Loading...
141-1998 LTC CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us m L.T.C. No. 141-1998 LETTER TO COMMISSION October 6, 1998 TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City Co FROM: Sergio Rodriguez City Manager SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - EAR AND EAR-BASED AMENDMENTS Attached are letters from the Department ofCornrnunity Affairs (DCA), dated September 15, 1998 and September 17, 1998*, advising the City that the Department has completed their review of the City's EAR and EAR-based amendments. DCA has determined that the EAR does not meet the sufficiency requirements, primarily due to the age of the data and analysis used in the report. However, DCA staff has consulted with Planning Department staff and emphasizes that these problems are readily correctable. The Planning Department is now beginning the process of revising the EAR in order to address DCA concerns. Given the magnitude of the required changes, we expect to take several months in completing this project. On a positive note, a new provision of Chapter 163.3187(6)(b), F.S., which becomes effective on October 1, 1998, authorizes the City to move forward with Comprehensive Plan amendments for a period of one year from the date of DCA's sufficiency finding. In the past, the City would have been prevented from amending its Comprehensive Plan if the EAR was found not sufficient, but now the City may enact amendments for one year, during which time the City will revise the EAR and submit it for a finding of sufficiency. Regarding the EAR-based amendments, DCA has raised certain technical issues with these amendments, and, as with the EAR, Planning Department staff has consulted with DCA and is beginning to revise these items to address their concerns. We have been advised by DCA that it is preferable to complete the revisions of the EAR first, and then bring forward our revised EAR-based amendments, and so the City will proceed in this manner. Revisions to the EAR and EAR-based amendments should be expected to be brought to the Planning Board and then the Commission early next year. October 6, 1998 Page 2 *Note: The letter from DCA refers to a required response within 10 days of the adoption of the revisions; this will take place early next year, when the Commission will be asked by the Administration to adopt said revisions. Importantly, no action is necessary at this time. See attached clarification from DCA. i1- A )(L SR:fo:DJG:RGL F:\PLAN\$ALL \eM _ RESP\EAR. WPD cc: J. Gavarrete D. Grandin R. Lorber (; (,) ,:,.. ;~ I ~ I" I ( .. ( <. ; , . "') : l j .. 'I':~ J STATE OF FLORIDA D E PAR T MEN T 0 F COM M U NIT Y A F F A I RS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Governor Secretary September 15, 1998 The Honorable Neisen Kasdin, Mayor The City of Miami Beach City Hall 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 ./ RE: Review of the adopted City of Miami Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report Dear Mayor Seymour: The Department has completed its sufficiency review (attached) of the City of Miami Beach Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) as adopted by Resolution No. 98-22671 on February 18, 1998. The Department has determined that the EAR does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for sufficiency as defined in Section 163.3191 (9), F.S. Section 163.3187(6)(b), F.S., as amended, which will become effective October 1, 1998, authorizes the City to move forward with Comprehensive Plan Amendments for a period of one year from the date of this sufficiency finding. However, the Department strongly recommends that the City revise the EAR to fully resolve the sufficiency issues prior to the adoption of any EAR-based amendments. In general, the Department is concerned with issues relating to the age of the data and analysis utilized in the report, including an analysis of vacant lands at the time of the EAR. Secondly, the analysis of whether the Comprehensive Plan adopted objectives were achieved was not complete. Due to these deficiencies, we are also concerned that the proposed EAR-based amendments do not include necessary revisions to address measurability of the adopted objectives. I would like to emphasize our willingness to work with the City of Miami Beach in correcting these problems. In regard to the general format of the EAR, the Department would like express serious concerns. The author and consultant of this official Miami Beach Adopted EAR, Robert Swarthout, has included numerous editorial passages to the report which seek to disparage the Department and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC). For the most part, these are the same editorial passages he has added to similar reports prepared for other local communities in Southeast Florida over the past several years. The following is an example of 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 FLORIDA KEYS AREA Of CRITICAL STATE CONCERN SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OfFICE GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE PO Box 4022 FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highw"y, Suite 212 8600 NW 36th Street 155 East Summerlin Marathon, Flurid" \1050-2227 Miami, Florida 33159-4022 Bartow, Florida 33830-4641 Mayor Kasdin September 15, 1998 Page Two inflammatory text contained in the Miami Beach Adopted EAR (see Section 3 - page 5): The utilization of vague rules capable of varying interpretations is a technique of public administration that came to high flower in Italy in the 1920s. It provides state administrators with maximum flexibility to insert their judgement where they deem it better than local judgment. Although the Department believes Mr. Swarthout is entitled to his opinions, we strongly protest the use of language similar to the above mentioned passage which has absolutely no place in an official city document of a respected community like Miami Beach. We look forward to working with the City in order to find the EAR sufficient. Please contact Ken Metcalf, Community Program Administrator, or Paul DiGiuseppe, Planning Manager, at (850) 487-4545 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~:~telc~ I ~ Michael D. McDaniel (? Growth Management Administrator MDM/dmk enclosure cc: Carolyn A. Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council Bob Ushers on, Miami-Dade County Dean Grandin, City of Miami Beach DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REVIEW COMMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ADOPTED EV ALUA TION AND APPRAISAL REPORT September 15, 1998 I. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Identified Problem: Data and analysis for conditions at the time of the EAR for every element was between two to six years old; did not represent conditions at the time of the EAR (February 1998). [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)2.a. through e., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City needs to update data in the EAR, so as to reflect conditions in the City subsequent to 1994. 2. Identified Problem: The City's analysis of whether Comprehensive Plan adopted objectives were achieved, utilizing measurable targets, was incomplete. In the subsequent "Specific Comments" section of this report, the relevant insufficient objectives are identified by type. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3 and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.a., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the Comprehensive Plan adopted objectives to determine to what degree they were achieved and what actions should be taken to remedy identified Comprehensive Plan deficiencies. 3. Identified Problem: In the EAR section recommending what changes should be done to the Comprehensive Plan through the EAR-based amendment process, the City did not include remedies to the deficiencies identified in the analysis of whether Comprehensive Plan adopted objectives were achieved. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3 and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.a., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Subsequent to a more comprehensive analysis the Comprehensive Plan adopted objectives, the City's EAR-based amendment should be changed to include remedies to the deficiencies identified in this analysis. II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS Future Land Use Element 1. Identified Problem: In the summary condition of every element at the time of the EAR, the City has provided information which was between two and six years old as of the February 1998 EAR adoption date. The analysis of the Mass Transit Element at the time of the EAR makes no reference to the free electric shuttle program which was initiated by the City in January of 1998, after a year long delay. With knowledge of this program dating back to at least early 1997, the Department believes it should have been included in 1 the EAR analysis. All of the other elements have similar information gaps. The following elements as reviewed in the Conditions at the Time of the Report section of the EAR utilized data which was no more current than 1994; Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Infrastructure, Conservation and Coastal Management and Capital Improvements. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)2.a. through e., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should obtain data collected no earlier than 1996 to complete the above mentioned sections of the Conditions at the Time of the Report section of its EAR. The Department believes in a high profile dynamic community, like Miami Beach, it is imperative to have current data when producing an EAR. 2. Identified Problem: The City's analysis of whether Comprehensive Plan Adopted objectives were achieved, utilizing measurable targets, was incomplete. Because they lack data provided from other elements of the EAR, defer to the LDRs, do not cite quantitative data, or rely on information which was more than three years old, the following objectives were not sufficiently analyzed in this section of the EAR: FUTURE LAND USE - Objectives 1, 3 & 4 INFRASTRUCTURE - Objectives 1, 6 & 7 HOUSING - Objectives 1, 5 & 4 TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION - Objectives 2,3 & 4 MASS TRANSIT - Objective 5 RECREATION - Objectives 1 & 4 CONSERVATION/COASTAL - Objectives 1, 6, 7, 10 & 11 An example of an objective analysis which is lacking data was Infrastructure Element Objective 6. Objective 6 - Cooperate with W ASAD, to develop and implement, by 1993, a comprehensive water conservation program to insure that a sufficient, economical supply of fresh water is available to meet current and future demand for potable water. The analysis indicates this objective is measurable through its implementing policies. The six policies are then summarized. However it is never stated if the programs in these policies were implemented. The data pertaining to what the City did to fulfill this objective is missing from the analysis. The analysis never states if this objective was achieved. 2 A good example of an achievement analysis can be found in Housing Objective 2. Objective 2 - In order to have available additional housing suitable for families, increase the total number of housing units with three or more bedrooms to a minimum of5,000 by the year 1993 and maintain at least that amount to the year 2,000. The evaluation of this objective states 13 residential projects have been built in the City since 1990. The analysis states a total number of 582 three bedroom units were created by these developments. This information, added to the statement 5,000 to 8,000 housing units with three or more bedrooms existed in a 1990 study, clearly indicates the objective was fulfilled. Another example of an inadequate objective analysis is Future Land Use Objective 2, which states: Future land development regulations shall be adopted which are consistent with s.163.3202, F.S. and with the future Land Use Map, consistent with sound planning principles, minimal natural limitations, the goals, objectives and policies contained within this plan, and the desired community character, and which shall emphasize innovative land development techniques, such as mixed use development. The analysis of this objective fails to discuss whether the lack of mixed use controls (i.e., percentage mix of uses) hindered achievement of the objective. Finally, the City's analysis of whether the following Comprehensive Plan Adopted objectives were achieved, as measured against the Concurrency Management System, was incomplete. FUTURE LAND USE - Objective 5 CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENTS - Objectives 2, 7 & 9 INFRASTRUCTURE - Objective 2 TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION - Objective 1 CONSERVATION/COASTAL - Objective 12 An example of an inadequate objective analysis is Future Land Use Objective 5, which states: 3 All development orders and permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet the level of service standards (which are adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this plan), including suitable land for utility services to support proposed development, are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. The evaluation of this objective does not include an analysis of how the City implements concurrency and if there were any development orders or permits which were denied because concurrency was not met in the application process (Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(d), F.A.C.). The evaluation does not address whether additional flexibility is needed to demonstrate concurrency (i.e., whether an improvement is scheduled in the first three years ofFDOT's Plan). An example of an inadequate objective analysis is Capital Improvements Objective 7, which states: Starting January 1, 1990, no new development, except those for which a building permit was issued by the City prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting the Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan, shall begin construction unless the public facilities needed to support the development are at the permitted level of service standards adopted in the plan and land use decisions will be coordinated with available or projected fiscal resources with a C.I.P. schedule. The evaluation of this objective does not include an analysis of whether any development orders or permits were denied because the City could not demonstrate LOS would be achieved or maintained for the applicable area because the Capital Improvements Plan was not financially feasible (Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(b), F.A.C.). Yet another example of an inadequate objective analysis is Traffic Circulation Objective which states: To require that roadways within the City operate at acceptable levels of service by 1990. The evaluation of this objective states the best available data to analyze its success is from studies done in 1991 and 1994. This evaluation does not indicate the adopted La S for all roads are readily available utilizing the CMS. There is no mention of these LOS being maintained and the existence ofa monitoring system (Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(a)&(c), F.A.C.) as provided for in the CMS. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3 and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.a., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should reevaluate, to determine if they were achieved, all of the above mentioned objectives. In addition, any deficiencies identified in this analysis 4 should be corrected as changes to the Comprehensive Plan through the EAR-based amendment process. 3. Identified Problem: In the following elements, Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Mass Transit and Capital Improvements information from the conditions at the time of adoption was missing from the EAR. For conditions at the time of the EAR, the Future Land Use and Mass Transit elements were missing the following information: Future Land Use · A map which showed land-based natural resources · Adjacent land uses in City of Sunny Isles, on the FLUM · An updated vacant land use analysis (used old analysis from 1989) · An analysis of any hazard mitigation reports; the report does indicate the need for minimum first floor grade heights and general downzoning Mass Transit · Depiction of right-of-ways on the Mass Transit Map · The existing LOS and system needs based on the number of vehicles [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)1. & 2.a. through e., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should fill in the missing information, especially the vacant land and hazard mitigation report analysis which was missing from the conditions at the time of the EAR section of the Future Land Use Element. 