State of Florida says: Don't Move the Urban Development Boundary. By Geniusofdespair

The Miami Herald reported yesterday online that the word from the State of Florida is: Don't move Dade development line. (Hit on image above to enlarge it)

The Miami Herald said:
"The 13-page opinion -- firmly worded within the constraints of legal and bureaucratic language -- is a setback for developers hoping to bring new homes and stores to the county's western reaches. The most visible proposal, a Lowe's at Southwest 138th Avenue and Eighth Street, has drawn jeers from expansion foes but some support from nearby residents who want convenient shopping."

Regarding this "Support" the Herald spoke of: Most of the support presented at the Commission Meeting for this Lowe's application was because the Lowe's store dangled a carrot to the community - besides the store. They were offering to SELL land for a school West of the store. The people wanted the school. The promise of land for a school has as much to do with "Good Planning" as Natacha Seijas has to do with "Good Government." Some neighbors did indeed want only the store. However, Lowes owns at least 11 acres WITHIN the urban development boundary, enough room for a store (Home Depot built a store on 10 acres in North Miami, and isn't one on 8 acres in Coconut Grove?). See my previous post: Greedy Bastards.

More from the DCA opinion:

I. CONSISTENCY WITH CHAPTER 163, F.S., AND RULE 9J-5, F.A.C.
The Department has completed its review of the proposed City of Miami Amendment 08PEFE-1 and has the following objections and comments.

OBJECTION NO. 1: INADEQUATE PLANNING FOR POTABLE WATER SUPPLY
Proposed Amendments 5, 8, and 9 are not supported by adequate planning for potable water supply.
The proposed future land use changes in Amendments/Applications 5, 8, and 9 all increase the potential demand for potable water from the properties involved. All three applications also require that the County’s Urban Development Boundary (UDB) be moved to accommodate the proposed urban uses. According to information provided by the South Florida Water Management District (District) in its report to the Department on Amendment 08-1, the 20-year Consumptive Water Use Permit (CUP) issued by the District to Miami-Dade County in November 2007 was based solely on population projections within the current UDB. The same population projections underlie DCA Table 1 in the settlement agreement between the Department and Miami-Dade County to bring Amendment 06-1 into compliance. DCA Table 1 demonstrates that the County Water and Sewer Department (WASD) will have a sufficient potable water supply to meet the expected demand in its service area out to 2030. The demand estimates were based on population projections for WASD’s service area. The information contained in DCA Table 1 was instrumental in the compliance agreement between the Department and County, because it demonstrated that the potable water demands of ordinary growth would be accommodated by the water to be produced from WASD’s proposed new alternative water supply sources, which were included in the capital facilities schedule in the Miami-Dade County Capital Improvements Element.

The three proposed UDB amendments, however, are located outside the delineated WASD service area, which was the basis of the water demand projections agreed upon between the District and WASD for the CUP and for DCA Table 1. If this potable water service area is expanded to include the three UDB amendments, it would be expected to have a greater potential population and a greater potential water demand than the existing delineated service area used to provide the basis for the CUP. This greater potential water demand must be matched by an additional planned supply of water. The three UDB amendments fail to identify the new water supply source, nor are the amendments supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate they can be provided an adequate water supply based upon current water sources.

The District, in its report to the Department, also points out that until the new Hialeah Floridan Aquifer reverse osmosis facility goes on-line (4.72 million gallons a day scheduled for 2012), the County has limited “new” water to meet its anticipated growth within the UDB and must rely heavily on water conservation and system savings to avoid a deficit. A portion of the water from this plant is already committed to the City of Hialeah as part of the 2006 settlement agreement between the Department and Miami-Dade County (Case No. 06-2395GM). Therefore, data and analysis to document the availability of water to meet the anticipated municipal growth for the next 5 years is essential to ensure adequate water supply before approving land uses outside the UDB that might compete for the same supply. The District also notes—(1) that the requirements of the limiting conditions within the CUP would need to be met prior to providing water supply to any development(s) outside of the current service area; and (2) that any delays in completing the County’s $1.6 billion worth of new water and sewer infrastructure projects will cause a shortfall of water supply with respect to projected growth within the existing UDB.

Recommendations
The County should not adopt the proposed land use changes until it can demonstrate the necessary coordination of land use approvals with an assured supply of potable water. Revise the amendments to demonstrate coordination of the proposed land use changes with the planning and provision of potable water supplies. Identify any needed facility improvements for the 5- and 10-year planning time frame. These improvements should be coordinated with the Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Element and the Capital Improvements Element, including implementation through the 6-year schedule of capital improvements of any facilities needed during that time frame.

