Title: Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - State Issues Sub-Committee Recommendations Dated August 26, 1994
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004373/00001
 Material Information
Title: Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - State Issues Sub-Committee Recommendations Dated August 26, 1994
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Land Use and Water Planning Task Force - State Issues Sub-Committee Recommendations Dated August 26, 1994 (JDV Box 49)
General Note: Box 21, Folder 2 ( Land and Water Planning Task Force - 1994 - 1995 ), Item 15
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004373
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



ORSHEFSKY HOLDINGS, INC.


2420 De 8ta Drive
Ft. Lauderdal. FL 9Ss8M


(305) 114-o035


TELECOPIER

CS^ ~ rVe^A kA VL..6&


n.


Rii b illAlWWA IM


B MiLlOIMNHl ft TrNAIullTTBnr


bATI:


cr'.


7- r -


THIS TRANSMISSION CONSISTS OF -f'i T' f WAGES INCLUDE .
ING THIS COVER PAGE). PLEASE CAUL (SS) 524.5085 SHOULD TRANSMISSION BE INCOMPLETE
FOR ANY REASON.

ORIGINALS OF THIS TRANSMISSIOti _jWIL WI.,-WILL NOT BE FORWARDED
UNDER SEPARATE COVER.


II --------I I Cop I



n------------ I l n -op y-




-7


Be :91 6. oS 9El ST/TBd 022 AXS)ISAW ETMR.gqwg+


.... 5 4II" -


I -


- -- -


I--C~ZIIIr~LL1 LC~VLILULli __ ~h -T_


~


i


il jab
0 R^Li-k^/) (?
Sb* w-'V-s v-r-c-Are-6T.


'~i~nC1 *c;*l~


^s-t A -f i


s~lsa/~C~`




229 P02/09 RUG 29 '94 10:11


OUTSTANDING ISSUES
FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE

STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE
AUGUST 26, 1994


PAGE DECISION NEEDED

3 Nature of implementation mechanism for the three state-
level plans. Should they be implemented following legislative
review, or should they be implemented by the authoring
agency through rule-making?

4 Should the Task Force recommend that the Legislature
consider the consolidation, into a single document, of the
State Land Development Plan and the Florida Water Plan at
some time in the future?

6 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida Water Plan.
Should the plans, once legislatively reviewed or adopted by
rule, be binding on the authoring agency in its budgetary,
grant funding, and permitting decisions? If so, how should
this effect be implemented?

8 Should the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) identify both
"state" and "regional" resources and facilities for use in the
SLDP?

Should the Legislature provide guidance in the form of a
definition for the types of "state resources and facilities" to be
identified?

9 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- State Land
Development Plan.

10 Should the role of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) be
expanded to allow its use in DCA's statutory review in siting
act applications and programs?

11 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida
Transportation Plan.

12-13 Appeal mechanism and standing issues relating to appeal of
Executive Office of the Governor's findings of "consistency"
and "compatibility" for the state-level plans.




OUTSTANDING ISSUES
DATED: 826/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY








LISTING OF OUTSTANDING ISSUE
FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE
STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE
AUGUST 1994

PAGE _DECISION NEEDED

3 Nature of implementation mechanism for the three state-
level plans. Should they be implemented following legislative
review, or should they implemented by the authoring agency
through rule-making?
4 Should the Task Force recommend that the Legislature
consider the consolidation, into a single document, of the
State Land Development Plan and the Florida Water Plan at
some time in the future?
6 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida Water Plan.
Should the plans, once legislatively reviewed or adopted by
rule, be binding on the authoring agency in its budgetary,
grant funding, and permitting decisions? If so, how should
this effect be implemented?
8 Should the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) identify both
"state" and "regional" resources and facilities for use in the
SLDP?
Should the Legislature provide guidance in the form of a
definition for the types of "state resources and facilities" to be
identified?

9 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- State Land
Development Plan.
10 Should the role of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) be
expanded to allow its use in DCA's statutory review in siting
act applications and programs?
11 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida
Transportation Plan.
12-13 Appeal mechanism and standing issues relating to appeal of
Executive Office of the Governor's findings of "consistency"
and "compatibility" for the state-level plans.




OUTSTANDING ISSUES
DATED: 8W 94


A>ISA3HSaOM zTE6zSSG0+


szE9T 06. Be SnMG siTed 0ME










LISTING OF OUTSTANDING IS~LES
FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE
STATE ISUES SUBCOMMITTEE
AUGUST 29 1994

PAGE DECISION NEEDED

3 Nature of implementation mechanism for the three state-
level plans. Should they be implemented following legislative
review, or should they implemented by the authoring agency
through rule-making?
4 Should the Task Force recommend that the Legislature
consider the consolidation, into a single document, of the
State Land Development Plan and the Florida Water Plan at
some time in the future?
6 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida Water Plan.
Should the plans, once legislatively reviewed or adopted by
rule, be binding on the authoring agency in its budgetary,
grant funding, and permitting decisions? If so, how should
this effect be implemented?
8 Should the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) ale identify
both "state" and "regional" resources and facilities for use in
the SLDP?

Should the Legislature provide guidance in the form of a
definition for the types of "state resources and facilities" to be
identified?
9 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -. State Land
Development Plan.
10 Should the use of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) be
expanded to allow its use in DCA's statutory review roles in
siting act applications and programs?
11 Scope and effect of the state-level plans -- Florida
Transportation Plan.
12-13 Appeal mechanism and standing issues relating to appeal of
Executive Office of the Governor's findings of "consistency"
and "compatibility" for the state-level plans.


__ __ __ 1 __




229 P03/09 AUG 29 '94 10:11


LAND USE AND WATER PLANNING TASK FORCE

STATE ISSUES SUB-COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATIONS
DATED: AUGUST 26, 1994




I. Recommendations Concerning State Comprehensive Plan

Recommendation # :

The Legislature should revise or supplement the State Comprehensive Plan
to include benchmarks, should designate the Plan ly law as the "state
planning document' for purposes of Article III, Section 19(h), Florida
Constitution, and should repeal the requirement for a Growth Management
Portion of the Plan as currently set forth in Section 18&009.

The State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) should be revised to add benchmarks -- high
level indicators that focus on state-wide outcomes and results using baseline data
that define the state's current status -- in order to allow measurement of the
state's progress in meeting the SCP's goals.

The SCP should be designated by law as the "state planning document" for the
purposes of the Article III, Section 19 (h) of the Florida Constitution. In any
legislation concerning the SCP, the Legislature should take special care not to
create questions about the current legitimacy or role of the SCP in Florida's
growth management process.

The process for biennial review and revision of the SCP, Section 186.008, should be
retained.

Although believing that additional policy direction in the implementation of the
SCP is necessary to provide guidance to other levels of government, the Task Force
recommends repeal of the Growth Management Portion of the SCP, relying
instead for additional policy direction on the adoption of enhanced state-level
plans to be developed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT). See Recommendations below.










STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 1
DATED: 8/26/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY




229 P04/09 AUG 29 '94 10:12


II. Develop ment of Enhanced StateLevel ("Cranslational") Plans

Recommendation # :

The Legislature should enact or expand enabling legislation to require the
development of three enhanced state level functional plans the State Land
Development Plan, the Florida Water Plan, and the Florida Transportation
Plan -- to provide for additional direction and guidance in the
implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan.

Previous task forces, including the ELMS III Committee, recognized that the
State Comprehensive Plan does not, by itself, provide sufficient direction to local
governments relating to the State's concerns pertinent to physical growth and
development. The Task Force concurs that additional, specific direction
concerning physical growth and development within the State is necessary.

The 1993 legislative response to the ELMS III recommendations was to enact the
provisions of Section 186.009, which provide for the development and legislative
approval of the Growth Management Portion (GMP) of the State Comprehensive
Plan (SCP). Initial efforts to develop the GMP were inconclusive.

The Task Force believes that additional state direction continues to be necessary
for effective implementation of the state's growth management process.
Accordingly, the Task force recommends the creation or modification of the
relevant statutes relating to development of the three agency state-level, or
translationall", plans -- Chapter 373, for the newly named "Florida Water Plan";
Chapter 380 for the State Land Development Plan; and Chapter 337 for the Florida
Transportation Plan. Specific recommendations as to the content of each plan is
further detailed below.

