Title: Second Report to the Environmental Efficiency Study Commission
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000826/00001
 Material Information
Title: Second Report to the Environmental Efficiency Study Commission
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Second Report to the Environmental Efficiency Study Commission December, 1986 Prepared by Department of Community Affairs
General Note: Box 7, Folder 2 ( Vail Conference 1987 - 1987 ), Item 102
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000826
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


















Second Report to the

Environmental Efficiency Study Commission












Prepared by
Department of Community Affairs


December 1986









Second Report to the Environmental
Efficiency Study Commission


I. Introduction.

The purpose of this second report to the Environmental
Efficiency Study Commission (EESC) is to recommend ways to elimi-
nate any duplication in environmental and public health programs
between the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and other State
and regional agencies that were identified in the DCA's previous
report to the EESC. However, the DCA's first report to the EESC
did not identify a significant amount of actual intraagency or
interagency duplication of the DCA's programmatic activities,
especially upon consideration of: 1) the comparatively small
amount of development approved under Chapter 380, Florida Stat-
utes (F.S.), programs relative to the total amount of development
in the State routinely approved/permitted by all environmental
and public health agencies; and 2) the comprehensive review and
local government oversight role of Chapter 380, F.S., programs.
The Department believes that increased environmental efficiency
can best be attained by strengthening the development planning
and review processes of local governments and improving the
coordination of development review among regional and State agen-
cies. Since the concerns of the Environmental Efficiency Act are
with the environmental programs of regional and State agencies,
the DCA's role in strengthening local government's planning and
review processes will not be further discussed in this report.
Without further guidance from the Commission after reviewing the
first reports submitted by the agencies, the DCA would strongly
recommend that additional procedures to promote interagency co-
ordination and thus eliminate unnecessary duplication ought to be
developed through legislation, rulemaking and/or memoranda of
agreement. A third report to the Commission from the agencies
after the conclusion of the public hearings held by the Commis-
sion would also be advisable.

II. Interagency Coordination through Chapter 380, F.S.

A. Area of Critical State Concern Program

The Department is currently undertaking rulemaking to
adopt procedures for coordinated, interagency review of
development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
Concern (see attached draft). The proposed rule provides a
permit applicant the opportunity to submit applications to
the applicable regional and State agencies at the same time
the applicant submits an application for local development
approval to Monroe County.










B. Development of Regional Impact Program
Efforts to improve interagency coordination in the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process have recently
resulted in the conceptual agency review provision contained
in Subsection 380.06(9), F.S. To date it is our understand-
ing that no one has availed themselves to this provision.
Perhaps promotion of its benefits should be made and some
review done of the current status of agency implementation
to determine why this is not being used. Interagency
coordination could be further strengthened in the DRI review
process by requiring active participation of all involved
regional and State agencies at all DRI preapplication con-
ferences and during DRI reviews. Agency participation in
the DRI process has suffered due to lack of available and/or
committed personnel resources necessary to provide thorough
comments and review, and due to permitting agency fears that
their upfront participation in DRI review might cause legal
liabilities during the review of the permit application
which may come later. Part of these coordination efforts
should be geared to inform the developer, local government
and the general public of the environmental feasibility of
proposed development plans as early as possible in the
review process.
The Department also recommends that some evaluation be
made relative to modifying the Application for Development
Approval (ADA) so as to only require the information neces-
sary for those subject areas that are not being addressed by
other agencies in their permitting activities. The types
and amounts of information required for subject areas ad-
dressed by other agencies' programs needs to be reassessed
to ensure that a comprehensive, integrated DRI review can be
accomplished without duplicating the detailed and narrowly
focused informational requirements of permitting agencies.
Also, regional data bases need to be established in order to
reduce the amount of original background information neces-
sary to be generated by consultants for the DRI review. By
modifying the ADA and creating regional data bases the DRI
process could be made more efficient and the time and cost
to developers would be reduced.

C. Special Interagency Teams
In addition, special interagency coordination efforts
could be created for specific development types or for areas
of the state where critical natural resource/public facility
assessments are needed. These special coordinated efforts
could and emphatically should be used to expedite permitting
where proposed development is demonstrated to have overrid-
ing State benefits. Such State benefit criteria could be
developed by the Department of Commerce in consultation with


(N









the applicable agencies. Rather than additional agency
personnel being required to ensure this coordinated effort,
the responsibilities of sufficient numbers of current agency
personnel could be redirected into such interagency coordi-
nation effort. The DCA is currently investigating such a
procedure with other State and regional agencies and will
provide more detail on such an approach in a later report.

III. Growth Management Advisory Committee.

Governor Graham established the Growth Management Advisory
Committee (GMAC) to oversee the successful initial implementation
of Florida's recent landmark legislation on public planning and
growth management. The GMAC in its final report of December
1986,.found that although the DRI process provides significant
public benefits, it is time consuming and costly and in some
cases by necessity duplicates other approval processes. The
Committee also found that since the DRI process covers only a
small percentage of all development activity in the State, the
public loses the benefits generated by the process for the vast
majority of new development across the State which is not
required to undergo DRI review. Based on these findings, for the
short term, the GMAC recommended that the DRI process should be
made more efficient and should include incentives which will
encourage participation by development not now required to under-
go DRI review. Suggestions to accomplish this objective include:
1) encouraging the use of the areawide DRI process; 2) certifying
capable local governments to perform DRI review as soon as possi-
ble; and 3) streamlining the process by eliminating unnecessary
duplicate approval requirements, shortening the minimum process-
ing time, giving priority to DRI applications in the local review
and hearing process, offering special benefits and making avail-
able to developers, regional agencies and State and local govern-
ments a mediation system to resolve DRI disputes.
For the long term the GMAC recommended that the Legislature
should conduct a thorough review of the DRI process in 1993;
Beginning July 1, 1992, the DCA shall coordinate a full review to
determine the extent to which the new State, regional and local
government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation
process is accomplishing the purposes of the DRI process. Based
on that review the DCA will make recommendations to the 1993
Legislature regarding revisions to or elimination of the DRI
process. Many aspects of the DRI process, including duplication
of agency programs, were reviewed and scrutinized by the GMAC.
The DCA endorses the committee's recommendation and strongly
encourages the Commission to invite Mr. Jack Wilson, Chairman of
GMAC, to address the full Commission or the committee established
by the Commission to specifically review Chapter 380, F.S.


-










IV. Conclusion.

Strong interagency coordination is the most important factor
in accomplishing greater efficiency of environmental review of
development by regional and State agencies. This interagency
coordination can be accomplished in a general manner for all
development review or can take the form of specialized agency
teams that can react quickly to resolve critical State resource
and public facility needs or to facilitate the environmental
reviews for developments of overriding State benefit. The
changes necessary to accomplish efficient interagency coordina-
tion will require new legislation, rulemaking and/or additional
memoranda of agreement between agencies. The need to create
personnel dedicated to coordination efforts.can likely be mini-
mized by reallocating current responsibilities of certain numbers
of agency personnel.


1




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs