Item N5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
Bulk Item: Yes
August 20, 2003
No X
Division: Growth Management
Department: N/A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution stating Monroe County's intention to challenge
amendments to the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan that will allow the widening of Krome
A venue and to authorize the filing of appropriate pleadings or briefs to support that challenge.
ITEM BACKGROUND: As a follow-up to the BOCC's request, the staff has reviewed the amendments adopted
by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners to the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan
that would authorize the widening of Krome A venue to four lanes. These amendments, which were adopted by that
County, had been revised based on comments from DCA and DCA had issued a notice of intent to fmd these a
revised amendments in compliance. A petition to challenge this finding was submitted by Attorney Richard Grosso
on behalf of the Sierra Club and Mr. John Wade.
After reviewing the documentation provided by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the staff prepared the
enclosed report. The staff report concludes that: (1) four-Ianing of Krome Avenue will significantly increase
pressures for the intensive development of the Krome Avenue corridor outside the Urban Development Boundary;
and (2) restrictions in the amendment language to make land use changes more difficult are inadequate properly
manage these development pressures that will arise from the widening. The staff believes that increased
development in the Krome A venue corridor will directly and indirectly negatively impact Monroe County with:
increased stormwater pollution loadings to Florida Bay and the Everglades; increased potential for encroachment of
development on County well fields for drinking water; and increased numbers of day and weekend-trippers to
Monroe County, particularly within the Upper and Middle Keys overwhelming the capacity of the County's
infrastructure and services. The staff is of the further opinion that the widening will not significantly improve the
Level of Service in the Krome A venue corridor and will not improve hurricane evacuation over the long run.
The staff recommends that the Board approved the attached resolution which: 1) makes a fmding that the proposed
amendments will lead to negative impacts on Monroe County and the water quality of Florida Bay and are not "in
compliance" with criteria in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes, as enumerated in the petition filed with the State
Department of Administrative Hearings, by the Sierra Club and Mr. Wade; and 2) instructs staff to direct the
Growth Management Litigation Counsel to file appropriate pleadings and briefs to support the challenge.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: N/A
CONTRACTIAGREEMENTCHANGES: NM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
N/A
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING:Yes_
No X AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A YEAR
APPROVED BY: County Attorney
X
Risk Management N/ A
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION: Included _X_
Not Required _
AGENDA ITEM #:
/V~
DISPOSITION:
County of Monroe
Growth Manal!ement Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 400
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board orCountv Commissioners
Mayor Dixie Spehar, Dist 1
Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, Dist. 5
Comm. Charles "Sonny McCoy, Dist. 3
Comm. George Neugent, Dist. 2
Comm. David P. Rice, Dist. 4
TO:
Timothy J. McGarry, AICP, Director, Growth Management Division
K. Marlene Conaway, Director, Planning and Environmental Resources Departm~
Jose Papa, AICP, Bicycle-Pedestrian Planner (
Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment
VIA:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
July 28, 2003
Issue:
The Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed their planning staff to initiate an amendment
to the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) to include the widening of Krome
Avenue. This action was in response to concerns about the safety of Krome Avenue as a two-lane roadway.
Background:
On October 10, 2002, Miami-Dade County adopted the following amendments to the Miami-Dade County
Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP):
Land Use Element
· Change the CDMP designation of Krome Avenue (SR 997/SW I 77th Avenue) between US-27 and SW 296th
Street on the Future Land Use Map from Minor Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes)
After the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued concern over the proposed amendment, Miami-Dade
County added the following comprehensive plan policies:
· Policy 3F (abridged) Any rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment that penn its any use other than
direct agricultural production and pennitted residential uses in areas outside of the Urban Development
Boundary (UOB) and within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portion of Krome A venue affected by
this plan amendment shall require approval by not less than five members of the affected Community
Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the County Commissioners (A two-thirds vote is nine (9)
members of the 13 member BOCC). Amendments to allow additional uses within the one mile distance
from Krome Avenue requires approval of not less than two-thirds of County Commission.
· Policy 3G (abridged) Any rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment that penn its any use other than
limestone quarrying, seasonal agriculture or pennitted residential use in area designated as Open Land on
land that is outside of the UDB and within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portion of Krome
Avenue affected by this plan amendment shall require approval by not less than five members of the
affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the County Commissioners. Amendments to
allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue requires approval of not less than
two-thirds of County Commission.