The intent of this recommendation is to allow the development and
implementation of the required additional growth management policy by the three
agencies most familiar with their individual subject areas.
















STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 2
DATED: 8126/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY












OUTSTANDINGG ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Method of
implementation a the statelevel plans.
Recommendation #: The Legislature should provide for the
implementatln of the three state-level plans ly adopting prooedurs to be
followed ly the authoring agencies prior to final implementation of the
statelevel plans.

Based on Subcommittee discussion, two generic alternatives are presented for
consideration in the implementation of the state-level plans:
Review of the plans by the legislature prior to their taking effect; or
Adoption of the all or part of the plans by the agencies as Chap. 120
rules
1. Leisllatie Review: If the legislative review option is chosen, a further
decision as to the type of legislative review must be made. Three options:
Affirmative Legislative review, plan has no effect until reviewed and
approved (wetlands delineation model)
Negative Legislative review, plan takes effect unless Legislature acts
(9J-5 model)
Submission to Legislature, but no requirement for legislature to act,.
positively or negatively. Plan would be come effective pursuant to
method of "adoption" chosen by the authoring agency unless acted
upon by Legislature.
Note that the choice of a legislative review mechanism may/should affect to
substantive effect of the plans, Le. broaden their effect and dignity. Too, should the
legislative review be chosen, restrictions on Chap. 120 challenges should be
considered to prevent the authoring agencies from having to undergo both
legislative approval and Chap. 120 review/challenges.
Raionale for legislative review: if, as a practical matter, these three state-level
plans are intended as an alternative to the Growth Management Portion(GMP) of
the SCP, and the GMP was to be reviewed by the Legislature, should not these
plans also be so reviewed? Also, the additional dignity afforded the plans by
legislative review would serve to bolster their substantive effect and reduce
opportunities for Chap. 120 challenges.
2. Chase. 120 Implementation. The Chap. 120 model discussed at the
Subcommittee would involve the preparation of the plans by the agencies as non-
sel exeecuting documents. Specific implementation of those nortions of the plans
intended to effect third parties governments or permit applicants would be
separately implemented by rule adoption proceedings by the authoring agency,


STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 8
DATED. 8asa8


.6219T IPS & SE Sn UE S/d WE


I


ANSA~HSNO 'C6ZEB









after the "consistency" and "eompatibility" reviews by the Executive Office of the
Governor (EOG), further described below.
If the Chap, 120 model is chosen for implementation, two additional issues arise:
Whether the enabling legislation should require the adoption of
minimum portions of the plans by rule so as to ensure their substantive effect (e.g.
adoption by DEP of protective rules and land use recommendations for resources
identified in the Florida Water Plan as being of state-wide significance); and
Whether the adopted implementing rules should be shielded from
Chap. 120 challenge to allow their timely implementation (see e.g. 9J-5 and the
SRPPs as examples.)
Rationale for Chan 120 model: It is consistent with existing procedure; it
would allow the authoring agencies flexibility in .the development of the plans
since the document itself would not be self-executing, and thus subject to
challenge; and it would avoid the political climate engendered by legislative
review.

[OUTSTANDING ISSU FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Alternate 1:
recommending the legislative csideratian of the conUsodation of the SLDP and
the FWP as follow: Following implementation of the enhanced state-level plans,
and the development of experience in their application, the Legislature may wish
to consider, at some time in the future but no sooner than the
consolidation of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) and the Florida Water
Plan (FWP) into a single documentjointly generated by the applicable agencies;

OR Alternate 2: No recommendation concerning consolidation of the two plans,
relying instead on the updating of each individual plan.]


STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
DATED. WS 94


PAGE 4


AMS.4HS8O T6ZLf9SS0+


S*9sT p, 8s E nl ST/STd MEE




229 P05/09 AUG 29 '94 10:12


II. LeRislation for the Development of the Florida Water Plan
Recommendation # :

The Legislature should review, revise, and update Chapter 373, particularly
sections 373.036 (1) and (2), to specifically authorize DEP's development,
jointly with the Water Management Districts, of a "Florida Water Plan",
and to provide legislative direction as to the FWP s content and effect.

