Coastal Management) — The following objections pertain to coastal
management:
a. Definition of Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) - Conservation Policy 4.10 is based. on
an*incorrect definition of the CHHA. It states-that "As the entire City is classified as a
Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) which is reflective of its status as a Category 1
Evacuation Zone..." The Category 1 evacuation zone is no longer the correct definition of
the CHHA, and the entire City may not be within the CHHA under the new definition.
b. Depiction of CHHA on FLUM — The CHHA is not depicted on the FLUM.
Authoritv Sections 163.3177(6)(x) and 163.3178 (2)(h), (9)(c), F.S.; and Rule 9J- . 5.012(2)(e)3, F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should depict the CHHA on its FLUM - and amend Conservation
Policy 4.10 based on the definition of the CHHA pursuant to Section 163.3178(9)(c), F.S. The
CHHA definition is located in Section 163.3178(2)(h), F.S.
5: Objection 5 (Meaningful and Predictable Standards) — The proposed revisions to the goals,
objectives, and policies (GOPs) result in a lack of meaningful and predictable standards for the
following reasons: a.) Use of mandatory versus permissive text; b.) Use of undefined or
ambiguous terms; c.) Defers to the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); and d.) Lack of
dates which establish deadlines. The specific GOP citations that are not meaningful and
predictable are listed below. The reason for the lack of meaningful and predictable standards
( "a" through "d above) is referenced parenthetically after each citation.
a. Land Use Policy 3.1 — The policy indicates that mixed uses shall be "encouraged ".
Furthermore, the policy indicates that "LDR incentives" will be provided to support mixed
uses, but it fails to define what those incentives will be. (a and c)
. 5 A
b. Transportation Policy 1.5 — The policy states that the City will undertake an examination
of total mobility in an attempt to - shift from roadway capacity and level of service to an
overall mobility system. capacity and level of service. (d)
c. Transportation Policy 2.3 -- The policy states that the City shall provide incentives and
design guidelines for Transit Oriented Developments within the City. - The policy defers all
detail regarding the nature of the incentives to the LDRs. (c and d)
d. Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 — The .policies cite inconsistent level of service
standards, are ambiguous, are not subject to a deadline to measure their completion, and
are not associated with guidelines and standards. (b and d)
e. Transportation Policy 4.6 — The term "where appropriate" should be ,clarified with specific
spacing standards or other measures to clarify when transit infrastructure is required. (b)
f. Transportation Policy 5.4 — The policy notes that the further development of thoroughfares
shall consider "whenever possible" the provision of bicycle lanes. (b)
g. Transportation Objective 6, and Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.11— The objective and policies
"support ", "promote ", and "encourage" a bulleted lists of Transportation System
Management and Transportation Demand Management initiatives but fail to identify how
and when they will be implemented locally. (a)
h. Transportation Policy 6.5 — The policy indicates that the City will prepare an analysis that
determines the baseline mode split, which will be the basis of a target mode split. The
policy fails to establish a deadline by which the analysis will be completed. (d)
i. Transportation Policy 6.7 — The policy indicates that the City will "examine" placing a
higher priority on alternative mode projects. The policy lacks a specific deadline by which
the contemplated review will be complete. (d)
j. Transportation Policy 6.8 -The word "appropriate" is undefined, and the word "may" is
permissive. (a and b) -
k. Transportation Policy 6.12 — The policy "promotes" alternate transportation modes and
also references various master plans that include specific projects. (a)
1. Transportation Policy 9.8 - The term "major" is undefined. (b)
rn: Housing Policies 1.3, 2.2, and 5.6 — The policy indicates that City ill "support"
affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage specified funding sources. (a and b)
n. Housing Policy 1.6 -- The policy indicates that the City will "continue to streamline" the
housing approval and permitting process. (b and d)
o. Housing Policy 3.1— The policy states that the City will "mitigate" zoning regulations that
"impede" housing affordable to very low to moderate- income families. (b)
Authority Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (9)(e), (f) and (g) F.S.; and Rules 9J- 5.003(82) and
(90); and 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.
Recommendation
a. Use of Mandatory versus 'Permissive Text — The objective and policies should be revised
to include the guidelines and standards the City will use to achieve the policy's stated
purpose. Regarding Tran sportation Policy 6.12, it should be amended to identify the
projects for which the City is financially responsible. The policy should be supported by
an updated five -year schedule in the Capital Improvements Element that lists those
projects.
b. Use- of Undefined or Ambiguous Terms — The policies should be amended to include
guidelines and standards which indicate how the City will achieve the policy's stated
f
6
purpose. Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 cite inconsistent level of service standards.
The inconsistency must be resolved.
c. Defers to the LDRs — The policies should be amended to add measurable and predictable
standards to guide development instead of deferring such details to the LDRs.
d. Lack of Dates Which Establish Deadlines — The policies should be revised to include the
measurable and predictable standards to guide development and provide the basis for the
LDRs. For those policies with extended timelines, the City should include interim
-measures that can be applied to development until the cited information becomes available
and the policies are updated.
6. Objection 6 (Population Projections) The population projections provided at page 1 of the
Land Use Element's data and analysis and page 2 of the Transportation Element's data and
analysis are inconsistent. The former projects the City's 2025 population at 97,705 persons.,
while the later projects 2025 population at 102,316 persons. Also, the historical population
figures in Tables 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element's data and analysis. provide different.
population figures for 2004.
Authority Sections 163.3177(2), (6)(a), F.S.; and Rules 9J-5.003(107),(116),9J-5.005(2)
( F.A.C.
Recommendation The City should provide a consistent historical and projected population
trend. and apply it consistently throughout the elements. The projections - are to be based on
professionally accepted and applied methodologies.
7. Objection 7 (Future Transportation Map Series) — While several maps related to the future
transportation map series are included in the data and analysis, the City has not adopted any
maps from the future transportation map series, consistent with Rule 9J- 5.019(5), F.A.C.
Authority Section 163.3177(1), (6)(a), 0), F.S.; and Rule 9J- 5.005(1)(e), (2)(a), (4), 9J-
5:019(5), F.A.C.
Recommendation The Future Transportation Map series (including the date per the long -
range planning period the maps represent) should be adopted as of the Comprehensive
Plan along with the other future conditions maps.
8. Objection-8 (Energy Economic Zone) —,The following objections pertain to the Energy
Economic Zone (EEZ):
a. EEZ Designation — In 2009, the City submitted an application for designation as an EEZ
Pilot Community, along with an implementing Strategic Plan, that identified the EEZ as
the City of Miami Beach municipal boundaries. The City's submittal and Strategic Plan
indicated that required changes to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the EEZ
designation would be processed as a part of the EAR -based amendments. However, the
amendment does not recognize or reference the.City as a designated EEZ. Therefore, in
the absence of any EEZ map in the FLUM series, and data and analysis regarding the EEZ .
designation, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the City's application and
Strategic Plan.
.. b. Consistency with the EEZ Stratep Plan — The City's proposed amendment is inconsistent
with the EEZ Strategic Plan for the following reasons:
7
■ Transportation Element - Amendments to the Transportation Element were proposed
which support a number of the program goals of the EEZ. However, the proposed
amendment does not include policy guidance regarding the progressive alternative
multi -modal program underway by the City. Included within the City's Pilot Program
application and Strategic Plan is a discussion of the City's bike- share, car -share and
electrical vehicle program initiatives. Transit and multi -modal related policies -do not
integrate these programs, which result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
consistent with the goals of the EEZ Pilot Program. ..Therefore, the Amendment is
inconsistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic Plan and the City's
related goals within the EEZ. Furthermore, as' identified in Objection 5, several of the
proposed amendments to the Transportation Element do not provide for meaningful
and consistent standards.
■ HB 697 — As detailed in Objection 2, the proposed amendment does not include
meaningful and predictable policies implementing the requirements of HB 697 relative
to developing energy - efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction
strategies.
Authority
a. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (b), 0), (8) and (10)(e), and 377.809, F.S.; and Rules 9J
5.005(2)(a) and (5)(b) and 9J- 5.006(1)(e), 9J- 5.019(4)(b) 1, 2, 4, (c)3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12,
F:A.C.
b. Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (b), (d), and 0 1 ),'(8), (9)(e) and (f) and (I 0)(e), and 377.809, F. S.
and Rules 9J- 5.005(2)(a), and 9J- 5.019(4)(b)l, 2, and 4, F.A.C.