4. Identified Problem: Although the data and analysis has some general information about major problems of development, physical deterioration, the social and economic effects of these problems and unanticipated and unforseen problems and opportunities, the EAR does not contain a formal section devoted to these types of occurrences. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)7., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should create a specific section in its EAR to evaluate major problems of development, physical deterioration, the social and economic effects of these problems and unanticipated and unforseen problems and opportunities for each element. 5. Identified Problem: The proposed EAR did not include an assessment of the effect of all statutory and rule changes on the Future Land Use Element. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)6.c. and d.;(6)(a)7.b. and (6)(a)8.a., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should provide an assessment of the effects of the public school siting statutory change on the Future Land Use Element. Statutory change Chapter 5 163.3177(6)(a), F.S. states the Future Land Use Element must clearly identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. This statutory requirement can be addressed in the City's EAR-based amendment process. Housing Element 1. Identified Problem: The City has not provided data and analysis in the EAR, based on Shimberg data, which will demonstrate their need for affordable housing in EAR-based amendments. [Rule 9J-5.010(1)(a)&(c) & 9J-5.010(2)(b), F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City's EAR should provide data and analysis, based on Shimberg data, which demonstrates their need for affordable housing. They should use this data and analysis as a basis for an EAR-based amendment objective to address the City's affordable housing needs. Capital Improvements Element 1. Identified Problem: The eIP included in the EAR is only a one year plan. This is again due to the lack of current data. [Rule 9J-5.016(4)(a)1., F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should submit, in its EAR-based amendment, a CIP which consists of the first five years after the adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. In the Case of the City of Miami Beach, a five year plan should consist of 1999/2000 through 2004/2005. EAR-Based Amendments 1. Identified Problem: The Recommended Goal, Objective and Policy (Gaps) Revisions section of the EAR is not adequate because of the earlier identified deficiency regarding analysis of whether the adopted objectives were achieved. The recommended GOPs revisions to be include in EAR-based amendments need to be based on the adopted objectives analysis. [Rule 9J-5.0053(6)(a)3 and 9J-5.0053(6)(a)8.a., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Subsequent to a complete analysis of whether the adopted objectives were achieved, the City should reevaluate the proposed EAR-based amendment based on this analysis. If there were identified deficiencies, the means to remedy them should be incorporated into the EAR-based amendment. 6 0,') ~/ ~ s'Y~h OF DEPARTMENT OF (' ( FLORIDA COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT LAWTON CHILES JAMES F. MURLEY Secretary Governor / September 17, 1998 The Honorable Neisen Kasdin Mayor, City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Dear Mayor Kasdin: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Miami Beach (DCA No. 98-1ER), which was submitted on July 8, 1998. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to the appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.0 10, Florida Administrative Code, for Amendment 98-1ER. The issues identified in this Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report relate to hurricane evacuation, the new Transportation Element, the concurrency management system, mixed use developments, public school siting, affordable housing, and capital improvements. It is very important that the adopted plan amendment address these issues and all of the objections in the Department's ORC Report. I hope that you view these issues as constructive and will consider having your planning staff contact our plan reviewers to discuss possible solutions. This letter and the enclosed external agency comments are being issued pursuant to Rule 9J-ll.0 10, Florida Administrative Code. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. 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, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-11.011, F.A.C. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, the City must submit the following to the Department: 2555 SHUMARD OAK FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL ST ATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, SOUTII FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE P,O, Box 4022 8600 NW, 36lh Street Miami, Florida 33159-4022 FLORIDA 32399-2100 GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE 155 East Summerlin Bartow, r10rida 33830-4641 The Honorable Neisen Kasdin September 17, 1998 Page Two Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A copy of the adoption ordinance; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of finding by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the 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-l1.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council. If you have any questions, please contact Ken Metcalf, Community Program Administrator, or Paul DiGiuseppe, Planning Manager, at (850) 487-4545. Sincerely, I 1 OJ/I, (.), ()//;' J~-- kLry..".;f!... rv\ } ,/t..-i~' I ~ ..:,/!... 1. Thomas Beck, Chief v Bureau of Local Planning / I / JTB/pd Enclosure cc: Dean Grand, City of Miami Beach Richard Lorber, City of Miami Beach Carolyn Dekle, South Florida Regional Planning Council Bob Usherson, Miami-Dade County DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH Amendment 98-1 ER September 17, 1998 Division of Community Planning Bureau of Local Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department of Community Affairs' (Department) review of City of Miami proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some ofthese objections may have initially been raised 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. Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected 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 local government considers not 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 on the non-applicability of the requirement, and ifthe justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a 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 and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS for CITY OF MIAMI BEACH PROPOSED AMENDMENT 98-1ER General Objection 1. Obiection: The proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments are not based on a sufficient EAR which fully analyzes objectives to determine if EAR-based amendments are needed. By not having adequately analyzed objectives, the City cannot adequately determine if additional changes beyond those proposed are necessary. [Section 163.3191(6)(b), Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule 9J-5.0053(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)] Recommendation: The City should address the EAR sufficiency issues as identified in the Department's September 15, 1998 letter prior to completing the issues identified in this report. Upon receiving a determination of "sufficient" by the Department, the City should examine the findings in the EAR to determine if any additional revisions to the comprehensive plan are necessary in order to implement the findings of the EAR. 2. Obiection: The proposed EAR-based amendments are not based on a sufficient EAR which fully analyzes objectives to determine if EAR-based amendments are needed as related to concurrency. The Department's review of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) reveals the EAR does not analyze the need for additional flexibility regarding implementation of traffic concurrency. As part of the EAR review, the Department is recommending that the City provide an analysis of how well the concurrency program has functioned. This analysis should identify the need for changes to the CMS to incorporate the flexibility under Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(c)2.a. and b., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). [Section 163.3191(6)(b), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.0053(5)(a); and Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(c)2.a. and b., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Subsequent to the City completing the EAR assessment, the City should revise FLUE Policy 5.2.1(C)(1) to state that a development order may be issued subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. The policy should state that the schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the FDOT five- year work program. In addition, the policy should include an amendment to the CIE which states that a plan amendment is required in order to eliminate, defer, or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted LOS and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. Finally, the City should include a policy within the CIE which includes the estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. 1 3. Obiection: The proposed EAR-based amendments are not based on a sufficient EAR which fully analyzes objectives to determine if EAR-based amendments are needed as related to concurrency. The Department's review of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) reveals the EAR does not indicate if permits have been denied due to a lack of capacity. As part of the EAR review, the Department is recommending that the City provide an analysis whether the City has maintained LOS. As such, the Concurrency Management System does not contain any provisions requiring that the Capital Improvements Element set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the adopted LOS will be achieved and maintained. [Section 163.3191(6)(b), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.0053(5)(a); and Rule 9J-5.0055(1)(b), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Upon completion of this analysis, the City should revise the amendment to include provisions requiring that the Capital Improvements Element set forth a financially feasible plan which demonstrates that the adopted LOS will be achieved and maintained. 4. Obiection: The proposed EAR-based amendments are not based on a sufficient EAR which fully analyzes objectives to determine if EAR-based amendments are needed as related to mixed- use developments. The EAR did not include an analysis of mixed use developments such as how successful the City is at promoting mixed use development. As such, the plan does not include the percentage distribution among the mix of uses and the density and intensity of each use. [Section 163.3177(6)(a) and Section 163.3191(6)(b)F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0053(5)(a) and Rule 9J- 5.006(4)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Subsequent to the analysis, the City should revise these categories to include the percentage distribution among the mix of uses and the density and intensity of each use. Transportation Element 1. Obiection: No data and analysis, including preparation ofthe Existing and Future Transportation