The existing provisions relating to DEP's development of the "State Water Use
Plan", sections 373. 036 (1) and (2), were initially adopted in 1972, and do not
recognize either the additional planning or data gathering activities of the Water
Management Districts which have developed since the enactment of growth
management legislation in 1984-85.

The Task Force therefore recommends that the Legislature review, revise and
expand water planning activities at the state level by the enactment, within
Chapter 373, of express authority for the DEP to develop a state "Florida Water
Plan", in conjunction with the Water Management Districts.

The development process for the the Florida Water Plan (FWP) should include
DEP, the Water Management Districts (WMDs), interested governmental entities
and members of the public. Procedurally, the FWP's development should be
subject to public workshopss, the "consistency" and "mutual compatibility"
reviews by the EOG detailed below, and [the implementation mechanism chosen
above], prior to final implementation.

As to substantive content, the Task Force recommends that the FWP, at a
minimum contain the following:

Goals, benchmarks, policies, the identification of resource
management issues, implementation strategies, and short and long
term schedules, intended to support and implement the SCP's goals
and objectives; including at a minimum policies in each of the
following areas: (i) water supply protection and management; (ii)
flood protection and management; (iii) water quality protection and
management; and (iv) natural systems protection and management.

A 20 year planning horizon, in order to be consistent with the
planning horizons of the proposed Water Management District Plans
(WDMPs), the Florida Transportation Plan, and to support long-term
local government land use planning efforts

A requirement for the identification in the FWP, pursuant to
statutorily established criteria, of water resources, areas, or
restoration efforts which are of state-wide significance, together with
related policies needed to protect or support such resources, areas, or
efforts


STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 5
DATED: 8/26/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY




229 P06/09 AUG 29 '94 10:12


Delineation of the roles of DEP and the WMDs in water resource
planning activities, and in the implementation of the FWP,
recognizing the varying resources available to individual WMDs

Such other direction as to the content of the FWP as may be necessary
or desirable, including for example those elements of the FWP
outlined in proposed Chap 17-40.510

The FWP should be based on, and consistent with, the best available data and
analysis. Such data and analyses need not be included in the FWP, provided such
materials are identified and available to members of the public.

As to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the FWP, at a
minimum:

Be required to be "mutually compatible",,, as determined by the EOG,
with the other two state-level plans The State Land Development
Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan

Be used by DEP, in its review of the proposed Water Management
District Plans (WMDPs), to determine that the WMDPs are
"consistent" with the Florida Water Plan

Be used by the EOG, in its review of the Strategic Regional Policy
Plans (SRPPs), to determine that the SRPPs are "compatible" with
the Florida Water Plan

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE:
Internal Effect of the FWP as binding on DEP and the WMDs.

Beyond providing for the substantive effect of the state-level plans in
the development of "linkages" to other planning documents -- the
"external" effect of the plans, the Subcommittee also discussed a
further "internal" substantive effect for the plans: the binding of the
authoring agency to act "consistently" with the plan, or its adopted
portions (depending on the implementation model chosen --
Legislative or Chap 120). The intent of the suggestion is to establish
additional meaning for the plans by requiring the state agencies to
adhere to them in their budgetary, grant funding, and permitting
decisions.

The Task Force must decide whether this extended substantive effect
should be recommended, and if so, how it should be implemented.]

The current requirement for the biennial updating of the FWP [? every five years if
legislative review is chosen?], timed to be consistent with the updating of the SCP
and, if possible the Evaluation and Appraisal schedule for local comprehensive
plans should be retained.


STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 6
DATED: 826/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY










Finally, in order to address certain nomenclature difficulties which the Task
Force encountered, implementation of the above recommendations will require: (i)
repeal of existing # 873.089, F.S. 1993, which provides for the current content of the
"Florida Water Plan"; (ii) revision of other statutory provisions to delete
references to the "State Water Use Plan" (eg. references contained in 5 378.036(1)
and 186. 021(4)); and (iii) revision of 373.026 (10) to amend references to the "state
water policy" to read "state water policy rule".