Recommendation
a. Revise the Amendment to identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone in the FLUM
Series and in the FLUE consistent with the City's application, the Strategic Plan (Draft
Version of the City's Sustainability Plan) and the subsequent designation. The current
Sustainability Plan should be included in the data and analysis in support of the adopted
amendment.
b. Revise the amendment to require that development demonstrate a commitment to the
related goals of the program, consistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic
Plan. Include_ amendments to the Transportation Element to identify the multi -modal
linkages that exist to serve the EEZ, or which are targeted for creation within the EEZ.
, .Revise the amendment to require that housing and development, transportation networks,
and multi -modal facilities demonstrate a commitment to the related goals' of the EEZ
program, efficient land use patterns, and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
B. The Department identifies the following comments related to the proposed amendment.
1. Comment #I Capital Improvements Element) The comments listed below pertain to the
required annual update of the Capital Improvements, Element (CIE), which is not part of the
EAR -based amendments but will be due in December.
a. 5 -Year Schedule —,The City is reminded that the 5 -year schedule of capital improvements
should be updated based- on abase year of FY 2010 -11 through FY 2014 -15.
8
b. School Board's District Facilities Work Plan — The CIE does not include a policy adopting
the School Board's current District Facilities Work Plan by reference. Also, the City did
not indicate in its transmittal letter that it is relying on the School Board's most recent data
and analysis.
c. Transportation Policy 3.2 — While the data and analysis for. the Transportation Element
references a variety of capital projects, an updated five -year schedule of capital
improvements has not been adopted in the Capital Improvements Element.
d. Transportation Policies 4.8, 6.13, and 6.14 — The FY 2010 -11 through FY 2014 -15 update
of the City's five -year schedule of capital improvements should include the specific
projects from the Coastal Communities Transit Plan, the Coastal Communities.
Transportation Master Plan, and the Municipal, Mobility Plan for which the City is
responsible. The noted plans are cited in Transportation Policies 4.8, 6.13, and 6.14, and
must therefore be referenced by title, author, and date.
2. Comment #2 (Housing Policy 3.5) — The policy refers to "very to moderate- income families
It appears that the text should read "very low to moderate - income families ".
3. Comment #3 (Housing Objective 6) — The last word should be changed to "uninhabitable ".
4. Comment #4 (Infrastructure Policies 8.1 and 8.2) — The two policies are shown together in a
single paragraph and should be separated by a blank space.
5. Comment #5 (Conservation Objective 8) - The objective refers to policies in "the Capital
Improvement Schedule ". The inference should be to the "Capital Improvements Element ".
6. Comment #6 (Intergovernmental Coordination Policy 1.71 — The reference to "Department of
Natural Resources" should be changed to "Department of Environmental Protection ".
7. Comment PlInterizovernmental. Coordination Objective 5) — The objective is an incomplete
sentence and appears to have missing text.
8. Comment #8 (Water Supply Facilities Work Plan) - The City's comprehensive plan must be
updated'to reflect both the adopted EAR amendments and the adopted Water Supply Facilities
Work.Plan (WSFWP) amendments when they are determined to be in compliance.
9. Comment #9 (Transportation Policy 4.11) — The City should clarify if the intent of the policy
includes fixed guideway transit alternatives previously studied by Miami -Dade Transit and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization.
10. Comment # 10 (Conservation / Coastal Zone Management Policy .6) - The City is
encouraged to add a phrase stating that proposed marinas must be ,found consistent with the
Miami -Dade County Manatee Protection Plan.
11. Comment #11 (Non -Point Stormwater Quality Goals) — The City should consider public
education strategies for residents, tourists, and business owners.
12. Comment #12 (Percentage Distribution among Mixed Uses) — The Low Intensity Commercial,
Medium Intensity Commercial, and Mixed Use Entertainment FLUM designations allow a-
mix of uses. If these districts are intended to require a mix of uses, than a percentage
distribution standard should be adopted.
9
it. Consistency with Chapter 187, F.S., State Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the following provisions of Chapter 187, F.S.:
A. Section 187.201(4), Housing, Policy 3: Increase the supply of safe, affordable, and sanitary
housing for low- income persons, moderate- income persons, and elderly persons. This policy
applies to objection 5.
B. Section 187.201(6), Public Safety, Policies 22 and 23:. Prepare.advance plans for the safe
evacuation of coastal residents. Adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property
_ and human lives from the effects of natural disasters. These policies apply to objection 4.
C. Section 187.201(10), Air Quality, Policies 1, 2, 3, and 4: Improve air quality and maintain the
improved level to safeguard human health and prevent damage to the natural environment.
Ensure that developments. and transportation systems are consistent- with the maintenance of
optimum air quality. Reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and mitigate their
effects on the natural and human environment. Encourage the use of alternative energy resources
that do not degrade air quality. These policies apply to objections 2 and 8.
D. Section 187.201 (11), Energy, Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 6; and 7: Continue to reduce per capita energy
consumption. Encourage and provide incentives for consumer and producer energy conservation..
Improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roads. Ensure energy efficiency in
transportation design and planning and increase the availability of more efficient modes of
transportation. Increase the efficient use of energy in design and operation of buildings, public
utility systems, and other infrastructure and related equipment. Promote the development and
application of solar energy technologies and passive solar design techniques. These policies
apply to objections 2 and 8.
E. Section 187.201(15), Land Use, Policies 1 and 3: Promote activities which encourage efficient
development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and
commerce. Enhance the livability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an
attractive and functional mix of living,. working, shopping, and recreational activities. These
policies apply to objections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
F. Section 187.201(17), Public Facilities, Policy 4: Create apartnership which would identify and
build needed public facilities and allocate the costs of such facilities among the partners in
proportion to the benefits accruing to each of them. This policy. applies to objection 3.
G. Section 187.201(19), Transportation, Policies 8, 9, 10, and 15: Encourage the construction and
utilization of a public transit system. Ensure that the transportation system provides Florida's
citizens and visitors with timely and efficient access to services, jobs, markets, and attractions.
Promote ride sharing by public and private sector employees. Promote effective coordination
among various modes of transportation in urban areas to assist urban development and
redevelopment efforts. These policies apply to objection 5.
H. Section- 187.201(25), Plan Implementation, Policy 7: Ensure the development of strategic regional
policy plans and local plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and that
address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern.in a region. This policy
applies to all of the objections.
By addressing the concerns noted in Section I, this inconsistency with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes,
can be addressed.
10
Planning and Zoning
111 NW 1st Street • Suite 1210
M I AM I•DADE Miami, Florida 33128 -1902
T 305- 375 -2800
Carlos Alvarez, Mayor
miamidade.gov
October 29, 2010 A10�
Mr. R ' C• � �� • .
Plan Review and Process
Ojy S � O �
Florida Department of Community Affairs %);p op
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100
Re: City of Miami Beach EAR -Based Amendments, DCA No. 10 -1 ER
'Dear Mr. Eubanks:
The Department of Planning and Zoning has reviewed the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR- Based) amendments to the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan. Our review
is conducted to identify points of consistency or inconsistency with provisions of the Miami -Dade
County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). The Department finds that the
proposed amendments are generally consistent with the CDMP . and offers the following
comments:
Transportation Element
1. Page TE -3 —. Policy. '1:.5:,' Multi - modal. Level'- '�of Service. The.. City is' proposing to.
... undertake an - examination of total .mobility in an 'attempt -to shift from roadway
capacity and level of service to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service.'
The City should indicate the timeframe in which this examination will occur.
2. Page TE -4 — Policy 2.3: Transit Oriented Design (TOD). This proposed new policy will
require the City to "... provide incentives and design guidelines for TODs within the City."
It is not clear whether the City intended to refer to "Transit Oriented Development"
instead of "Transit Oriented Design." Transit Oriented Development is the standard
planning terminology.
3. Page TE -6 — Policy. 3.4: Sustainable Development. This ,proposed policy calls for the
City .to "...plan, design and construct roadway projects and provide approval for
commercial roadway projects that minimize consumption of non- renewable resources,
limit consumption of renewable resources to sustainable yield levels, reuse and recycle
its components, and minimize the use of land and production of noise." It is not clear
what this. policy means, what a commercial roadway project is and . how this policy will be
implemented.
4. Page TE -11 Policy 4.1 1*:- Transit Alternative.
MDT and the MPO to study the. - feasibility'.of"connecting Miami 'Beach.;by ` tansit:to=th'e:-:>:
Airport and Downtown Miami." Currently, Bus Route 120/ Beach';. <:::MAX: connects, Miami, ..I. _: � _
Beach -with Downtown Miami, and .Route 150 /Airport Flyer connects Miami-
Miami International Airport. Also, the MM P r tudied:.the feasibilit BAYLI'N �°
O` p e iousI : s y .( ... K -, ';' <<- "- .
