State Committee is GUTTING the Comprehensive Plan. By Geniusofdespair

The State Committee Substitute (CS) is making numerous changes to Florida's Growth Management Act. Here is one really bad change for us with protecting the Urban Development Boundary (UDB):

Section 4 amends s. 163.3167, F.S., to delete the role of the regional planning council in creating new comprehensive plans. The CS deletes the retroactive effect of the section. Under the CS, local governments may not have in place an initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment. The CS prohibits local governments from adopting a super majority voting requirement for the adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan. And, here is some more toxic stuff:

The CS deletes:
the public schools facilities element and most portions of the schools interlocal agreement.
the optional elements of the coastal management element.
the requirement that the intergovernmental coordination element recognize campus master plans and airport master plans.
provisions related to visioning and urban service boundaries.

And:

Section 11 amends s. 163.3180, F.S., to remove requirement that local governments have concurrency for parks and recreation, schools, and transportation facilities. In order for a local government to rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required. An amendment rescinding optional concurrency issues is not subject to state review.

The bill CS/SB 1122 is 37 pages. There is more I have singled out:


Section 1 amends s. 163.3161, F.S., redesignating the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" as the "Community Planning Act". The CS revises the intent and purpose of act. (Does not include the part related to updating the comprehensive plan based on the EAR).

Section 2 revises s. 163.3162, F.S., related to agricultural enclaves to remove references to rule 9J-5.006(5), F.A.C., and to specify plan amendments are presumed not to be urban sprawl as defined in s. 163.3164, F.S.

Section 3 amends s. 163.3164, F.S., to revise and alphabetize the definitions section. A number of definitions are added from ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., including:

capital improvement
compatibility
deepwater ports
floodprone areas
goal
intensity
level of service
objective policy

Affordable housing is revised to include only s. 420.0004(3), F.S., which states that “Affordable” means that monthly rents or monthly mortgage payments including taxes, insurance, and utilities do not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median adjusted gross annual income. This definition is narrower than the definition in ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., which also includes affordable housing definitions that are prescribed by other affordable housing programs administered by either the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or the State of Florida.

The CS creates a new definition of “new town.” Under the CS a new town is an urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban area designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services that demonstrate internal trip capture. A new town shall be based on a master development plan.

Urban sprawl is redefined as a development pattern characterized by low density, automobile- dependent development with either a single use or multiple uses that are not functionally related, requiring the extension of public facilities and services in an inefficient manner, and failing to provide a clear separation between urban and rural uses. This definition is different than the definition currently in ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., which would have discouraged “the premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses” and “[t]he creation of areas of urban development or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities or the use of areas within which public services are currently provided. Urban sprawl is typically manifested in one or more of the following land use or development patterns: Leapfrog or scattered development;

ribbon or strip commercial or other development; or large expanses of predominantly low- intensity, low-density, or single-use development.”
The CS includes the following new definitions:

“Antiquated subdivision” means a subdivision that was recorded or approved more than 20 years ago and that has substantially failed to be built and the continued buildout of the subdivision in accordance with the subdivision’s zoning and land use purposes would cause an imbalance of land uses and would be detrimental to the local and regional economies and environment, hinder current planning practices, and lead to inefficient and fiscally irresponsible development patterns as determined by the respective jurisdiction in which the subdivision is located.
“Internal trip capture” means trips generated by a mixed-use project which travel from one on- site land use to another on-site land use without using the external road network.

“Mobility plan” means an integrated land use and transportation plan that promotes compact, mixed-use, and interconnected development served by a multimodal transportation system that includes roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and, where feasible and appropriate, frequent transit and rail service, to provide individuals with viable transportation options without sole reliance upon a motor vehicle for personal mobility.

“Transit-oriented development” means a project or projects, in areas identified in a local government comprehensive plan, which are or will be served by existing or planned transit service. These designated areas shall be compact, moderate to high density developments, of mixed-use character, interconnected with other land uses, bicycle and pedestrian friendly, and designed to support frequent transit service operating through, collectively or separately, rail, fixed guideway, streetcar, or bus systems on dedicated facilities or available roadway connections.