IV. Consod~athing LeeatiL for W3MD Planni and Data Aacivitiem


Reamiimaedatit C


The Legislature should msolidate the WMD planning and data gathering
obligations pursuant to 55 878.0895, ground water basin inventories,
837.0841, aquifer mapping, and 878.049, minimum flows and levels into a
single provision authorizing and requiring the development of Water
Management District Plans, with a focus, at a minimum, of providing
short and long-term raw water availability information suitable for local
government comprehensive and future land use planning.

See additionally, Regional Sub-committee recommendations.


SVATB I6SUES SDC0WMMITfl RECOMMENDATIONS
DATEMh BWss'9


PAGE. 7


AMSXO3mSO ZETM6IZGGS+


TE19ST V66 ea am sl/MLd onZ




229 P07/09 AUG 29 '94 10:13


IV. Legislation for the Development of the State Land Development Plan


[NOTE: THIS RECOMMENDATION AS DRAFTED ASSUMES THE CHAP. 120
IMPLEMENTATION MODEL THE RECOMMENDATION MAY NEED TO BE
MODIFIED BASED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TASK FORCE]

Recommendation #:

The Legislature should create a new section within Chapter 380, F.S. [or
alternatively Chapter 186, F.S.], specifically authorizing the Department of
Community Affairs to develop and adopt appropriate portion of the State
Land Development Plan ly rule.

Section 380.031(17), F.S., currently provides the only guidance for the State Land
Development Plan, defining it as a "comprehensive state wide plan or any portion
thereof setting forth state land development policies".

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that a separate statutory section be
created to provide legislative direction for the content and effect of the State Land
Development Plan

The development process for the the State Land Development Plan (SLDP) should
include DCA, the Water Management Districts (WMDs), interested governmental
entities and members of the public. Procedurally, the SLDP's development should
be subject to public workshopss, the "consistency" and "mutual compatibility"
reviews by the EOG detailed below, and [the implementation mechanism chosen
above], prior to final implementation.

As to substantive content, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP, at a
minimum contain the following:

Goals, benchmarks, policies, implementation strategies, and short
and long term schedules, intended to support and implement the
SCP's goals and objectives; including at a minimum policies in each
of the following areas: (i) Affordable Housing, (ii) Economic
Development, (iii) Emergency Preparedness, (iv) Natural Resources,
(v) Transportation, (vi) Air Quality, (vii) Archaeological and
Historical Resources, and (viii) Land Use.

Within each issue area, the SLDP should address and identify: (i)
state [OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR THE TASK FORCE TO DECIDE:
(i) whether statutory direction is needed to define "state" resources
and facilities; and (ii) whether the SLDP should also include
"regional" resources and facilities, supplemental to those defined ly
the SRPPs] resources and facilities; and (ii) "compatibility" with the
Florida Water Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan.



STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 8
DATED: 8/26/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY




229 P08/09 AUG 29 '94 10:14


A 20 year planning horizon, in order to be consistent with the
planning horizons of WDMPs, the Florida Transportation Plan, and
to support long-term local government land use planning efforts

Such other direction as to the content of the SLDP as may be
necessary or desirable.

The SLDP should be based on, and consistent with, the best available data and
analysis. Such data and analyses need not be included in the SLDP, provided such
materials are identified and available to members of the public.

As to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP, at a
minimum:
Be required to be "mutually compatible" as determined by the EOG
with the other two state-level plans -- The Florida Water Plan and the
Florida Transportation Plan

Be used by DEP, in its review of the Water Management District
Plans (WDMPs), to determine that the WDMPs are "compatible" with
the SLDP

Be used by the EOG, in its review of the Strategic Regional Policy
Plans (SRPPs), to determine that the SRPPs are "consistent" with the
SLDP

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE:
Internal Effect of the SLDP as binding on DCA. ]

The current requirement for the biennial updating of the SLDP [? every five years
if legislative review is chosen?], timed to be consistent with the updating of the
SCP and, if possible the Evaluation and Appraisal schedule for local
comprehensive plans should be retained.

Finally, in order to implement the SLDP's identification of state [?and regional?]
resources and facilities, the provisions of section 163.3177(6)(h) 1. a, relating to
required Intergovernmental Coordination Elements of local comprehensive plans,
must be modified to include a reference to the SLDP.