_with
St udy) of connecting Downtown Mia with 'M Beach :: Light and ::he _,rail a } j f
' ��, �/:. 7 { - � � � ' Y',�V:t � '`7f- ':;:.5' -`,: n�. /F ( / ,,�''�{ d��". : - : _ii � / /p - v .{� i K(n �� i'_.:r,
' . s.. f_. C/ ?�1'.�.'.!v�'1 „tfS'•:1,'+;v. ':,!car }} f 4r','"�i.?i�'4�. ?' rr�+ - in�� ._.iil_'eF ; ;',rG,....%' t :�: L Y! •,t+ l o ti ,f,�`. �'`
:.Y•ir.
Ray Eubanks, Administrato►,
Florida Department of Community Affairs
October 29, 2010
Page 2 of 3
technology, but the-City previously opposed this project. The City should clarify if the
intent of the policy includes fixed guideway transit alternatives. that were *previously
studied by MDT and the MPO.
5. Page TE -27 -- Policy 9.1: Calculating Remaining Capacity. This policy makes reference
to the three transportation concurrency management areas (South Beach, Middle Beach
and North Beach TCMAs) established in the City, and the measurement of roadway
capacities on an area -wide basis. As such the area -wide capacity is calculated by
averaging the service volumes of the major "roadways at the adopted level of service
standards. However, if the service volumes are based on FDOT's Generalized Tables or
generated using ARTPLAN, the service volumes will change -over time as the
Generalized Tables are revised by FDOT on a regular basis and ARTPLAN uses input
variables based on three types of characteristics:.: roadway, trelffic and• control
(signalization), which can also change over time. This policy should indicate that the
service volumes may be updated from time to time.
Conservation /Coastal Zone Management Element
1. Page C /CZM -7 and C /CZM -8. Policy 3.6 addresses standards that will be part of . the
Conditional Use review for proposed marinas executed by the City of Miami Beach's
Planning Board. The City should consider adding a phrase stating that proposed
marinas must be found in compliance with .the Miami -Dade County Manatee Protection
Plan. More information on manatee requirements may be found through the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation.
2. Page C /.CZM -11. Notwithstanding Objective 9 and its policies, it is unclear how Policy
5.2 would effectively "reduce the potential for .future loss of life and property" as
described in Objective :5.. Infrastructure_ capacity expansion that will serve "projected
population" and specific development projects,. both. which will increase population, does
not appear consistent with the objective of further reducing loss of life and property.
3. Page CICZM -12 -- Policy 5.7, footnote 2. The City should not reference the Miami -Dade
County CDMP as the CDMP is currently being revised. Current information regarding
County evacuation planning may be available directly from the South Florida Regional
Planning Councilor the Miami -Dade County Department of Emergency Management.
4. Page C /CZM -14. State and federal agencies have concluded that public education is an
important factor in successfully minimizing non -point stormwater quality goals. The City
may want to consider public education strategies for residents, tourists and business
owners.,
Housing Element
1. Page HE -13 — Objective 6: Relocation. The objective reads: "Ensure that relocation
services are provided to 100 percent of the .persons who are displaced as a result of
activities funded by federal programs or due to a property being declared inhabitable."
The City may want to revise the word inhabitable to `uninhabitable.'
Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Florida Department of Community Affairs
October 29, 2010
Page 3of3
- If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mark R. Woerner, AICP,.
Chief, Metropolitan Planning at 305 - 375 -2835.
Sincerely,
ar F rrier, AICP
ire G
MCLF:MRW:smd
Cc: Carolyn A. Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council -
Mercy Lamazares, AICP, City of Miami Beach
"Card, Carlton" To "' DCPexternalagencycomments @dca.state.fl.us"'
<Carlton.Card @dot.state.fl.us < DCPexternalagencycomments @dca.state.fl.us >,
> "Bill.Pable @dca.state.fl.us" <Bill.Pable @dca.state.fl.us>
11/01/2010 11:17 AM cc
bcc
'Subject Miami Beach 10-1 ER
In accordance with your request, and the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes'and Chapter 9.1-5,
Florida Administrative Code, this office has completed a review of the City of Miami Beach 10 -1ER.
There are no impacts anticipated to the State Highway System facilities resulting from this amendment.
Therefore, the District has no specific objections or recommendations at this time. Please contact
Carlton Card. at 305 - 470 -5875, if you have any questions concerning our response.
Carlton S. Card
Transportation Planner
Florida Department of Transportation District VI
1000 NW 111th Ave
Miami, FL 33172
(305) 470 -5875
• f f
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Dawn K. Roberts
Interim Secretary of State
DIVISION. OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
October 26, 2010
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -2100
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Miami Beach - 10 -1ER Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (Miami -Dade County)
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According to this agency's responsibilities under Section 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9j -5,
Florida Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data 'regarding
historic resources•were.given sufficient consideration in the request to amend the Miami Beach
Comprehensive Plan.
We reviewed Evaluation and Appraisal Report based. text amendments to the Miami Beach
Comprehensive Plan to consider the potential effects of these actions on historic resources. In
the Future Land Use Element, there are no major modifications to Objective 4, which addresses
historic and natural resource protection.
Objective 5 of the Housing Element, which addresses historically significant housing has been
completely rewritten. Objective 8 has been deleted, and the pertinent information
incorporated into Objective 5. The rewritten Housing Element contains policies which continue
the identification of historic housing and its preservation, rehabilitation, and reuse, discourages
' . demolition, encourages rehabilitation of residential structures, maintains the historic districts
and designated sites to enable tax incentives, encourages retention of architecturally significant
homes, provides historic preservation incentives in the land development regulations, etc.
{
In the Conservation/ Coastal Zone Management Element, Objective 11 addresses historic uses.
A change to Policy 11.1.d was made to reference Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria for
applications for development approval.
500 S. Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 http: / /www.flheritage.com
O Director's Office O Archaeological Research ✓ Historic Preservation
850.245.6300 • FAX: 245.6436 850.245.6444 • FAX 245.6452 850.245.6333 • FAX: 245.6437
- Mr. Eubanks
.October 26, 2010.
Page 2
Lastly, the Historic Preservation Element has been rewritten. This optional.element continues
historic preservation policies such as - the identification and designation of historic resources,
funding historic preservation staff, pursuing heritage tourism encouraging the public to
identify historic sites and properties and nominating those suitable for historic recognition and
local designation, developing a GIS database of historic resources, providing education
opportunities to the community, promoting appropriate urban infill and streetscape
improvements, expanding and developing preservation guidelines, etc.
The City of Miami Beach is to be commended on the thorough and well thought out
preservation objectives and policies. If you have any questions regarding our comments .,please
feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliance Review staff at 850.245.6333.
Sincerely,
Laura A. Kammerer, Historic Preservationist Supervisor
Compliance Review Section
Bureau of Historic Preservation
pc: Mr. Bob Dennis
r.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MA:NA*
GEMENT DISTRICT
October 20, 2010
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator ® 6
Plan Review and Processing
Department of Community Affairs. OCT 2 2 2010
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100 DIVISION OF
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Subject: City of Miami Beach, DCAe #10 -1 ER -
Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package
The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its .review of the
proposed amendment package submitted by the City of Miami Beach (City). The
proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report -based (EAR) amendments update the text of
the Comprehensive Plan as recommended in the City's adopted EAR. The City is to be
commended for its thoroughness in updating the entire Comprehensive Plan and .
recommending changes to strengthen and update the stormwater and water supply
. policies in the City's Comprehensive Plan. There appear to be no significant water
resource related impacts; therefore, , we forward no comments on the proposed
amendment package.
The District offers its technical assistance to the City, its water supplier, and the
Department of Community Affairs in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet
the City's future water supply needs and to protect the. region's water resources. For
assistance or additional information, please contact Terry Manning at (561) 682 -6779 or
tmanning0-)sfwmd.gov
Sincerely,
Rod Braun
Director
Intergovernmental Policy and Planning Division
c: Bob Dennis, DCA
Rachel Kalin, SFRPC
Marc LaFerrier, Miami -Dade County
Richard Lorber, -City of Miami Beach
Terry Manning, SFWMD
Maria Valdes, Miami -Dade County
3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 (561) 686 -8800 • FL WATS 1- 800 - 432 -2045
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416 -4680 • www.sfwmd.gov
RESPONSES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT (ORC)
DATED NOVEMEBER 19, 2010
The objections by DCA are listed in black
The red is the existing language in the submitted proposed EAR amendments detailing each
policy that is affected by the ORC. This, is done in order to facilitate the review of the objections
and responses to each.
The green type is the proposed new language that responds to each policy affected by the
ORC.
The changes mentioned in this summary are shown double - underlined in the EAR -based
amendment package
Obiection 1 (Future Land use Element and Map) The FLUM in appendix A of the EAR based
amendments does not identify the long -term planning period that it represents.
Recommendation The City should add the date of the long term planning horizon to its FLUM.
The long term planning horizon to the FLUM is 2025. This notation has been added to the map.
Obiection 2 (Greenhouse Gases) — The City proposes Transportation Policy 3.4, Housing
Objective 8, and Housing Policies 8.1 to 8.6 as objectives and policies pertaining to green
house gas emissions. Of the 8 referenced objectives and policies, 7 utilize permissive words
such as "encourage", "promote' "collaborate ", or to- the extent funds allow ". The following
objections pertain to greenhouse gases:
a. Lack of specific, Measurable End Result — The objectives listed above do not include the
specific, measurable, intermediate end result to be achieved for energy efficiency
and the policies listed above do not include meaningful and predictable standards for
achieving the objectives. Regarding Transportation Policy 3.4, it is not clear what the
policy means, what a "commercial roadway project" is, and how this policy will be
implemented.
b. Energy Economic Zone (EEZ) Pilot Program am — The proposed policies do not fulfill the
City's responsibility as an EEZ Pilot Program community to do the following: a) develop
a model to help communities cultivate green economic development; b). encourage
renewal electric energy generation; c) manufacture products that contribute to energy
conservation and green jobs; and d) further implement Chapter 2008 -191, Laws of
Florida, relative to discouraging sprawl and developing energy- efficient land use patterns
and greenhouse gas reduction strategies .
Recommendations The recommendation is summarized by each component of the objection
as follows:
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1ER
a. Lack of specific, measurable end result — The city should revise the objectives to include
a specific, measurable outcome the City intends to achieve. Revise the policies to
include meaningful and predictable guidelines and standards that will be applied to
development to achieve the objectives. The policies should identify the guidelines and
standards the City can apply right away and include specific actions for implementing
additional energy conservation measures that will take longer to implement.
b. EEZ Pilot Program — The city should incorporate all activities as outlined in the City's
application and Sustainability Plan which are intended to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and vehicle miles traveled. The E.EZ for the City of Miami Beach was
approved as a redevelopment model to promote among other things, green jobs in the
community. As a series of islands surrounded by water (Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean) there is no available land to annex and thus, suburban sprawl will not be an
issue. The City of Miami Beach is a built -out community with very efficient land use
patterns that promote mixed uses (commercial and residential) in its land use categories
except in the single family and the low intensity multifamily districts.
( Policy 3.4: Sustainable Development (please see Glossary of terms)
The City shall plan, design and construct roadway projects and provide approval for
roadway proiects that minimize consumption of non - renewable resources limit consumption of
renewable resources to sustainable yield levels, reuse and recycle its components and
minimize the use of land and production of noise- To this end the City shall integrate
multimodal. transportation facilities to reduce reliance on automobiles through initiatives such as:
• Expansion of the South Beach Local Circulator, including route changes to incorporate
Belle Island and the Cultural Campus, which will further integrate multimodal transportation
facilities with various neighborhoods and provide linkages to commercial centers
recreational amenities and cultural assets
• A North Beach Circulator by continuing to work with Miami -Dade Transit to finalize the
implementation of this service
• Expansion of the Atlantic Greenway Network by continued negotiation with property
owners along the Atlantic Ocean and along Biscayne Bay.
• Bicycle rack installations to provide safe and secure bicycle parking for bicyclists in Miami
Beach. By the end of 2015 it is estimated that approximately 500 bicycle racks will be
installed in safe, convenient location along commercial corridors residential areas and
public facilities. Bicycling as an alternative form of transportation will increase the quality of
life for our community by reducing traffic congestion.
• Bicycle rental program — The City already started this program with a proposal to install 85
kiosks of approximately 16 bikes per kiosks. The benefits of this program include reduced
traffic congestion, improved air quality, quieter and more livable streets and the opportunity
for citizens to improve their health through exercise.
• Shared car program will allow for the short term access to vehicles by residents and
visitors reducing the need for vehicle ownership and encoura ing the use of alternative
modes of transportation.
OBJECTIVE 8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES
The City wifl shall promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy resources in the
design and construction or the rehabilitation of housing and other measures to promote energy
efficiency in existing residential properties.
ORC -2
1
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Policy 8.1
The City will shall rely upon, and ensure consistency with, the provisions of Chapter 553 Florida
Statutes, when implementing policies to promote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy
resources under this objective.
Policy 8.2
The City will shall provide f0aprG l incentives, to the ext ent funds allow, as we -!! as othef
such as expedited permitting and building inspections to "green" housing
development projects under the terms set forth under its Green Building Ordinance such as but
not limited
a. Building permit applications for a green building project submitted or resubmitted for
review shall be given priority review over projects that are not green building projects by
the city's departments reviewing such applications;
b. All building inspections requested for green building projects shall be g given priority over
projects that are not green building projects; and
C. Subject to, and within the limits of, funds appropriated annually by resolution of the city
commission for the purposes set forth herein, owners or developers of green buildings
shall receive a refund of the actual application and review fees for green building
program certification and an amount not greater than one percent of the value of the
construction, or alternatively 20 percent of the annual allocation whichever is less within
180 days of proof of certification by USGBC being submitted in writing to the city. The
actual amount of financial incentives to which the applicant might qualify for shall be
estimated at the time of issuance of the building permit for the quality proiect, and held in
reserve. The final financial incentives shall be calculated at the time of LEED
certification.
Policy 8.3
The City will shall collaborate with local builders and community development corporations to
determine ways builders may incorporate "Sustainable Building" technologies in the construction
of housing, through the following means:
a. Water (e.g., indoor water conservation, low- flow /low -flush fixtures pervious
materials, xeriscaping, reclaimed water irrigation, harvested rainwater, water
budget).
b. Energy (e.g. Energy Star ratings, traditional local vernacular techniques of
climate sensitive design passive solar design landscaping for energy
conservation, site development) and unit orientation (e.g. north /south rather then
east/west windows) that takes advantage of the natural shade and lighting
available, radiant barrier and ridge venting, solar heating and cooling systems
gas heating /cooling systems and appliances, photovoltaic systems ductwork
fans, energy recovery ventilators programmable thermostats, energy efficient
appliances.
C. Building materials (e.g., dimensional lumber, wood treatment, engineered
ORC -3
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
structural materials, engineered siding and trim, non -toxic termite control, floor
coverings, wood flooring, roofing structural wall panels, insulation, windows and
doors, cabinets, finishes and adhesives).
d. Solid Waste Management (e.g., home recycling, construction waste recycling).
Policy 8.4
The City wi# shall promote energy conservation techniques that incorporate Federal- Energy Star
standards as consistent with the requirements of the state energy code. Periodic reviews of
development regulations and building codes wi# shall be conducted to determine if there are
modifications needed to incorporate energy conservation measures in addition to the
requirements of the state energy code.
Policy 8.5
The City w+14 shall provide developers/ builders with information on how to incorporate Federal
Energy Star Standards, state energy code and other energy efficiency measures into
construction.
Policy 8.6
The City wiH shall encourage the construction of energy efficient and water conserving housing
through public education programs and regulations that promote innovative and environmentally
sensitive building technologies.
Objection 3 (Capital Facilities) — Land Use Policy 6.2 does not list all concurrency related
facilities, such as water supplies and schools. Also, the policy is not consistent with the varied
concurrency timing requirements by type of infrastructure established in Section 163.3180(2)(a-
c), F. S.
Recommendation The City should amend Land Use Policy 6.2 so that it .lists all concurrency
related facilities and reflects the appropriate concurrency timing requirements established by the
cited Statute and rule.
Policy � 6.2
Land Development Regulations pe ID GenGUFrenGy management shall 'be amended to
r°f� Ch - g i FAG and t No development permit shall be issued unless the
TT�7U - �': 0 V� �T�7
public facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards specified
in the Policies of the Trn Ulation, Transportation Recreation, Public Schools and
Infrastructure Elements, and the Water Supply Plan mss) will be in place concurrent with the
impacts of the development- or the permit is conditional to assure that they will be in place, but
no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. The
requirement that no development permit shall be issued unless public facilities necessitated by
the project are in place concurrent with the impacts of development shall be effective
immediately. and shall be inteForeted puFsuant to the fellowiw.