Map, were provided which meets the requirements of Rule 9J-5.019(2);(3); and (5). In addition, as no data and analysis were provided, none of the goals, objectives, and policies are supported by data and analysis. [Section 163.3177(6)0) and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.019(2); (3); (4); and (5)] Recommendation: Include the data and analysis requirements pursuant to Rule 9J-5.019(2); (3); and (5). Upon completion ofthe data and analysis, revise the goals, objectives, and policies as determined by the findings of the data and analysis. The goals, objectives, and policies must be based upon the data and analysis contained in the amendment. According to the Florida Department of Transportation and the City, the City is currently preparing a Municipal Mobility Plan. Data, analysis, and recommendations from the Municipal Mobility Plan should be included within the appropriate sections of the Transportation Element. If the Municipal Mobility Plan will not be available prior to the adoption of the Transportation Element, the City should commit to updating the Transportation Element to include the findings and recommendations of the Municipal Mobility Plan. 2 As the Transportation Element does not meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.019, F.A.C., the City should defer adoption of the Transportation Element until coordination occurs with the Miami-Dade County MPO and Miami-Dade County. The City should establish a schedule which will allow the City to complete all of the data and analysis requirements and adopt all of the goals, objectives, and policies requirements. The latest point by which the City should complete the element is by the first amendment cycle of 1999. 2. Obiection: This element is organized such that the City is combining the traffic circulation, mass transit, and other elements that were formerly part of the plan. The element is not presented in a manner which examines a complete transportation system, but rather is listed by sub-components. In addition, the element references Rule 9J-5.007, .008, and .009 which have been repealed from Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and were replaced by Rule 9J-5.019, F.A.C. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.019(1) through (5), F.A.C.] Recommendation: The element must be revised such that the data and analysis as well as the goals, objectives, and policies are based on the complete transportation system and not the sub- components. 3. Obiection: The element does contain roadway levels of service but does not contain a level of service standard for mass transit [Rule [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and 9J-5.019(4)(c)1., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Include a level of service standard for mass transit. 4. Obiection: While Objective 1 addresses a safe and convenient multimodal transportation system, there is no objective which addresses multimodal energy efficiency nor are there any policies which promote energy efficiency. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and 9J-5.019(4)(b)l, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Objective 1 to include a measurable standard for achieving energy efficiency (such as reducing vehicle miles traveled) and establish policies which will promote energy efficiency travel. 5. Obiection: Objective 4, which coordinates the traffic circulation system with the future land use map (FLUM) by providing that the traffic circulation system meet the adopted LOS, does not coordinate the transportation system with the future land use map to ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve those areas. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Objective 4 to indicate that the transportation system will be coordinated with the City's FLUM such that existing and proposed residential populations and non-residential areas will adequately be served by the transportation system. This objective must 3 be based on the analysis findings which will determine where land uses are compatible or incompatible with the transportation system. 6. Obiection: The amendment does not contain an objective which includes coordinating the transportation system with the plans and programs of the Florida Department of Transportation's Adopted Work Program. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)3., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the amendment to include an objective indicating how the City will coordinate the transportation system with FDOT's Adopted Work Program. 7. Obiection: While the amendment refers to the Miami-Dade Transit Authority mass transit system, the amendments never acknowledge the City-owned Elective Wave bus or any other City transit services. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.019(2)(a)2.a, b, and c, F.A.C.] Recommendation: As the City controls the Electric Wave, the Electric Wave along with any other City transit services, should be identified in data and analysis as well as the goals, objectives, and policies. 8. Obiection: While Objectives 8 and 9 address the provision of transit services based upon major trip attractors and generators and the transportation disadvantaged, there are no objectives which address the provision of transit services based upon safe and convenient public transit terminals and land uses. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)4, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Provide an objective which identifies how the City will locate transit services such that they are safe and convenient to the transit users and how the transit services will be located in areas in which the FLUM will support the transit services. 