· Policy 3H (abridged) Any rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment that pennits any use other than
seasonal agricultural use in the Dade-Broward Levee Basin or pennitted residential use in area
designated as Environmental Protection, on land that is outside of the UDB and within one mile of the
right-of-way line of any portion of Krome Avenue affected by this plan amendment shall require approval
by not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the
County Commissioners. Amendments to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome
A venue requires approval of not less than two-thirds of County Commission.
Transportation Element. Traffic Circulation Subelement
· Change the Plan designation of Krome Avenue on the "Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network" from 2-
lanes to 4-lanes.
· New policy 4E (abridged) Notwithstanding these amendments, no construction associated with the four-
laning, or other capacity improvement, of Krome A venue outside of the UDB can occur until the BOCC
has adopted a detailed binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor.
· Add Krome Avenue between US-l and US 27 to "Designated Evacuation Routes 2015", as a Major Route.
At the December 2, 2002 South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) meeting, the SFRPC voted to support
Planning Council staff's recommendation and find that the plan amendments are generally inconsistent with the
Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP).
Planning Council staff highlights the following Goals and Policies in finding the amendment inconsistent with the
SRPP.
Strategic Regional Goals:
2.1 Achieve long-tenn efficient and sustainable development patterns by guiding new development and
redevelopment with the region to areas which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas (I)
which are least exposed to coastal stonn surges; (2) where negative impacts on the natural environment will be
minimal; and (3) where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an aggregate basis,
can be provided most economically.
2.2 Revitalize deteriorating urban areas.
Regional Policies:
2.1.4 Direct development away from environmentally sensitive lands, as defined In Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code.
2.1.10 Local governments should provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses and assess the impacts of
land uses on the surrounding environment in comprehensive plans and development regulations.
2.1.14 Local governments should preserve and protect economically viable agricultural activities in the region
consistent with a careful balancing of the competing, long-tenn needs of natural systems and the expanding
urban community.
20f5
2.2.1 Give pnonty to development in areas that are blighted, characterized by underdevelopment or
underemployment and are in need of redevelopment; among these, secondary priority should be given to
areas within which adequate infrastructure and support services are either programmed or available.
"Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service and Safety Analysis"
After the initial recommendation by County staff, the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) in August
2002 issued "Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service and Safety Analysis". A summary of the findings
include the following:
· Krome Avenue operates below the adopted CDMP LOS standard ofB between US-27 and SW 184th St.
· Between 1995-2001, Krome Avenue between SW 8th St. and SW 296 St. showed an increase in traffic volume
ranging from 61 to 127 percent. The segment between SW 8th St. and US 27 showed a 30% increase.
· Accidents have increased by 100% from 122 in 1995 to 256 in 2000.
· Between 1995 and first six months of 2002 there have been 59 fatalities.
· Approximately 44% of all fatalities occurred between SW 8th St. and US 27. Nearly 35% between SW 88th St.
and SW 184th St.
· There will be no significant improvement in the projected Year 2015 LOS between a 2-lane and 4-lane Krome
A venue.
· There will be no significant improvement in the projected Year 2015 LOS on the roadway network in the
Krome Avenue corridor. Only two (2) segments show a slight improvement with one (1) segment showing a
decrease in LOS.
Impacts on Monroe County and Environment.
The potential development of Krome Avenue as a four-lane facility will inevitably lead to an increase in
development activities along the Krome A venue corridor and outside of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB).
The policies adopted as part of the "Krome A venue amendment package"; intended to guard against urban sprawl
and to limit the types of uses along the Krome A venue corridor; are inadequate and in the long run may prove to be
an incentive for sprawl. As the policies read, only lands that are outside of the UDB and within 1 mile of the
Krome Avenue right-of-way (ROW) will require approval from two-thirds of the County Commission for zoning
or comprehensive plan approval. Therefore, lands that are outside of the UDB and beyond 1 mile of the Krome
A venue ROW will not be covered by the adopted policies.
A two-thirds vote of approval from the County Commission (nine (9) votes on the 13 member BOCC), although
more difficult than a majority vote, will probably not serve as a real disincentive for development in the Krome
A venue area. Limits and controls on infrastructure development outside of the Urban Development Boundary
serve as better deterrents for limiting development.
As a result of the increased development in the Krome Avenue area, the following impacts can be expected:
Deterioration of Water Quality. Impacts from increased commercial and residential activities such as run-off
from motor vehicles, fertilizers from lawns, reduction in pervious areas for stonnwater treatment and increased
wastewater output will result in deterioration of water quality in Florida Bay, the Everglades, and overall in the
South Florida watershed.
Monroe County depends on healthy waters to fuel its economic engine of tourism. A 2000 study by the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that the economic impacts of visitor spending in the Florida
Keys total approximately $1.35 billion in sales and $611 million in income which supported 33,188 full- and part-
time jobs.
30f5
Furthennore, Monroe County's drinking water comes from wellfields that are affected by development activities in
the Krome Avenue corridor.
Another issue to consider is the on-going South Miami-Dade Watershed Study; this study will review and analyze
the impacts of development on Biscayne Bay. Any study to analyze the increase in number of lanes on Krome
Avenue should wait until after the completion of this study, which is scheduled for completion by July 2005.
Natural Disaster or Emergency Evacuation. In the short run a four-lane facility could improve evacuation time
in case of a natural disaster or emergency. However, with the increase in residential and commercial development
into the Krome Avenue area, the number of persons who would use the facility to evacuate would also increase. In
the long run, a four-lane Krome Avenue would not improve evacuation times.
Increase in Impacts from Day/Weekend Visitors. Another impact from an increase in population in the Krome
A venue area will be the potential increase in day or weekend visitors to the Florida Keys. Day visitors swell the
population of Monroe County to a number that typically overwhelms the County's road infrastructure, at various
times during the weekend, US-I is congested with bumper to bumper traffic for miles.
In addition to impacts on infrastructure, day visitors have a significant effect on various agencies' ability to provide
emergency and law enforcement services. The population increase from day visitors increase the number of calls
for emergency services (police and fire/rescue). This increase in calls stretches the responding agencies' resources
and as a result affects the emergency service provider's response time. In addition to emergency services, the
enforcement of laws (environmental and civil) are compromised when the population that they must monitor and
regulate extends enforcement agencies' resources.
Day visitors also affect the environmental health of the Florida Keys judging by the amount of litter and garbage
left along the road rights-of-way, and along the fishing piers and bridges after a typical weekend.
Need for a four-lane Krome Avenue.
Level of Service. As stated in the FOOT report Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service and Safety Analysis,
dated August 2002, a four-lane Krome A venue will not significantly improve the Year 2015 LOS for Krome
Avenue. On the contrary, the four-lane facility will lead to decrease of LOS along roadway segments in the Krome
Avenue corridor {North Kendall Drive (SW 88th St.) from SW I 67th Ave. to SW I 52nd Ave). Only two segments in
the Krome Avenue Corridor, SW 1471h Ave. from SW 1 841h St. to SW 200lh St. and SW 296th St. from SW 167th
Ave. to US-I, will see a slight LOS improvement from F to E.
Safety. A more in-depth study of accidents along Krome Avenue is needed before making a decision on whether a
four-lane facility is a safer alternative. Analysis of various factors such as alcohol-impainnent, road design,
weather, driver error or speed would indicate the type of improvements necessary to address safety. Any redesign
of Krome Avenue would also need to analyze the impact on the safety of pedestrians and non-motorized vehicle
users of the roadway.
Conclusion
There is no evidence to show that the amendment is necessary or improves the quality of life in the region. On the
contrary, a review of the amendment indicates that the amendment will probably lead to an increase in sprawl and
development that will have a detrimental effect on environmental quality. The deterioration of environmental
quality and its economic costs on health and jobs in Monroe County and the South Florida region have not been
adequately addressed.
40f5
Furthermore, no evidence or analysis has been presented that indicates, in the long-term, a four-lane facility will
improve evacuation times, road safety, or level of service on the corridor.
Overall, this amendment is probably premature and inconsistent with preserving or improving the environment and
quality of life for the South Florida region.