Acceptable Level of Service Standards for public facilities in the City of Miami Beach are:
ORC -4
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
a. Recreation and Open Space — The National Recreation and Park Association's
suggested minimum requirement for recreation and open space ten ,10) acres of
recreation and open space per one thousand (1,000) permanent and seasonal
residents is established as the minimum Level of Service Standard for the entire
system.
b. Potable Water. Transmission Capacity
• 140 Average alq Ions per capita per day,
• 168 Peak gallons per capita per day
• non - residential uses:
• Hotel: 75 gallons per day per room
• Office: 0.084 gallons per day per square foot
• Retail: 0.18 gallons per day per square foot
• Industrial: 0.084 gallons per day per square foot
• Restaurant: 65 gallons per day per seat
• School: 12 gallons per day per student
C. Sanitary Sewer Transmission Capacity — 140 Average gallons per capita per day
d. Storm Sewer Capacity — One -in- five -year storm event.
e. Solid Waste Collection Capacity — 1.275 tons per capita per year
f. Transportation Level of Service:
• Local roads — LOS Standard D
• Collector roads — LOS Standard D
• Arterial roads - LOS Standard D
• Limited access roads - LOS Standard D
g. Miami -Dade Public Schools - Beginning January 1, 2008, the adopted level of
service (LOS) standard for all Miami-Dade County public school facilities is 100%
utilization of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Capacity (With
Relocatable Classrooms). This LOS standard shall be applicable in each public
school concurrency service area (CSA), defined as the public school attendance
boundary established by the Miami -Dade County Public Schools.
1. Measuring Conformance with the Level -of- Service
Public facility capacity availability shall be determined by the Concurrency Management
User's Procedural Guide (a supplement to the land development code), which contains
the formulas for calculating compliance. a set of formu } �T f�t folio \A /I
A dding together•
The f�anilities• plus
. l Te total de'
rr� v tzrr - �� - ruanTrr� ,�rav
0 The total design nnnity of any new facilities that will heneme available
The ava.w .wvv..J.. vu a� v� any new rr rU\7 .
. The capacity of new facilities may
be counted only if one or more of the following can be demonstrated:
(A) For water, sewer, solid waste and drainage:
(1) Prior to approval of a building permit or its functional equivalent,
the City shall consult with the applicable water supplier to
determine whether adequate water supplies to serve the new
development will be available no later than the anticipated date of
ORC -5
i
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
issuance by the local government of a certificate of occupancy or
its functional equivalent.
(2) The necessary facilities are in place and available at. the time a
certificate of occupancy is issued, or
(
fav iit will be in plane and available when the Of
development orGuf,
(43) The new facilities are guaranteed in an enforceable development
agreement to be in place when the impacts of development occur.
An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not
limited to, development agreements pursuant to Section
163.3220, Florida Statutes, or an agreement or development order
pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida. Statutes (the Development of
Regional Impact authorization). ,
In the case of water, sewers, solid waste and recreation, the formulas
must reflect the latest population .vis a vis flows or park acreage.
Design capacity shall be determined as follows:
Sewage: the capacity of the County sewage treatmentsystem.
Water: the capacity of the County water treatment and storage system.
Solid waste: the capacity of the County disposal system.
Drainage: The on -site detention capability and /or storm sewer capacity.
(B) For recreation:
(1) Parks and recreation facilities to serve new development shall be
in place or under actual construction no later than 1 year after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent.
Paragraphs (1) (3) under (A) above exGept that GonStFUGtien
began up to one year after issuanGe of a GeFtifiGate Of E)GrupanGY7
(2) The new facilities are the subject of a binding executed contract
for the construction of facilities to be completed within one year of
the time the certificate of occupancy is issued, or
(3) A development agreement as outlined in (A) -(4 3) above but
requiring construction to begin within one year of certificate of
occupancy issuance..
Recreation: Measurement shall be based on recreation data in the
Comprehensive Plan plus the latest City population estimate with
any necessary interpretation provided by the City manager or
designee thereof.
ORC -6
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND.COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
(C) For traffic:
r
(
nStFUGtiOn Gan began up to three yeaFs after the approval date.-
Transportation facilities needed to serve new development are
scheduled to be in place or under actual. construction not more
than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy its
functional ,equivalent as provided in the adopted local government
five -year schedule of capital improvements.
(2) No modification of public facility level -of- service standards
established by this plan shall be made except by a duly enacted
amendment to this plan. The City shall ensure that no
development approvals are issued that would result in traffic
volumes surpassing the cumulative allowable . areawide service
volume based on the sum of the individual roadways'. Level of
Service Standard within the Transportation Concurrency
Management Areas.
SubtraGting from that number the sum of:
Evicting vole mes nr flow ply �c•
- - vrrru.�
" Comm i tted "
aFe not yet GenStFUGted; plus
The dernand that wall be Greated by the proposed 0
J..1. site plan, plat eF other development .
i n the nc of a aei�+ter ce solid waste to and reGreatinn the
vaw v. rr away. vvrrv. v� vv..V rr aaV lV Ufa VTT� — CTf�i
Design GapaGity shall be deteFMined as fellowrL
Water
the �n�ni +ai of the Coun aer�+ter +re�atment •+r,.�l storage
n
away.. a. e va paw v' orag
system.
Solid waste. the GapaGity of the County disposal system-.
DFain�ane• The on detention annr cnrm sewer
ate. u....cw�yv. dt tin n
� r ��, n d / t vmTJa <.�vG7
G y.
(3) Roadways: The standard for measuring highway capacities shall
be the Florida DOT Table of Generalized Two -Way Peak Hour
Volumes for Urbanized Areas or other techniques that are
compatible to the maximum extent feasible with FDOT standards
and guidelines. The measurement of capacity may also be
ORC -7
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
determined by engineering studies provided that analysis
techniques are technically sound and acceptable to the City. The
City shall ensure that no development approvals are issued that
would result in traffic volumes surpassing the cumulative allowable
areawide service volume based on the sum of the individual
roadways' Level of Service Standard within the Transportation
Concurrency, Management Areas. `
ReGreat Mea shall
r�riurr be based on reGreatuen data in the
Com prehens i ve Plan p l us the l atest - C ate • ice
any neG terpFetatwon provided by the Gity manager el:
designee th e�evr.
Transit: the county Transit Agency bus schedules for routes within
the City.
2. Concurrency Monitoring System
The manager or designee thereof shall be responsible for monitoring facility capacities
and development activity to ensure that the concurrency management system data base
is kept current, i.e., includes all existing and committed development. This data base
shall be used to systematically update the formulas used to assess projects. An annual
report shall be prepared.
3. Capacity Reservation
Any development permit application which includes a specific plan for development,
including densities and intensities, shall reuire a concurrency review. Compliance will
be finally calculated and capacity reserved at time of final action of an approved final
Design Review approval or building permit if no Design Review is required or
enforceable developers agreement. Phasing of development is authorized in accordance
with Rule 9J- 5.0055. Applications for development permits shall be chronologically
logged upon approval to determine rights to available capacity. A capacity reservation
shall be valid for a time to be specified in the land development code; if construction is
not initiated during this period, the reservation shall be terminated.
4. Administration
The City. manager (or designee thereof) shall be responsible for concurrency
management. The land development code shall specify administrative procedures,
including an appeals mechanism, exemptions, plan modifications, burden of proof, etc.
5. Project Impact or Demand Measurement
The concurrency management user's procedural guide (a supplement to the land
development code) will contain the formulas for calculating compliance plus tables which
provide generation rates for water use, sewer use, solid waste and traffic, by land use
category. Alternative methods acceptable to the Director may also be used by the
applicant. For example, traffic generation may be based upon the Institute of
Transportation Engineer's "Trip Generation" manual.. Transportation facilities needed to
serve new development shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years
after the local government approves a building permit or its functional equivalent.
ORC -8
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Obiection 4 (Coastal Management — The following objections pertain to coastal management:
a. Definition of coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) — Conservation Policy 4.10 is based on
an incorrect definition of the CHHA. It states that "As the entire City is classified as a Coastal
High Hazard Area (CHHA) which is reflective of its status as a Category 1 Evacuation Zone..."
the Category 1 evacuation zone is no longer the correct definition of the CHHA, and the entire
City may not be within the CHHA under the new definition,
b. Depiction of CHHA on FLUM — The CHHA is not depicted on the FLUM
Recommendation The City should depict the CHHA on its FLUM ( Note : A map depicting the
CHHA Cat. 1 Evacuation Zone has been included in the Map Series) and amend Conservation
Policy 4.10 based on the definition of the CHHA pursuant to Section 163.3178(9)(c), F.S. The
CHHA definition is located in Section 163.3178(2)(h) F.S
Policy 4.10
As T +h° °n cnt " Fe The `LOS standards established in the Transportation Element shall be
maintained in order to facilitate hurricane evacuation for those areas of the City is that are
classified as a Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA)
1 Evacuati Z According to Section 163.3178(2) (h), F.S., the coastal high- hazard area is
the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake
and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model th�o
standards established in the Transportatmen Filement shall be maintained n orde-F to faGmRate
F- ,
" Coastal 10GaI evaGuation pla - . ring evaGu_afion. In Kam* Dade County, the HUFFOGane VulneFability Zones aFe
Gons 11- 1 .1101 _N State law redefined the
HazaFd „ „„ Zone to the GategeFy 1 HUFFiGane evaGuation zone as established On the
Feg onal hu i ;uatieR plan. in Miami Dade County the GHHA GGnSiStS of the baffieF islands. The State also
StFategiG Re&Ral P0IiGY Plan f0F South FleFida established P016GOes addressing hUFF*Gane Category 4 and
evaGuation areas. SGUFGe: Warn* Dade County (;[)MP—.
Obiection 5 (Meaningful and Predictable Standards) — The proposed revisions to the goals,
objectives and policies result in a lack of meaningful and predictable standards for the following
reasons: a) use of mandatory versus permissive text; b) use of undefined or ambiguous terms;
c) defers to the Land Development Regulations; and d) lack of dates which establish deadlines.
The specific GOP citations that are not meaningful and predictable are listed below. The reason
for the lack of meaningful and predictable standards (a through d above) is referenced
parenthetically after each citation.
Recommendation:
ORC -9
t
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
a. use of Mandatory versus Permissive Text — The objective and policies should be revised
to include the guidelines and standards the City will use to achieve the policy's stated purpose.
Regarding Transportation Policy 6.12, it should be amended to identify the projects for which
the City is financially responsible. The policy should be supported by an updated five -year
schedule in the Capital Improvements Element that lists those projects.
b. Use of Undefined or Ambiguous Terms — The policies should be amended to include
guidelines and standards which indicate how the City will achieve the policy's stated purpose.
Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 cite inconsistent level of service standards. The
inconsistency must be resolved.
C. Defers to the LDRs — The policies should be amended to add measurable and
predictable standards to guide development instead of deferring such details to the LDRs.
d. Lack of Dates Which Establish Deadlines — the policies should be revised to include the
measurable and predictable standards to guide development and provide the basis for the
LDRs. For those policies which extended timelines, the City should include interim measures
that cn be applied to development until the cited information becomes available and the policies
are updated.
a. Land Use policy 3.1 — The policy indicates that mixed uses shall be encouraged.
Furthermore, the policy indicates that LDR incentives will be provided to support mixed uses,
but it fails to define what those incentives will be. (a and c)
Policy 2 -4. 3.1
Innovative land use development patterns, including mixed uses shall continue to be permitted
and encouraged through the provision of LDR incentives flooF area ratie bonuses such as
additional floor area when at least 25% of the total are of a building is residential; and / or shared
parking for mixed commercial /office /residential uses f ^r non residential deve in areas
designated as Fesiden+; ^' commercial a nd mime d u s e ° in the Future Land Use
-Map.
b. Transportation Policy 1.5 — The policy states that the City will undertake an examination
of total mobility in an attempt to shift from roadway capacity and level of service to an overall
mobility system capacity and level of service (d)
Policy 1.5: Multi -Modal Level of Service (please see .Glossary of terms)
Roadway level of service is insufficient as a measure of multi -modal mobility in a mature city
with land use intensities, mixed 'uses and the economic vitality such as Miami Beach. The City
shall undertake an examination of total mobility by 2015 in an attempt to shift from roadway
capacity and level of service to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service. This will
require quantifying capacities and levels of service for the physical roadway system, the transit
_network, the pedestrian network and the bicycle network. The results will be used as a guide for
the planning and implementation of mobility improvements.
C. Transportation Policy 2.3 — The policy states that the City shall provide incentives and
design guidelines for Transit Oriented Developments within the City. The policy defers to all
detail regarding the nature of the incentives to the LDRs (c and d).
ORC -10
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Policy 2.3: Transit Oriented Design (TOD) (please see Glossary of terms)
By 2012 the City shall ore� create a list of the type of incentives and as well as create design
guidelines for TODs within the City.
d. Transportation Policies 4.1 and 4.2 — The policies cite inconsistent level of service
standards, are ambiguous, are not subject to a deadline to measure their completion, and are
not associated with guidelines and standards (b and d).
Policy 4.1: Meeting Transit Level of Service
The City shall maintain consistency with the transit level of service standard of Miami -Dade
County Comprehensive Plan by n^ee +ir►n +heir le of c+er.,i,+o stan for ., tran � Within this
planning period the City will continue to perform studies which examine °.ng the use of
Bus Rapid Transit, street cars, preemptive traffic signals and any other technologies appropriate
for Miami Beach. The City will continue to follow the guidelines and standards as outlined in
recent planning studies such as the Coastal Communities Transportation Management Plan and
the Coastal Communities Transit Study.
Policy 4.2: Minimum Peak Hour Service Standard
The City shall coordinate with Miami -Dade Transit by 2012 so that the minimum peak hour
mass transit level of service standards provided within the City shall be done with public transit
service having no greater than 30 minute headways and an average route spacing of %4 mile
provided that:
1. The average combined population and employment density along the corridor between
the existing transit network and the area of expansion exceeds 4,000 people per square
mile, and the service corridor is 1/2 mile on either side of any necessary new routes or
route extensions to the area of expansion;
2. It is estimated that there is sufficient demand to warrant the service; and
3. The service is economically feasible.
e. Transportation Policy 4.6 — The term "where appropriate" should be clarified with specific
spacing standards or other measures to clarify when transit infrastructure is required (b).
Policy 4.6: Providing Basic Transit Infrastructure
Development approval for sites located on main thoroughfares within existing transit routes shall
be required where appropriate, to construct a concrete pad and dedicate an easement to Miami
Beach or Miami -Dade Transit (or its successor agencies) for public transit uses. The dedicated
easement shall be of sufficient size to allow for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to
transit and for future shelter placement. Fair share contributions in lieu of easement dedication
may be granted when an existing bus shelter or pad is located within % mile from the proposed
development on the same side of the roadway. Appropriate bus stop facility locations shall be
determined by analyzing the existing need on established routes; assessing the existing built
environment (such as the width of the sidewalk, the presence of a sidewalk and /or the .location
of any existing structures). Bus routes with the highest ridership and located on an existing bike
routes will be the highest priority for facility placement.
ORC -11
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
f. Transportation Policy 5.4 — The policy notes that the further development of
thoroughfares shall consider "whenever possible' the provision of bicycle lanes (b)
Policy 5.4: Bicycle Facilities
The further development of thoroughfares shall consider, whenever possible, the creation,
extension and improvement of bicycle lanes, paths, boulevards, and other bicycle facilities as an
effort to develop "complete streets." The City will continue to follow the guidelines and standards
as outlined in recent planning studies such as the Coastal Communities Transportation
Management Plan
t
g. Transportation Objective 6 and Policies 6.1, 6.2 and 6.11 — The objective and policies
"support ", "promote," and "encourage' a bulleted lists of Transportation System Management
and Transportation Demand Management initiatives but fail to identify how and when they will
be implemented locally (a).
OBJECTIVE 6: MULTI - MODAL TRANSPORTATION
The City shall continue to support and promote multiple modes of transportation by considering
Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation Systems Management (TSM ) , and
other techniques.
Policy 6.1: Transportation Systems Management (please see Glossary of terms)
Through the site plan review process, the City shall educate the development community and
encourage appropriate TSM strategies to improve the mobility systems efficiency, effectiveness
and safety. These may include but are not limited to:
• Traffic management and traffic monitoring programs
ams
• Incident management
• Congestion management
• Access management
• Parking policies which discourage single= occupancy vehicles
• The encouragement of carpools, vanpools or ridesharing
• Programs or projects that improve traffic flow, including progects to improve signalization
• On road bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and bicycle amenities at commercial and
residential uses
• Improve intersections, and implement Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
strategies, including Pedestrian oriented intersection design strategies
• Pedestrian countdown signals
Policy 6.2: Transportation Demand Management (please see Glossary of terms)
Through the site plan review process, the City shall plan for, educate the development
community and encourage appropriate TDM strategies to improve the mobility systems
efficiency, effectiveness and safety. These may include but are not limited to efforts to reduce
the dependence on single - occupant vehicle trips, and the encouragement of the use of bicycle,
Pedestrian and transit modes as a means of commuting and recreational mobility. These may
include, but are not limited to:
ORC -12
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
• carpools,
• van pools,
• demand response service,
• paratransit services (for special needs population),
• public /private provision of transit service,
• bike sharing, or shared car initiatives,
• provision of short term and long term bicycle parking, showers and changing facilities
• provision of parkin for or carpools
• alternative hours of travel, including flexible work hours; staggered work shifts, compressed
workweeks and telecommuting options,
• subsidy of transit fares,
used of Ion term to be developed at City's entry points,
• shared vehicular and pedestrian access for compatible land uses, where possible,
• shared parking agreements for compatible land uses, where possible,
• provision of transit amenities,
• car share vehicle parking.