V. Uses of the State Land Development Plan (SLDP)

Recommendation #:

The State Land Development Plan should continue to be used for the review
of Developments of Regional Impacts (DRIs) and Florida Quality
Developments (FQDs), as currently provided by law.

The State Land Development Plan should continue to play the role it currently
does in the DRI and Florida Quality Developnents (FQD) review proccesses

STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 9
DATED: 8/26/94


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY




229 P09/09 AUG 29 '94 10:14


specified in 380.06(12)(a)1, 380.06(14)(a),3, 380.061(3)(a)7, 380.065(3)(b) and 380.07(3),
F.S. In addition, the SLDP should continue to act as the basis for DCA review of
DRI-sized development approvals in "terminated" jurisdictions, once the DRI
process is terminated as to certain jurisdictions in 1997.

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends that the SLDP retain its current role in
the review procedures for DRI and FQD developments.


[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE: Expansion of
the Use of the SLDP, once legislatively reviewed or adopted ly rule, to other siting
programs]

Recommendation # :

The Legislature should amend appropriate statutory provisions to permit
utilization of the (legislatively reviewed or adopted portions of the] State
Land Development Plan, particularly as relates to the identification of state
[?and regional?) resources, in the review procedures pursuant to applicable
siting acts.

The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) currently has statutory review
obligations with respect to a number of siting plans and programs, listed below.
The Task Force recommends that, [once legislatively reviewed or adopted by rule],
the SLDP be utilized by DCA as a review criteria in their analysis of siting
applications.

The applicable siting acts to which this recommendation applies are as follows:
Campus Master Plans, 240.155
Military Base Reuse Plans, 288.975
Job Siting Act, 403.950 et seq.
Florida High Speed Rail Act, 341.3201 et seq.
Ten Year Power Plant Siting Act, 186.801
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, 403.501 et seq.
a Transmission Line Siting Act, 403.52 et seq.
Statewide Multi-Purpose Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Act, 403.78
Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Siting, 403.941 et seq.
Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Siting, 404.0617

Rationale: Following repeal of the Growth Management Portion of the SCP, the
SLDP will likely become the only planning document which identifies state
resources and facilities, whose locations should be considered in the siting of the
referenced facilities. The siting acts are generally used as alternatives to DRI
review, thus, in order to ensure symmetry of review, the SLDP should also be part
of the review criteria for the referenced siting act decisions.



STATE ISSUES SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 10
DATED: 8W2194


+3055279313 ORSHEFSKY










V3. -I-~ladm Cqma Mnlna the Fliada M=anUWN:1Zmn FIRn


emnmendalion *

The Legislature should amend Chap. 186, or oher appropriate statutes, to
ensure that the Florida Transportation Plan is required to undergo
consistencyc and "mutual compatibility review hy the Executive Office of
the Governor, and is utilized in the review of the Strategic Regional Policy
Pans and the Watw Management District Plane.

The Task Force recommends below a set of procedures by which the Executive
Office of the Governor (EOG) reviews each of the three state-level plans for
"consistency" with the State Comprehensive Plan, and for "mutual compatibility"
with the other two state level plans. The purpose of this recommendation is to
ensure that the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) similarly undergoes the
necessary EOG reviews to ensure consistency and compatibility among the three
state-level plans.

In addition, as to substantive effect, the Task Force recommends that the FTP, at
a minimum:
Be required to be "mutually compatible",, as determined by the EOG,
with the other two state-level plans The Florida Water Plan and the
State Land Development Plan
Be used by DEP, in its review of the Water Management District
Plans (WDMPs), to determine that the WDMPs are "compatible" with
the FTP
Be used by the EOG, in its review of the Strategic Regional Policy
Plans (SRPPs), to determine that the SRPPs are "consistent" with the
FTP

[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR DECISION BY THE TASK FORCE:
Internal Efet of the FTP as binding on FDOT. I


[FDOT MAY PRESENT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTLY TO
THE TASK FORCE CONCERNING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RULE-
MAKING AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN ELEMENT OF THE FPPJ