50f5
RESOLUTION -2003
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STATING ITS INTENTION TO
CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI-DADE
COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WILL ALLOW
FOR THE WIDENING OF KROME AVENUE AND AUTHORIZE
APPROPRIATE PLEADINGS OR LEGAL BRIEFS TO BE
SUBMmED SUPPORTING THE CHALLENGE
WHEREAS, Miaml-Dade County has adopted amendments to its Comprehenslve
Development Mastel' Plan to change the designation of Krome' Avenue (SR 997/SW 1771b
Avenue) between US-27 and SW 2961h Street on the Future Land Use Map from Minor
Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes); and,
WHEREAS, in response to concerns ralsed by the Florida Department of
C01llmunity Affairs, Miami-Dade County adopted several compreheusive plan policles
intended to only allow changes in land use designations outside of the Utban
Development Boundary within one mile of right-of-way line of any ponion of Krome
Avenue upon a supermajority of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and
two-thirds ofthe County Commission;
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade adopted amendments to the Transportation Element of
its Comprehensive Development Master Plan to change the designation of Krome
Avenue on the "2015 Roadway Network" from two to fOUT lanes, to require no
construction associated with the four-Ianing until the County Connnission adopts a
detailed binding access control plan, and, to add Krome Avenue between US-l and US-
27 as a Major Route on its "Designated Evacuation Routes 2015"; and,
WHEREAS, the South Florida Regional Planning Council found the
aforementioned plan anlendments as generally lnconsistent with the Strategic Regional
Policy Plan, panicularly Goal 2.1- "Achieve long-term efficient and sustainable
development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment within the region
to areas which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas (1) which
are least exposed to coastal stonn surges, (2) where negative impacts on the natural
environmental will be minimal, and (3) where public facilities and services already cxist,
are programmed or, on an aggregate basis can be provided most economically"; and,
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs published a Notice of
Intent on December 20, 2002, to find the comprehensive plan amendments "in
compliance" with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the Sierra Club, and Mr. John S. Wade, Jr., a resident of Miami-
Dade County, herein called "the Petitioners", have petitioned the State Department of
Administrative Hearings fOJ' a formal administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.57
C~\DOCUlncDtS and Settin~s\kkc\Local Settings\Tcmporary Internet File~\OLK6\kromcftve-resol.doc
Page I of4
and ) 63.3184(9)(a). Florida Statutes to challenge the Florida Departmellt of Community
Affairs' (DCA) fmding that the subject amendments to the Miami-Dade Comprehensive
Development Master Plan are "in compliance"; and,
WHEREAS, "the Petitioners" allege that the amendments are not in compliance
as defined in section 163.3184 (1), Florida Statutes. because they are inconsistent with
the requirements of sections 163.3177 (elements of comprehensive plan). 163.3178
(coastal management), 163.3180 (concurrency), 163.3191 (evaluation and appraisal of
comprehensive plan). and 163.3245 (sector plans), the state comprehensive plan. strategic
regional plan and with Chapter 9J-~, Florida Administrative Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Growth Management Division staff has
concluded in a staff memorandum prepared for its Director that the amendments
authorizing the four-Ianing will significantly increase pressures for the expansion and
intensification of development of the Krome Avenue corridor outside the established
Urban Development Boundary;
WHEREAS, the amendments to the comprehensive plan to make land use
changes more difficult by requiring approval of such ehanges by more than a majority
vote are inadequate to provide any disincentives to the overwhelming pressure for land
use changes due to the expansion and intensification of development. in the Krome
Avenue corridor that will result from the four-laning of Krome Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, even with these "disincentives", the geographic scope of these
restrictions on approval requirements for land use changes is limited only to those lands
outside of the Urban Development Boundary within one-mile of thc Krome Avenue
right.of-way, which only provides further incentives for sprawl; and.