The CS revises the following existing definitions:
“Urban service area” to mean areas where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, are already in place or are committed in the first 3 years of the capital improvement schedule. Urban service area includes any areas identified in the comprehensive plan as urban service areas, regardless of local government limitation.

The “optional sector plan” (a pilot program, which is expanded in the CS) is changed to “sector plan” means the process authorized by s. 163.3245, F.S., in which one or more local governments engage in long-term planning for a large area and address regional issues through adoption of detailed specific area plans within the planning area as a means of fostering innovative planning and development strategies, furthering the purposes of this part and part I of chapter 380, reducing overlapping data and analysis requirements, protecting regionally significant resources and facilities, and addressing extrajurisdictional impacts. "Sector plan" includes an optional sector plan that was adopted pursuant to the Optional Sector Plan pilot program.

The definition of “financial feasibility” is revised to expand the timeframe that capital improvements must have committed or planned funding sources from 5 to 10 years.
The definition of “dense urban land” area is deleted.

Section 4 amends s. 163.3167, F.S., to delete the role of the regional planning council in creating new comprehensive plans. The CS deletes the retroactive effect of the section. Under the CS, local governments may not have in place an initiative or referendum process in regard to any development order or in regard to any local comprehensive plan amendment or map amendment. The CS prohibits local governments from adopting a super majority voting requirement for the adoption of amendments to the comprehensive plan.

Section 5 creates s. 163.3168, F.S., entitled "planning innovations and technical assistance" to encourage local governments use innovative planning tools. The CS authorizes the state land planning agency and other appropriate state and regional agencies to provide local governments with technical assistance.

Section 6 amends s. 163.3171, F.S., to clarify that joint planning agreements should be broadly construed, that courts have sole jurisdiction to interpret joint planning agreements, and that the validity of a joint planning agreement may not be a basis for finding plan amendments not in compliance.

Section 7 amends subsection (1) of s. 163.3174, F.S., to delete certain notice requirements relating to the establishment of local planning agencies by a governing body.

Section 8 rewrites s. 163.3177, F.S. This CS changes the format of the future land use element provisions to increase readability. The comprehensive plans must still include the local government’s goals and policies. The CS deletes the optional elements of the comprehensive plan, but specifically allows local governments to have optional elements. The comprehensive plan must be justified by professionally accepted data. The plan must accommodate at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the resident and seasonal population projections. Population data gives the minimum amount of land required except in areas of critical state concern.

The CS requires capital improvements to support the incorporation of either concurrency or a mobility plan into the capital improvements element. Local governments could amend the financial feasibility of their capital improvements element by ordinance rather than comprehensive plan amendment. The deadline to comply with the financial feasibility requirement is moved to December 1, 2013.

Specific requirements from rule 9J-5, F.A.C., have been added, including provisions relating to urban sprawl. Each map depicting future conditions must reflect the principles, guidelines, and standards within all elements and each such map must be included in the comprehensive plan. This CS requires the future land use element to clearly identify the land use categories in which public schools are an allowable use, but deletes language related to school citing. This CS also removes requirements relating to energy efficiency and green house gas reductions. Further, the

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 22

CS addresses population projections, the issue of identified need for future development, and highlights the need to address outdated land uses, such as antiquated subdivisions.

The CS allows different parts of the comprehensive plan to have different planning periods. The CS makes one of the goals of the future land use category the need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.
This CS incorporates, from rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the thirteen primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage urban sprawl.

In addition, this CS adds eight indicators that a plan or plan amendment achieves the discouragement of urban sprawl. If the future land use element or a plan amendment achieves four of these eight indicators within its development pattern or urban form it will automatically be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. These indicators are whether the amendment:

Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services.

Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available.

Promotes conservation of water and energy. Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area.

Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164, F.S.

This CS revises and combines the multiple subsections of the transportation element into one subsection of law. This provision contains language promoting coordination of transportation planning between an MPO and the local government plan. The plan will also include mass- transit provisions and an airport master plan.

The CS revises provisions related to the sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element, the conservation element, and intergovernmental coordination.

The CS deletes:

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 23

the public schools facilities element and most portions of the schools interlocal agreement.
the optional elements of the coastal management element.
the requirement that the intergovernmental coordination element recognize campus master
plans and airport master plans.
provisions related to visioning and urban service boundaries.