Policy 6.11: Multimodal Strategies
Through the site plan review process, the City shall educate the development community and
promote TSM and /or TDM strategies and incentives to use alternate modes of /,transportation
(such as parking policies and provision of intermodal transfers), that will accomplish mobility
within and through each transportation concurrency management area.
h. Transportation Policy 6.5 — The policy indicates that the City will prepare an analysis that
determines the baseline mode split, which will be the basis of a target mode split. The policy
fails to establish a deadline by which the analysis will be completed (d).
Policy 6.5: Mode Split Analysis r.
By 2015 the City shall undertake an analysis that determines the baseline mode split, then set
a target mode split to be achieved in a certain period of time.
i. Transportation Policy 6.7 — The policy indicates that the City will "examine" placing a
higher priority on alternative mode projects. The policy lacks a specific deadline by which the
contemplated review will be complete (d)
Policy 6.7: Prioritizing Multimodal Improvements
As a method of achieving a balance between an efficient and effective level of service and an
adequate mode split, by 2015, the City shall examine placing a higher priority on the
development and implementation of alternative mode projects, than it would on physical
capacity projects. A method of doing so may be to spend an increased percentage of City
transportation funds, taken from all sources, on transit or alternative mode projects in lieu of
physical capacity projects.
j. Transportation Policy 6.8 — The word "appropriate is undefined, and the word "may: is
permissive (a and b)
ORC -13
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Policy 6.8: Multimodalism as a Condition of Development Approval
Appropriate improvements or enhancements, such as, but not limited to dedications or
easements for transit bus stops to the City's multimodal network ffiu would be required as a
condition of development approval.
(Alternate language) As part of the plan review and approval process, the City shall negotiate with
applicants for appropriate improvement and enhancements on the private property, such as, but not
limited to, dedications or easements for transit bus stops as part of the City's multimodal network.
k. Transportation Policy 6.12 — The policy "promotes" alternate transportation modes and
also references various master plans that include specific projects (a)
Policy 6.12: Multimodal Options
The City shall promote alternate transportation modes and implement the transit, pedestrian,
bicycle and other modes of transportation pursuant to F.A.C. 9J -5 in Transportation
Concurrency Management Areas as follows:
a. Continue implementing the projects in the "Bike Master Plan" in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) prioritizing those projects where there are gaps on
the bicycle and pedestrian network. Current priority CIP funded projects include
the Beach Walk Phase II, and Middle Beach Recreation Corridor — Phase I
Pedestrian Bike Path.
b. Continue supplementing the MMP Project Bank with projects from "Coastal
Communities Transit Master Plan" These, upon approval, would be added to the
CIP.
C. Continue coordination with Miami -Dade Transit to implement the Middle and
North Beach Circulators. Current priority CIP funded projects include the North
Beach Intermodal Center.
d. Continue improving multimodal infrastructure including pedestrian and bicycle
pathways, secure bicycle parking, transit shelters, and transit amenities including
bike racks on buses. Through the land development code and site plan review
process, the City will continue providing amenities and incentives to alternate
modes of transportation. Current priority CIP funded projects include the
installation of crosswalks, curb ramp installation /maintenance and pedestrian
countdown signals in various locations throughout Miami Beach.
e. Implementing projects that accommodate all users of the transportation system,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, people with disabilities,
the elderly, motorists, freight providers, emergency ponders, and adjacent
land users.
I. Transportation Policy 9.8 — The term "major' is undefined (b)
Policy 9.8: Provision of Multimodal Amenities
Within the City's TCMA's, the City shall reguire all new major developments, (those
projects over 50,000 gross square feet, and /or proiects that increase the number of trips
over 100 peak hour trips), to submit a Transportation Mitigation Plan which will include
strategies to mitigate the traffic generated by the site, and will encourage the use of
ORC -14
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
alternative modes of transportation. The safety and convenience of all users of the
transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicle drivers
shall be accommodated and balanced in all types of transportation and development projects
and through all phases of all new major developments so that the most vulnerable — children
elderly, and persons with disabilities — can travel safely within the public right of way. Applicable
treatments may include, but not be limited to TDM strategies included in Policy 6.2 and TSM
policies included in Policy 6.1.
M. Housing Policies 1.3, 2.2 and 5.6 — The policy indicates that the City will "support"
affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage specified funding sources (a and b)
Policy 1.3
Cooperate with the MetFo Dade County making available GOunty SuFtax funds and othe.r
finanGial foF the provision of housing affer-d-a-ble to low and moderate inGeme
households in Miami BeaGh.
E.L p Cooperate with affordable housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County
Surtax funds and other financial incentives for the provision of housing affordable to very low to
moderate- income households, including those with special needs, in Miami Beach.
Policy 2.2
appA Cooperate with housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County Surtax
funds and other financial incentives for the construction and /or rehabilitation of residential
housing affordable to very low to moderate- income households in Miami Beach.
Policy 5.6
E Supp6!j Cooperate with housing developers' efforts to leverage Miami -Dade County Surtax
funds and other financial incentives for the rehabilitation of residential housing affordable to very
low to moderate - income households in Miami Beach.
n. Housing Policy 1.6 — The policy indicates that the City will "continue to streamline" the
housing approval and permitting process (b and d)
Policy 1.6
The Planning Department, which includes zoning review, will continue to streamline the housing
approval and permitting process in coordination with the Building Department through as
fi,� r the Gnt y's u e o_ the expedited processing of permits for affordable housing projects."
This incentive gives priority to designated affordable housing projects when scheduling Pre -
Design Conferences with all relevant agencies. Also, when the plans are ready for permitting,
first priority is given to them.
o. Housing Policy 3.1 - .—. The policy states that the City will "mitigate" zoning regulations that
"impede" housing affordable to very low to moderate - income families (b).
Policy 3.1
ORC -15
I
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
The City shall mitigate zoning regulations such as reduced parking requirements or shared
parking in the case of a mixed use, building that impede housing affordable to very low to
moderate- income families in all zoning districts which permit multifamily housing, including
multifamily residential, commercial and overlay districts and retain the new multifamily districts,
e.g. TH Townhome residential and RO Residential Office.
Obiection 6 (Population Proiections) — The population projections provided at page 1 of the
Land Use Element's data. and analysis and page 2 of the Transportation Element's data and
analysis are inconsistent . The former projects the City's 2025 population at 97,705 persons
while the latter projects 2025 population at 102,316 persons. Also the historical population
figures in Tables 1 and 2 of the Land Use Element's data and analysis provide different
population figures for 2004.
t
Authority: Sections 163.3177(2), (6)(a), F.S.; and Rules 9J- 5.003(107), 9J- 5.005(2), (5)(a), FAC
Recommendation The City should provide a consistent historical and projected population
trend and apply it consistently throughout the elements. The projections are to be based on
professionally accepted and applied methodologies.
2008 Projections
Between the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, the permanent population of the City of Miami Beach
decreased from 92,639 to 87,933 (5.3% decrease). Estimates and projections show growth will
occur slowly in the City; however these projections are based on prevailing trends.
Current population projections from both Miami -Dade County and Miami Beach staff estimate
that our population will grow to approximately 97,700 by 2025, or about a 6.5% increase.
However, Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing projections shows the 2025 Miami Beach
population to be only 88,521.
According to the 2008 Population estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, the total population for
the City of Miami Beach is 84,633. The table below shows the comparison from the 2000
Census (actual) to the estimates to date, which indicates a slight growth in years 2001, 2002,
and 2003, but a decline in population starting in the year 2004 to present, based on the actual
2000 census:
Table 1: Population projections, 2000 - 2008'
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Population 87,933 88,880 88,768 88,798 88.056 87,142 85,935 85,036 84,633
Table 2: Population Changes and Projections, 1990 -2025
4-M 2= 2W4 2M na nn 2026
' 2000, U.S. Census Bureau; 2001 -2008, American FactFinder, U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Population Estimates.