WHEREAS, the increased expansion and intensification of development within
the Krome Avenue corridor will have direct and indirect negative in1pacts on Monroe
County with: (1) increased stonnwater pollution loading into Florida Bay and the
Everglades degrading the quality of water sUTTolUlding the Florida Keys which is vital for
sustaining critical marine habitat and the conunercial fishing and tourism economy of
Monroe COlmty; (2) incrcased potential for further encroachment development and
impact on the FKAA well fields in Miami-Dade County which are the County's primary
source of drinking water; and (3) increased numbers of day and week-end trippers to
Monroe County, panicularly in the Upper and Middle Keys, further overwhelming the
capacity of the County's infrastructure and services; and,
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff, based on the infonnation
presented by Florida Department of Transportation presented in its report "Krome
Avenue Existing Level of Service and Safety Analysis", find that the four laning of
Krome Avenue will not significantly improve the Level of Service in the Krome Avenue
corridor and will not result in any improved hurricane evacuation over the long lUn as the
widening will induce further development in the corridor and;
C:\Docwncnts ilnd Seuings\1clcc\Local Scllings\Tcmporal'Y Intel11et files\OLK6\kromeavc-resol.doc
Page 2 of4
WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff concludes that the
amendments win have a deleterious and negative impact on Monroe County and that the
proposed amendments are not "in compliance" as defined in section 163.3184(1), Florida
Statutes, because of the inconsistencies with sections of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
various policies of the state comprehensive plan and Strategic Regional Policy Plan for
South Florida, and with Chapter 9J-5, as enumerated in the Petition for Administrative
Hearing filed by the "Petitioners"; and,
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners has reviewed
the Growth Management Division staff report and concurs with its conclusions;
NOW THEREFORE~ BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SectioD 1: The comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Miami-Dade COWlty for the
widening of Krome Avenue and managing of land use changes from development
pressures that will result from this widening will have a deleterious and negative impact
on Monroe County's economy, the environment of the Evcfglades and Florida Bay, and
the County's infrastructure and public services for the reasons presented in the
memorandum prepared by the Growth Management Division staff .
SectioD 2: The cOl'Jlprehensivc plan amendments adopted by Miami-Dade County are
not "in compliance" with criteria set forth in section 163.3l84(l), Florida Statutes, as
supported in the challenge filed by "the Petitioners", attached hereto, and made part of
this resolution.
Section 3: The County Administrator is directed to instnlct the Growth Management
Director to have the Division's Litigation Counsel to file appropriate pleadings or briefs
to support the challenge oftlle proposed amendments by "the Petitioners".
[THE REMAINDER Of THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLA.1\lK.)
C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Inrernet Files\OLK6\kromeave-resoLdoc
Page 3 of4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 20rl, day of August, A.D., 2003.
Mayor Dixie Spehar
Mayor Pro T em Murray Nelson
Conlmlssioner Charles "Sonny' McCoy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner David Rice
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor/Chairman
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY KOLHAGE, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
Attachment - Sierra Club, John S. Wade vs. Florida Department of
of Community Affairs and Miami-Dade CO\blty, Florida
C:\Documellts and Scnings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK<i\l.,'omcavc-rcso).doc
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
SIERRA CLUB, & JOHN S. WADE, JR.,
Petitioners,
DCA Docket No.: 02-2-NOI-1301-(A)-(I)
vs.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS, and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA,
Respondents
I
PETITION FOR FORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
1. Petitioners SIERRA CLUB, and JOHN S. WADE, JR., , by and through the
undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to sections 120.57 and 163.3184(9)(a), Florida
Statutes, hereby request a formal administrative hearing to challenge the Florida
Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") finding several amendments to the Miami-Dade
County Comprehensive Growth Management ("Plan") "in compliance". In support thereof,
Petitioners state as follows:
NATURE OF THE CHALLENGED ACTION
2. The Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No.
02-198 on October 10, 2002. The ordinance amends the Land Use Element and the
Transportation Element of the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan to change the designation of Krome Avenue from a "Minor Roadway" (2 lanes) to a
"Major Roadway" (3 or more lanes) and amends the Transportation Element, Traffic
Circulation Subelement "Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network" to change the Krome
1
Avenue designation from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. (Amendment Package 02-02, Amendment
16).
3. Amendment package 02-02 also includes amendments to the FLUE (policies 3F,
3G, and 3H), to require at least five affirmative votes of the zoning appeals board or a two
thirds vote of the County Commission for zoning or amendments to the plan or land use
map which authorize non agricultural uses within 1 mile of Krome Avenue.
4. The amendments also amend Transportation Element Policy 4E to require "binding
access control plan" prior to construction.
5. Petitioners challenge the finding that the above - referenced Amendments are "in
compliance" as defined in section 163.3184( 1 )(b), Fla. Stat.
RECEIPT OF NOTICE
6. DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the challenged Comprehensive Plan
Amendments "in compliance" on December 20,2002. This Petition is filed by Petitioners
within 21 days of publication of the Notice of Intent.