STATE ISSUE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 11
DATED: VYW94


~'6~ 6~ 0V~ ST4Td &~ A)~S.~34~O ~tE6S~0~+


AAx~jHqSW EtE5LEM0E++


MST VS6 SE SMlt ST/TTd WE~










k1ho ;,7d77_ mm 7


Reonmmlendatimo #
The legislature should add to the provisions of Seoti 186022 to expressly
provide for "oanesstencfy and "mutual empatibility' review of the three
state-leel plane -. the Florida Water Plan, the State Land Development
Plan, and the Flrida Transprtation Plan .. *y the Executive Office of the
Govrnor g(OG). This legislation should provide fr. (i) procedures for the
three agencies -- DEP, DCA, and FDOT to review and comment an the
appliealea sattelevel plan following its drafting by the responsible agency:
() review of each ct the plans ly the EOG for "c istency" with the State
Comprehensie Plan and (iii) review of each of the planes y the EOG fr
"mutual compatbiliW'.

The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure that the three state-level plans
are developed "consistently" with the State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) and to
provide fbr the "mutual compatibility" of the three plans.
The Task Force recommends that "consistency" be as defined in section
1i.3177(10)(a). "Compatibility" should also be as defined in section 168.3177(10)(a)
as meaning "not in conflict with". Each of the state-level plans should be treated
as being of equal dignity, thus requiring that they be "mutually compatible" with
each other, rather than having one of the state-level plans control.. The initial
reviewing agency would be the EOG.
Existing requirements for "consistency" with the State Comprehensive Plan
applicable to the three state-level plans should be retained and clarified.
Procedures should be developed, however, to provide for the drafting of the three
plans, with circulation to other authoring agencies. Comments from the
reviewing agencies, and members of the public through workshops, should then
be addressed or incorporated by the authoring agency prior to finalization of the
draft, and its transmittal to the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG) for review.
"Consistency" review should proceed pursuant to existing procedures and
standards.
"Mutual compatibility" review procedures for the three plans should first
emphasize inter-agency discussions to address incompatibilities, to be followed by
a negotiated/mediated settlement by the EOG.
[OUTSTANDING ISSUE FOR TASK FORCE DECISION: Appellate remedies for
BOG "conistency' and "mutual cmpatilitUl' determinaians.
Should the EOG determinatims be appealable?
If so to which body: FLWAC, Admin Commission, r First DCA?



STATE ISSUE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE: 12
DATEDi W(SW


~'gT P'6~ 8~ EflU ~T/~Td s~ A)IS.~HS~D ~T~6~S~C+


0S~eHS-d0 ZTMZGG0E+


ECIST ips 4 ea nti ST/Erd eze










Who should have standing to appeal: authoring agency, other affected
agencies, members a the pubic, and what is the pointaf-entry far such appeal?
What should the standing requirement baef such appeals: Chap.
IN0 "suifsantially affected part', or the reader standing ao Chap. 187?

Using existing procedures, the recommendations could be as follows:
"Consistency' and compatibility determinations by the EOG, should be subject to
an appeal to the Administration Commission which should proceed pursuant to
a procedure similar to that outlined in f 186.022 () (5), inclusive.]


GTAT ZISOMU BUBCOSMIUTE WCosMMEDAMTIONS
DATD W#94


PAGE 18


PS I~T PB B~ 51b ~T/ETd 0~ ~)S~HS~O Z~~+


AMS--HSM i:TWLZGGOZ+E


IPE*ST M BE OM~J ST/ETd ME~








PROPOSAL FOR CONSISTENCY 0 COMPATIBILITY AMONG LRN0 D WRTER PLANNING DOCUMENTS


I-


FWa a Und Dwelopmeal Mien 10------ Florid Woor Pln FbddeFl~i Tmnoorl~lm PlsM


0 a


~bI q



Sr waIo RegionmI Palic Pla l-ow --------- MUM Vkftf manapgent Plan


LGOWG-0-ommetanw Pla


Mmcb: Lines betwoem plans IndicatW Ihut corsistency beftsi pbans Is requfruf
Aim indicae the dirbic in vllcb ibe monmulency reqwmfimwd lwom


Rigisnel Wow Supply AIisovly Plan


-c= o'IsisGenc yqmiwrne-t
-.. cornpatibility requirement


CI


Cl


3











-4I
P1
z





Ih)


N)


x ~


Inoelondwe 111mcial MWOUcl




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