Provisions related to rural land stewardship are moved to s. 163.3248, F.S.

Section 9 amends s. 163.31777, F.S. to retain interlocal agreements between a county, the municipalities within, and a school board. However, the CS removes state oversight and review of the interlocal agreements while maintaining certain minimum issues that the interlocal agreement must address. If a local government chooses to maintain optional school concurrency within its jurisdiction, this CS specifies that the interlocal agreement must also meet further requirements.

Section 10 makes conforming changes to s. 163.3178, F.S.

Section 11 amends s. 163.3180, F.S., to remove requirement that local governments have concurrency for parks and recreation, schools, and transportation facilities. In order for a local government to rescind any optional concurrency provisions, a comprehensive plan amendment is required. An amendment rescinding optional concurrency issues is not subject to state review.

If local governments elect to have these concurrency programs, the CS specifies the framework of how concurrency is to operate. For example, local governments that implement transportation concurrency must:

Consult with the DOT when proposed plan amendments affect facilities on the strategic intermodal system. Exempt public transit facilities from concurrency. Allow an applicant for a development of regional impact development order, a rezoning, or other land use development permit to satisfy the transportation concurrency requirements of the local comprehensive plan, the local government’s concurrency management system, and s. 380.06, F.S., when applicable.

Calculate proportionate share according to a specific formula. Specifically, the CS modifies the calculation of proportionate share to specify that development does not pay for impacts on roadways that do not meet level of service standards or on roadways that are financed by tolls.

For those local governments that implement school concurrency, a local government may allow a landowner to proceed with development of a specific parcel of land notwithstanding a failure of the development to satisfy school concurrency, if all the following factors are shown to exist:

The proposed development would be consistent with the future land use designation for the specific property and with pertinent portions of the adopted local plan, as determined by the local government. The local government’s capital improvements element and the school board’s educational facilities plan provide for school facilities adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local government or school board has not implemented that element or the project

BILL: CS/SB 1122 Page 24

includes a plan that demonstrates that the capital facilities needed as a result of the project can be reasonably provided. The local government and school board have provided a means by which the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost of providing the school facilities necessary to serve the proposed development.
Section 12 reenacts s. 163.31801, F.S., relating to the burden of proof/standard of review for impact fees in response to ongoing litigation. To remove any doubt regarding whether this section is an unconstitutional mandate, this provision requires approval by each house of the Legislature by two-thirds of the membership.
Additionally, the CS creates a 2-year moratorium on impact fees. It does not affect impact fees pledged or obligated for the retirement of debt or impact fees for water or wastewater.

Section 13 amends s. 163.3182, F.S., to revise terminology. The CS then revises the definition of transportation deficiency to include areas where the projected traffic volume exceeds the level of service standard adopted in a local government comprehensive plan for a transportation facility. This makes the definition consistent with other places in statute.

The CS would revise language relating to the schedule for financing and construction of projects that will eliminate deficiencies as part of a transportation deficiency plan. Specifically, the CS language states that if mass transit is selected as all or part of the system solution, the improvements and service may extend outside the transportation deficiency areas to the planned terminus of the improvement as long as the improvement provides capacity enhancements to a larger intermodal system.

Section 14 amends 163.3184, F.S., to revise the definition of “in compliance” with certain growth management laws to eliminate reference to the state comprehensive plan and ch. 9J-5, F.A.C., but include consistency with the rural land stewardship program. The CS defines “reviewing agencies.” The CS deletes the expedited processes for community visioning, urban service boundaries, urban infill and redevelopment, and housing incentive strategy plan amendments because all plan amendments will be expedited under the CS.

Section 15 amends s. 163.3187, F.S., to delete the penalty for failure to adopt amendments in accordance with the evaluation and appraisal report.

Section 16 amends s. 163.3191, F.S., to create exceptions from the evaluation and appraisal reporting requirement and to relax the requirements generally. The following local governments would be exempted completely:

A municipality of special financial concern with a per capita taxable value of assessed property of $58,000 or less; or A municipality with a population under 20,000 with a per capita taxable value of assessed property of $46,000 or less; or Small counties.

THERE IS PLENTY MORE!