ORC -16
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
°'�° &L,-M 9 540 9&,-7-90 96 &7—,705
Table 2 above is being replaced with the one below.
Table 2
Population Estimates and Projections
Minor Statistical Area 1.3 and City of Miami Beach, 2000 to 2030
Minor City of City as
Statistical Miami Percent of
Year Area 1.3 Beach Area 1.3
1990 110,126 '92,639 84%
2000 108,526 87,933 81%
2006 118,734 93,533 79%
2010 121 96,354 80%
2015 123,553 98,679 80%
2020 126,030 100,811 80%
2025 129,263 102,316 79%
2030 131,261 103,515 79%
Avery a Annual chan e
1990 -2000 (1,600) (4,706) 294%
2000 -2006 10,208 5,600 55%
2006 -2010 2,367 2,821 119%
2010 -2015 2,452 2,325 95%
2015 -2020 2,477 2,132 86%
2020- 2025 3,233 1,505 47%
2025 -2030 1,998 1 1,199 1 60%
Source: U.S. Census for 1990 and 2000 data. Miami -Dade Planning & Zoning Dept. for Minor Statistical Area data for 2006-
2030.University of Florida, Shim berg Center for Miami Beach data for 2006 -2030.
Note: Minor Statistical Area 1.3 includes the City of Miami Beach and five smaller municipalities: Bal Harbour, Bay Harbor Islands,
Indian Creek, North Bay Village, and Surfside with a combined 2007 population of 19,776 according to BEBR.
ORC -17
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
Objection 7 (Future Transportation Map Series) — While several maps related to the future
transportation map series are included in the data and analysis, the City has not adopted any
maps from the future transportation map series, consistent with Rule 9J- 5.005(1)(e), (2)(a), 9J-
5.019(5), FAC
Recommendation The Future Transportation Map Series (including the date per the long -
range planning period the maps represent) should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive
Plan along with the other future conditions maps.
Maps INCLUDED:
Figure 1- Existing Roadway�system
Figure 3 — Federal Functional Classification
Figure 4 — Existing Roadway Lane Count
Figure 10 - Existing Evacuation routes
Figure 17' Existing Bicycle Facilities
Figure 6 2015 Peak Hour Level of Service (one -way)
Figure 7 — 2015 Peak Hour Level of Service (Two -way)
Figure 8 — 2015 Daily Level of Service (Two -way)
Figure 8 — 2030 Level of Service (one *way)
Figure 9 — 2030 Level of Service (two -way)
Figure 10 — 2030 Daily Level of Service (two -way)
Objection 8 (Energy Economic Zone — The following objections pertain to the Energy
Economic zone (EEZ):
a. EEZ Designation In 2009, the City submitted an application for designation as an EEZ
Pilot Community, along with an implementing Strategic Plan that identified the EEZ as the City
of Miami Beach municipal boundaries. The City's submittal and Strategic Plan indicated that
required changes to the Comprehensive Plan to implement the EEZ designation would be
processed as part of the EAR -based amendments. However, the amendment does 'not
recognize or reference the City as a designated EEZ. Therefore, in the absence of any EEZ
map in the FLUM series, and data and analysis regarding the EEZ designation, the proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the City's application and Strategic Plan.
b. Consistency with the EEZ Strategic Plan — The City's proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the EEZ Strategic Plan for the following reasons:
• Transportation Element — amendments to the Transportation Element were proposed which
support a number of the program goals of the EEZ. However, the proposed amendment
does not include policy guidance regarding the progressive alternative multi -modal program
underway in the City. Included within the City's Pilot Program application and Strategic Plan
is a discussion of the City's bike - share, car -share and electrical vehicle program initiatives.
Transit and multi -modal related policies do not integrate-these programs, which result in the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the EEZ Pilot Program.
Therefore, the amendment is inconsistent with the City's application submittal and Strategic
Plan and City's related goals within the EEZ. Furthermore, identified in objection 5, several.
ORC -18
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -1 ER
of the proposed amendments to the Transportation Element do not provide for meaningful
and consistent standards. Some the initiatives mentioned in the EEZ application are listed
in the Transportation Policy 3.4. Furthermore most of the policies in the TE provide
guidance for multi - modalism and encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation in
an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the EEZ.
•
HQ 697 — As detailed in Objection 2, the proposed amendment does not include meaningful
and predictable policies implementing the requirement of HB 697 relative to developing
energy- efficient land use patterns and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
Recommendation
a. Revise the amendment to identify the City as an Energy Economic Zone in the FLUM
Series and in the FLUE consistent with the City's application, the strategic Plan (Draft version of
the City's Sustainability Plan) and the subsequent designation.. The current Sustainability Plan
should be included in the Data and Analysis in support of the adopted amendment.
Note: The FLUM has been modified to note that the entire City is an Energy Economic
In addition, the following policy is being proposed for the Land Use Element.
OBJECTIVE 12: ECONOMIC ENERGY ZONE
As a goal of the City to adopt policies and programs that implement in Miami Beach actions that
strive to protect the environment, the City designated the entire municipality to participate in the
"Energy Economic Zone Pilot Program Communities" Codified in Chapter 2009 -89, Laws of
Florida, Section 7.
Policy 12.1
The Miami Beach Sustainability Plan shall be the guiding document (Strategic Plan) that
provides structure and focus to policies and initiatives in order to successfully enhance
community sustainability.
b. Revise the amendment to require that development demonstrate a commitment to the
related goals of the program consistent with the City's application, the strategic Plan. Include
amendments to the ;Transportation Element to identify the multi -modal linkages that exist to
serve the EEZ, or which are targeted for the creation within the EEZ. Revise the amendment to
require that housing and development, transportation networks and multi -modal facilities
demonstrate a commitment to the related goals of the EEZ program, efficient land use patterns
and greenhouse gas reduction strategies
Note: Most of the Transportation Element and Housing Element policies demonstrate a
commitment to the related goals of the EEZ program, specifically Transportation Policy 3.4, 5.4,
6.2, 6.12; Housing Policies 8.2, 8.3, 1.6, 3.1; and LUE Policy 3.1 as well as others.
F: \PLAN \$PLB \Comp Plan Amendments\2008 -2009 comp plan update\2010 EAR -based - transmittal \EAR -ORC responses \EAR
ORC worksheet with responses -1.doc
ORC -19
dMI MAM -BE
ACH
.CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PUBLIC HEARI
�3Ti E F PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO THE CITY'S
C®
MPf� PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN'that a second reading and second
public hearing will be held by the City. Commission of the City
of Miami Beach on WEDNESDAY, April 13, 2011 at 11:15 -A.M.
or as soon thereafter as possible 'in the City. Commission
Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall, located at 1700 Convention I
Center: Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139 to consider adoption..I
i of proposed amendments to the City's : Comprehensive Plan
based on the recommendations of the 2005 -2007 Evaluation
I and Appraisal Report. This item may be continued and under
those circumstances, additional legal notice would not be
provided.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CMY � ENS VE
AMENDMENTS TO THE
TO INCLUDE NEW OR POLICI
ES ®HE FOLLOWING,
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND
ELEMENTS;, F(3TURE ' T R ANSPORTATION, CONSERVATION/
HOUSING,
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, RECREATION
AND OPEN SPACE, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND. HISTORIC PRESERVATION;
ALL IN RELATION TO CERTAIN ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN
THE CITY'S .2005 -2007 EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL
REPORT (EAR) INCLUDING RESPONSES TO THE
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS
REPORT (ORC); AND AUTHORIZING .AND DIRECTING
THE CITY ADMINISTATION TO SUBMIT THE ADOPTED
AMENDMENTS TO THE. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND ANY OTHER REQUIRED
STATE AND LOCAL
AGE NCI ES; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION : AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
All interested parties are invited to appear this meeting or be
represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing
addressed to the Planning Department, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, City Hall, Miami Beach' Florida 33139. Copies
of the proposed amendments are available in the Planning
Department.
Pursuant to Florida Stat. 286.0105, the City hereby advises the
public that. if a person decides to appeal any decision made
by the Planning ,Board with respect to. any matter considered
at its meeting or . its .hearing, such person must ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record � is
include the testimony and evidence upon which the app
be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City
for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissibl eats
irrelevant evidence, nor. does it authorize challenges or app
not otherwise allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
persons needing special accommodation to participate in this
proceeding should contactthe Board's. Administrator no laterthan
four days prior to the proceeding at (305) 673 -75501 for assistance;
if hearing. impaired, telephone the Florida Relay Service numbers,
(305) 673 -7218 or 711, for assistance. AD #652
4B THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011