OBJECTION NO. 2: 10-YEAR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN
The Department objects to Application 13 because the proposed Water Supply Facilities Work Plan (Work Plan) does not identify and evaluate the potable water utilities serving the unincorporated areas of the County, other than the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department (WASD).

In addition, according to the comments received from the South Florida Water Management District, the County’s 10-year water supply facilities work plan and the associated water supply facility improvements listed in the Capital Improvements Element are not consistent with the projects, programs, and other requirements of the County’s Consumptive Use Permit.
The County has not adopted potable water level of service standards for nonresidential uses such as office, industrial, and mixed-use. Such standards would be helpful in assessing future water supply needs for site-specific non-residential land use amendments.

See the attached report from the South Florida Water Management District for additional information concerning these objections.

Recommendations
Miami-Dade County should revise the Work Plan to include a plan for building water supply facilities, including development and use of alternative and traditional water supply projects and conservation and reuse programs necessary to serve existing and new development for a minimum 10-year period for each potable water utility serving the unincorporated area of the County.

The Work Plan and the CIE should be revised to be consistent with the projects, programs and other requirements of the CUP, as noted in the District's comments.

The County should adopt potable water levels of service standards for non-residential land uses such as office, industrial, and mixed-use.

The County should coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District in preparing its revised Work Plan, in response to the above objections.

OBJECTION NO. 3: INTERNAL INCONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proposed Amendments 5, 8, and 9 are not consistent with the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan. All three applications request a change of the future land use designation on the property to the Business and Office land use designation on the Miami-Dade County Future Land Use Map. Business and Office allows commercial use and residential use.

The Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan contains policy guidance for moving or expanding the UDB, particularly in Land Use Element Policy LU-8F. Policy LU-8F states that the UDB should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (2003) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year countywide supply beyond the date of EAR adoption, out to 2018). Policy LU-8F also addresses the adequacy of non-residential land supplies and states that this shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the countywide supply within the UDB.

According to the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan, therefore, demonstrated or calculated need for additional land designated on the FLUM for residential (or commercial) use is a key criterion for expansion of the UDB. If the current supply of vacant land designated for residential inside the UDB is sufficient until 2018, there is no need to move the boundary line; and, in fact, to move the boundary line in order to allow more residential-designated land would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, barring a demonstration that the supply of residential land inside the UDB will be depleted before 2018.

The Amendment 08-1 package included analyses by the Miami-Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) of the projected demand for and supply of residential (single-family and multi-family) and commercial land out to 2025, the end of the planning period. In performing this calculation, DPZ projects total countywide population and estimates the rate at which the existing vacant residentially designated land within the UDB is being depleted. DPZ calculates the countywide housing depletion date to be 2019, which is more than 15 years from the date of the last Miami-Dade County EAR (2003). Therefore moving the UDB at the present time for a residential FLUM amendment, as represented by Applications 5, 8, and 9, is not consistent with the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan.

According to DPZ’s supply and demand calculations, there is also no need to expand the UDB in order to add new commercial-designated land, as would be permitted in the proposed Business and Office land use designation for Applications 5, 8, and 9. Therefore, moving the UDB at the present time for a commercial FLUM amendment, as represented by Applications 5, 8, and 9, is also not consistent with the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan.

Additional policy guidance on expanding the UDB is contained in Policy LU-8G in the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan regarding what kind of lands should or should not be added to the UDB. Policy LU-8G states that the following areas (among others listed in the policy) shall be avoided: (a) future wetlands delineated in the Conservation and Land Use Elements, and (b) land designated Agriculture on the FLUM.

Regarding Application 5, this site contains wetlands delineated in the Conservation and Land Use Elements of the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan and therefore should be avoided when considering lands to bring within the UDB, pursuant to Policy LU-8G. Regarding Applications 8 and 9, these sites are currently designated for agriculture on the FLUM and therefore should be avoided when considering lands to bring within the UDB, pursuant to Policy LU-8G.

The Department concludes that expanding the UDB to add the properties represented in Applications 5, 8, and 9 would be internally inconsistent with the Miami-Dade County comprehensive plan.

Recommendations
Retain the current land use designations and the current UDB location. Alternatively, provide data and analysis which demonstrates that the proposed land use and text amendments are consistent with Land Use Element Policies LU-8D, LU-8E, LU-8F, and LU-8G and with Chapter 163, F.S., and Rule Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. - snip -