PETITIONERS
7. Petitioners are affected persons pursuant to section 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
8. Petitioner, John S. Wade, Jr. resides in Miami-Dade County at 20925 SW 187
Avenue, Miami, FL 33187.
9. Petitioner, Sierra Club is a not-for-profit environmental organization (corporation).
Sierra Club's address and telephone number are Sierra Club, c/o Alan Farago,
Conservation Chair, 534 Menendez Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146, and (305) 447-
9657. Sierra Club maintains a Florida chapter with over 20,000 members, of which 2,500
participate in the Miami group. In Miami, Sierra Club takes an active interest in the many
elements of South Florida ecosystem restoration as its members highly value the natural
2
wilderness. Its members recreate in and contribute to the local economy of tourism-related
activities connected to the two national parks, Everglades National Park and Biscayne
National Park, and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Sierra Club members
reside, own property, work and recreate in, and support the tax base of, Dade County.
10. Sierra Club has a substantial number of members who reside, own property, or
operate a business in Miami-Dade County and who would have standing to bring this
petition as individuals.
11. The subject matter of this proceeding is within the scope of interest of the Sierra
Club, which has among its primary purposes and goals involvement and advocacy
concerning growth management in Miami-Dade County and the enforcement of the
Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act on behalf of its members. It is among
the primary purposes of the Sierra Club to work to preserve community and natural
resources and quality of life in Miami-Dade County, and to enforce laws designed to further
these goals on behalf of its members and the citizens at large.
12. The relief requested would enforce the applicable law for the benefit of its members
in Miami - Dade County and is appropriate for Sierra Club to receive on behalf of its
members.
13. All Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections
to Miami-Dade County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for
the plan amendment and ending with the adoption of the plan amendment.
RESPONDENTS
14. Respondent DCA is the state land planning agency charged with administering and
enforcing Ch. 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DCA's address is 2555 Shumard Oak
3
Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. DCA's file or identification number for the
challenged amendments is 02-2-NOI-1301-(A)-(I).
15. Respondent Miami-Dade County is a local government responsible for adopting and
maintaining a comprehensive plan that is in compliance with Ch. 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes. Miami-Dade County's address is 111 N. W. 1st Street, Suite 1210, Miami, Florida
33128-1994.
DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW
16. The amendments are not in compliance as defined in section 163.3184 (1), Fla.
Stat., because they are inconsistent with the requirements of ss.163.3177, 163.3178,
163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, the state comprehensive plan, with the appropriate
strategic regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, FAC.,
ULTIMATE ALLEGATIONS
17. The amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2B which requires that priority
in the provision of and allocation of resources for services and facilities be given first to the
area within the urban development boundary (UDB) and that urban services and facilities
which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas be
avoided, with the exception of improvements necessary to protect public health and safety
and which serve the localized needs of the non-urban area.
18. Amendment 16 is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 8F which requires the
County to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all Elements,
other timely issues, and in particular, the extent to which the proposal would enhance or
degrade environmental resources features or systems (e.g., Everglades and wellfields) of
County significance. Widening the proposed section of Krome Avenue will impermissibly
4
promote and encourage urban growth and development within agricultural areas and
adjacent and proximate to the Everglades. The affects of such growth and development
on significant agricultural and environmental resources has not been sufficiently
considered.
19. The amendments are inconsistent with Transportation Element (TE) Policy 4C
which requires roadways to avoid environmental protection designated areas.
20. The amendments are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 38.
21. The amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat and Rule
9J-5.005 (5)(a) and (b), FAC as a result of the inconsistencies alleged above.
22. The Amendments are not supported by data and analysis which demonstrates that
four laning the entire segment of Krome Avenue is necessary to correct public safety or
level of service problems or that the 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan's recommended
improvements (which do not include 4 - laning) are insufficient to address safety issues.
23. The Amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis as required by
Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8), and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), F.A.C.
24. The supporting analysis for the amendment does not demonstrate that the
proposed four lane roadway would serve only the localized needs of the nonurban area,
as required by FLUE Policy 28. Rather, if Krome Avenue were four laned as proposed in
the amendment, the roadway would serve as a regional facility providing access beyond
the local area.
25. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis because it treats the entire
length of the subject roadway the same when the data and analysis demonstrates that,
relative to the issues of public safety and land use impacts, the southern segment of the
5
road is not similarly situated with the northern section.
26. The Amendments are not consistent with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Fla. Stat.,
because they do not provide for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources
in the area.
27. The Amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(6)
because they do not ensure that the County's comprehensive plans will be
implemented in a consistent manner. Sections 163.3161(5), and 163.3194, Fla. Stat.
28. The amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(6) because
the goals, objectives and policies do not establish meaningful and predictable standards
for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
29. The amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat., which
requires specific standards within the plan to guide development decisions.
30. The amendments are inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006 because they
fail to coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil conditions, and
the availability of facilities and services; ensure the protection of natural resources; and
discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
31. The amendments fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, and are thus
inconsistent with Rules 9J-5.006(5)(g)(1 ),(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (13),
and Rules 9J-5.006(5)(h), (i), 0)(6), 0)(18), and 0)(19).
32. The amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d), (f), (i) and 9j5.019(4)
and with
33. The amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(6), FAC because they fail to
establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and
6
fail to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and
use regulations that would prevent the urban sprawl and impacts to agricultural, rural and
environmentally sensitive lands caused by the four-Ianing of Krome Avenue.
34. The amendments are inconsistent with Sections 163.3177(6)(a)-(g), (8) &(10(e),
Fla. Stat.
Inconsistent with Strategic Regional Policv Plan ISRPP)
35. Amendment 16 is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the
South Florida Regional Planning Council as a whole, and directly conflicts specifically
with:
(a) Strategic Regional Goal 2.1 to achieve long-term efficient and sustainable
development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment into those areas
which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas (1) which are least
exposed to coastal storm surges; (2) where negative impacts on the natural environment
will be minimal; and (3) where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed
or, on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically.
(b) Policy 2.1.4 SRPP which requires development to be directed away from
environmentally sensitive areas.
(c) Policy 2.1.10 SRPP in that the amendment fails to provide for the
compatibility of adjacent uses and fails to assess the impacts of land uses on the
surrounding environment.
(d) Policy 2.1.14 SRPP in that the amendment fails to preserve and protect
economically viable agricultural activities in the vicinity of the proposed roadway expansion.
(e) Strategic Regional Goal 2.2 to revitalize deteriorating urban areas.
(f) Policy 2.2.1 SRPP, which requires that priority be given to development in
7
areas that are blighted, characterized by underdevelopment or underemployment and are
in need of redevelopment. Instead, the amendment prioritizes westward expansion outside
of the urban services district.
(g) SRPP Policy 3.9.1, to direct development and uses of land that would be
inconsistent with Everglades restoration away from the Everglades System and adjacent
natural Resources of Regional Significance.
Inconsistent with State Comprehensive Plan
36. The Amendments are inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter
187.201, Fla. Stat., including:
A. Goal 15 (a) (LAND USE); Policy 15 (b)1; Policy 15(b) 6
B. Goal 16 (a) & (b) (URBAN AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION)
C. Goal 17 (a) (PUBLIC FACILITIES); Policy 17 (b) 1
D. Goal 19 (a); Policy 19 (b) 12
E. Goal 22 (a) & (b) (AGRICULTURE)
REQUESTED RELIEF
37. WHEREFORE, Petitioners request:
(a) That DCA forward this Petition to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings;
(b) That a formal administrative hearing be scheduled and conducted by an
Administrative Law Judge;
(c) That the Administrative Law Judge enter a Recommended Order finding that the
Amendments not in compliance;
(d) That DCA make such a determination and forward the matter to the Administration
Commission; and,
8
(e) That the Administration Commission enter a Final Order finding the challenged
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", recommending that the
Amendments not become effective and identifying all sanctions allowed by law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of January 2003.
Richard Grosso, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0592978
Environmental and Land Use Law Center, Inc.
Shepard Broad Law Center
3305 College Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Tel: (954) 262-6140
Fax: (954) 262-3992
Lisa B. Interlandi
Fla. Bar No. 146048
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by US Mail to the Miami-
Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning, 111 N. W. 1st Street, Suite 1210, Miami,
Florida 33128-1994. and to the Office of County Attorney, Miami - Dade County, 111 NW
1st Street, Suite 2810, Miami, Fla. 33128 on this 10th day of January, 2003.
Richard Grosso, Esq.
9