Florida’s System of Growth Management

1. Florida’s System of Growth Management

2. Floridians earn a great deal of their incomes from development – about 20% or some $35 billion per year. • There is a high degree of concern in Florida about not killing the “goose laying the golden eggs.”

3. There have been two basic goals of growth management in Florida • To keep the good times rolling • To conserve environmental qualities. • These two goals are frequently incompatible, and that’s one reason we fight so much about growth management in this state.

4. There were several things that could be agreed upon; • That if we messed it up, we would all lose; • That “other” local governments could not be trusted to do the right thing [as distinct from one’s own local government] • That the role of the state should be minimal simply because the state was though to be too big and too diverse [as contrasted with Hawaii, Oregon or Vermont]

5. Concept • Planning and the regulation of development should remain primarily a local government function. • Exceptions; • “Sensitive” areas of the state • Really big developments • Water resources • Air quality • The coast • But, local governments would have to “step up.”

6. Florida enactments • The Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act of 1967 • Now largely federal • The County and Municipal Planning for Future Development Act in 1969(the SSZEA) • Replaced by the 1975 planning legislation and then repealed in 1985 • The Beach and Shore Preservation Act of 1971 • Dealt with coastal issues

7. The Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972 • Dealt with sensitive areas • Dealt with really big developments • The Water Resources Act of 1972, • Dealt with state water supply and usage • The Land Conservation Act of 1972. • Began the state’s multi-billion land acquisition program.

8. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. • Dealt with local governments not “stepping up” by requiring them to plan and then implement their plans • The New Communities Act of 1975. • Dealt with infrastructure funding, but replaced by Chapter 190, Community Development Dist. Act. • Omnibus Growth Management Act of 1985. • Revised and strengthened the 1975 planning act, giving state oversight of plans and planning. • The State Comprehensive Plan of 1985. • Established state planning priorities and required local plan consistency therewith.

9. Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975 (LGCPA) • Enacted as Chapter 163.3161 - .3211 • Required all local governments to develop, adopt and implement comprehensive plans [163.3167(2) and 163.3201] • Once adopted, the plan has the force of law and all development permitting must be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. [163.3194] Remember Pinecrest?

10. The LPA • The governing body of each local government shall designate a "local planning agency." • The local planning agency shall prepare the comprehensive plan or plan amendment after hearings to be held after public notice and shall make recommendations to the governing body regarding the adoption or amendment of the plan.

11. 163.3177 Required elements of a comprehensive plan • Coordination of the several elements of the local comprehensive plan shall be a major objective of the planning process. • The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent, and the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible.

12. Required elements continued • A Capital Improvement Element • Projects needed capital improvements for at least 5 years • The cost of those improvements and the sources of funding • Level of Service (LOS) standards for capital facilities [this being the basis for APF or concurrency].

13. Required elements continued • A Future Land Use Element • A Traffic Circulation Element • A general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element • An element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in the area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental resources.

14. Required elements continued • A recreation and open space element • A housing element • Adequacy of housing supply • Total quantity • Affordability • A coastal management element • An intergovernmental coordination element • Some also had to do mass transit elements

15. The LGCPA Process • LPAs would develop plans • Plans would be circulated to • Neighboring jurisdictions • The county • The state DCA • The WMD • The DOT • Agencies would “comment.”

16. The LGCPA Process continued • The governing body would receive the “comments” and is required to “respond on the record.” • The governing body then enacts the plan with or without incorporating the “comments.” • Law requires implementation but • No one is empowered to enforce implementation.

17. The LGCPA Process continued • A 1982 study committee found that many local jurisdictions had exploited “loop­holes” of the act: • Frequent amendment of the plan, often plan amendments proceeded with requests for development approval (rezonings, etc.); • Adopting loosely worded “policy plans” that provided little, if any, direction for developmental decision making; • Lack of consideration of state and regional planning concerns; • A failure to conform development decisions to the plan based upon the fact that citizens lacked standing to challenge development orders for lack of consistency with the comprehensive plan.