9. Obiection: The amendment does not contain the following policies as required in Rule 9J- 5.019, F.A.C.: Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c)9, 11, 12, and 13. [Section 163.3177(6)0), F.S. and Rule 9J- 5.019(4)(c)9, 11, 12, and 13, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Provide policies which meet the provisions of Rule 9J-5.019(4)(c) 9, 11, 12, and 13, F.A.C. Future Land Use 1. Obiection: The amendment does not include the public school siting analysis. While the City has land use categories that provide for public schools, no analysis was provided which demonstrates that sufficient land proximate to residential development will meet the projected needs for schools in coordination with the Miami-Dade County Public School Board. The analysis must include lands contiguous to existing school sites within the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. In addition, the City must include criteria which encourages the location of schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent possible and 4 shall require that the City seek to collocate public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers, with schools to the extent possible. The City is required to comply with the latter provision by October 1, 1999. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S., if the City does not comply with this requirement, the City will not be able to amend its comprehensive plan. [Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.] Recommendation: Complete the public school siting analysis. Provide an analysis which demonstrates that sufficient land proximate to residential development will meet the projected needs for schools in coordination with the Miami-Dade County Public School Board. The analysis must include lands contiguous to existing school sites within the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use. In addition, the City must include criteria which encourages the location of schools proximate to urban residential areas to the extent possible and shall require that the City seek to collocate public facilities, such as parks, libraries, and community centers, with schools to the extent possible. Housing 1) Obiection: The City has not included an affordable housing needs assessment which projects the present and future needs of the City's very-low, low, and moderate income households. The Shimberg Center released the study for Miami-Dade County in November 1996 which is available for the City's use. In addition, Housing Objective 3, which states that the City will have a minimum of 16,000 affordable housing units through 2010, is not supported by data and analysis which demonstrates that the City's affordable housing need will be met. [Section 163.3177(6)(f) and (f)1.d., F.S. and Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a); 9J-5.010(2)(b); (3)(b)1., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Include an affordable housing assessment, such as the Shimberg Study, to show current and projected affordable housing demands. Upon inclusion ofthe affordable housing assessment, the City may need to revise Housing Objective 3 to address the findings of the housing assessment. Conservation/Coastal Management Element 1. Obiection: Objective 4, which states that the existing time period required to complete the evacuation of people from Miami Beach prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds shall be maintained through 2010, is not measurable because the objective does not include an evacuation time. [Section 163.3177(6)(g)8, F.S. and Rule 9J-5.003(86) and 9J-5.012(3)(b)7, F.A.C.] Recommendation: The City should revise Objective 4 to include those evacuation times identified on page VII -15 of the EAR. 5 Capital Improvements 1. Obiection: While the City has included a new Capital Improvements Schedule (CIS) which includes all of the required revenue and expenditure projections, Year 1 of the CIS does not begin one year after the adoption of this amendment. The City's CIS begins with 1993/94 and ends in 1999/2000. Thus, the CIS is not a five year schedule. [Section 163.3177(3)(a)I., F.S. and Rule 9J-5.016(4)(a)1., F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the schedule such that Year 1 is the year following the adoption of this amendment. For example, if the amendment is adopted during the 1998/99 fiscal year, Year 1 of the CIS should be 1999/2000. The City must then project the revenues and expenditures for the next 5 fiscal years. 2. Obiection: The CIS does not include the specific revenue and expenditure projection for each facility. The CIS contains general descriptions of the improvements such as "Governmental Services" but does not include specific descriptions and the general locations for each type of capital expense such as a specific sewer project. [[Section 163.3177(3)(a)2, F.S. and Rule 9J- 5.016(4)(a)1.a. and 2., F.A.C.] Recommendation: For each facility, the City should include the revenue and expenditure projection as well as the general description of the improvement. Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan The above cited amendments do not further and are not consistent with the following goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (Rule 9J-5.021 and 9J-l1.006(3), F.A.C.): a. Chapter 187.201(5)(b)3 (Housing) b. Chapter 187.201(12)(b)l, 3, and 4 (Energy) c. Chapter 187.201(16)(b)l, 3, and 7 (Land Use) d. Chapter 187.201(18)(b)5, 6, and 7 (Public Facilities) e. Chapter 187.201(20)(b)2, 3, 8, 9,10, 13, and 15 (Transportation) Recommendation Revise the above cited amendments as recommended for the objections raised above.