18. Omnibus Growth Management Act of 1985 • Adopted as Chapter 85-55, Laws of Florida. • The GMA was adopted along with The State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 85-56, Laws of Florida and codified as Chapter 187, Florida Statutes.

19. The acknowledged shortcomings of the LGCPA were the beginnings of the 1985 legislation. • Together, these two statutes were directed at a coordinated system of state, regional and local planning. • The Oregon example of adopting statewide goals was followed and Florida’s “State Comprehensive Plan” achieved the same purpose as Oregon’s 19 goals, although with many more than 19 and in much greater length. • An additional import from Oregon was what became known in Florida as “consistency.” • All regional plans had to be consistent with the state comprehensive plan and all local plans had to be consistent with both regional and the state plan. [163.3177(9)(c)]

20. What did the ’85 Act do? • Repeal the old 163 II, the SSZEA • Renumber the LGCPA to be 163 II • Rename the LGCPA to the “Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act” • Amend it and many other statutes dealing with development.

21. Require consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan • Authorize the DCA to determine consistency • Authorize DCA to develop a rule establishing minimum criteria for consistency – Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. • Require that plans include maps • Require the development of Land Development Regulations (LDR)

22. Concurrency 163.3180 – • 1(a) The following are subject to mandatory concurrency – • Sanitary sewer, • solid waste, • drainage, • potable water, • parks and recreation, and • transportation facilities, including mass transit • Meaning that the local government MUST establish regulatory mechanism to assure adequacy of facilities at the established Level of Service • No development may be permitted if facilities are not available concurrent with the impacts of the development.

23. Enhanced citizen standing since DCA has no role in monitoring plan implementation. • Dealing with urban sprawl • “It is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans and implementing land development regulations shall provide strategies which maximize the use of existing facilities and services through redevelopment, urban infill development, and other strategies for urban revitalization.” 163.3187,11(c).

24. The GMA Process • LPA conducts hearings and forwards plan (or amendment) to governing body • Board holds hearing and votes to “transmit” plan to DCA for review • DCA circulates plan to relevant agencies and complies “comments.” • DCA prepares and sends ORC Report • Objections, Recommendations and Comments • Local government responds to ORCs

25. The GMA Process continued • After receipt of response, DCA issues Notice Of Intent (NOI) to find the plan • Not In Compliance (NIC), or • In Compliance • The compliance being referred to is the State Comprehensive Plan as expressed in 9J-5. • Affected parties can seek to challenge DCAs NOI at an administrative hearing

26. The GMA Process continued • Upon completion of all administrative processes, DCA will either find the plan in compliance and that ends the process, or • Prepare a recommended order for the Administration Commission [Governor and Cabinet] asking for a finding of Not In Compliance and seeking sanctions – • Most significant sanction is loss of all state shared funds, retroactive to the date at which compliance should have been achieved. • Sanctions were imposed once, and once was enough.

27. The GMA Process continued • Local governments very much resent DCA’s involvement in what they see as none of the state’s business. • DCA and local governments were engaged in numerous battles, which DCA won. The law was on DCA’s side. • Many local governments joined forces with other opponents to limit the state/DCA role or even repeal the Act itself.

28. The GMA Process continued • Today a much tamer – more user friendly – DCA attempts to balance the competing interests. • Someone has to be the bad cop! • Also, there have been so many exceptions to concurrency that it is evolving into a police of anti-urban sprawl rather than the “teeth of the Growth Management Act.”

29. Has Growth Management stopped growth? • Florida’s population in • 1972 • 1985 • 2000 13.5 million

30. Florida’s Population1950 – 2000 (Thousands)

31. Has Growth Management been a success in Florida? • The Wall Street Journal said no! • New development continues in Florida. • But that presupposes that the objective of the program was to stop development. • Is development under the GMA better than prior development? • If yes, then it’s been a success • If no, then it’s been a failure.