EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF TED; GOVERNOR
Office of Planning and Budgetin-
Growth Management and Strategi(Planning Policy Unit
2105 The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
TO: State Issues Subcommittee members and Staff
'-'riton Fields Tlitanassee
.--nh 0. V-,
Paul Carlson ft-
SUBJECT: Material for Wednesday, August 24 subcommittee meeting
August 22, 1994
I have enclosed material to be discussed at the State Issues Subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, August
24. This meeting will be held from 10:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., in Room 217 House Office Building.
The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the subcommittee proposed recommendations per the discussion
at our Hollywood meeting. If you have any further questions call me at (904) 488-7793 or David
Orshefsky at (305) 524-5035.
RETENTION OF THE STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SLDP)
By: Henry Bittaker (Department of Community Affairs) 8/19/94
THE 8LDP IS THE ONLY STATUTORILY RECOGNIZED, DCA-DEVELOPED
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS STATE LAND USE POLICY.
Although principally utilized for the DRI and FQD programs,
the SLDP has also been utilized by DCA as an expression of state
land use policy for coordination and comments on other land use
plans and land use siting programs. Without the SLDP, DCA will
have to rely upon the more generic State Comprehensive Plan as its
only statement of state land use policy in these situations.
ELMS COMMITTEE. The ELMS Committee recognized that the State
Comprehensive Plan was insufficient to provide the type and detail
of policy guidance provided for by the three translationall" plans,
and recommended instead that they be integrated into one "Strategic
Growth and Development Plan" to help "bring together key policies
in the area of physical growth and development in a format that
will provide greater guidance and assistance to State, regional,
and local decision makers" [p.20 ELMS report].
DCA RECOMMENDATION: In the absence of a single integrated,
state agencies' level policy plan developing guidance for land use,
water policy and transportation issues addressed by the three
translationall" plans, all three plans including the SLDP need to
be retained in order to provide these functions.
THE SLDP APPEARS LIKELY TO BE THE ONLY REMAINING STATUTORILY
RECOGNIZED LAND USE PLAN THAT WILL IDENTIFY "STATE" SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCES & FACILITIES FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT USES, SUCH AS FOR THE
NEW ICE REQUIREMENTS.
The identification of "state" significant resources and
facilities for growth management purposes is currently statutorily
tied to the Growth Management portion of the State Comprehensive
Plan (for local comprehensive plans) and to the SLDP (for DRI/FQD
and one siting program purposes). This "state" identification of
"state or regional resources and facilities" is to be utilized in
a variety of land use and siting programs, along with the new ICE
(Intergovernmental Coordination Element) requirements for local
government comprehensive plans. As it appears likely that the Task
Force will recommend not going forward with the Growth Management
portion of the SCP, to also eliminate the SLDP would abandon all
state level growth management identification of "state or regional"
significant resources and facilities under existing law. The
proposed changes to the Florida Water Plan, District Water
Management Plans and the Florida Transportation Plan would at best
address only some of the state and regionally significant resource
and facilities that are important for growth management purposes.
ELMS COMMITTEE. The ELMs Committee recognized that the
"integrated" state agency level plan should identify "state
resources, facilities and issues related to growth management"
[p.21 ELMS report], and that the Strategic Regional Policy Plans
(SRPPs) would need to be consistent with this state agency level
` 7 --- 007 P. 03
plan that was to integrate the three translationall" plans [p.30
ELMS report]. The ELMs Committee recognized that it should be the
"integrated" state agency level plan, not the State Comprehensive
Plan, that was to be involved with the identification of "state"
resources and facilities for growth management purposes.
DCA RECOMMENDATION: The SLOP should be statutorily recognized
as the principal state agency plan to be utilized for the
identification of state resources and facilities for all growth
management purposes, including the alternative land use siting
programs listed in the State Issues subcommittee's recommendations.
These siting programs have been typically developed as an
alternative to the DRI program for which the same state level of
policy guidance should be applied. In this role, the SLDP's
identification should be required to be compatible with the two
other state translationall" plans' identification of state
resources and facilities, and the new Strategic Regional Policy
Plans should be required to be consistent with the SLDP as the lead
state agency level growth management plan.
* THE SLDP PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE DRI/FQD PROGRAMS,
INCLUDING THOSE DCA ROLES THAT WILL REMAIN AFTER THE TERMINATION OF
THE DRI PROCESS.
The SLDP provides one of the few statutory policy guidance
established for DRI reviews. DCA's new DRI Uniform Standard Rules
establishing statewide standards to be used by all agencies were
based to a large extent on the state land use policy guidance
developed by the department in the SLDP. These rules also contain
the provision that the SLDP's land use policy guidance will be used
for those planning issues not yet fully developed into more
detailed DRI Uniform Standard rules. The regional role in the DRI
review process will be terminated in all counties greater than
100,000 population by 1998, but the state's oversight role by DCA
of local approvals of DRI-sized projects will remain. A local
government's approval of a DRI-sized project inconsistent with the
SLDP remains as one of the few bases for appeal by DCA in
"terminated" jurisdictions. To eliminate the SLDP would be to take
away the only state agency level plan that plays an integral role
in the DRI process, and would adversely affect the ability of the
department to challenge the inappropriate approval of DRI-sized
projects in terminated jurisdictions.
ELMS COMMITTEE. The ELMs Committee recognized the importance
of state agency level plans in the DRI review process by
recommending a statutory change to ensure that DRIs must be
consistent with the state agency level plan that was to integrate
the three translationall" plans [p.83 ELMS report], and by also
recommending that inconsistency with this same state agency level
plan (and not the State Comprehensive Plan) was to be one of the
bases for appeal of local government approvals of DRI-sized
developments in "DRI terminated" jurisdictions [pp.80-81 ELMS
DCA RECOMMENDATION: Retain the current use and status of the
SLDP in the DRI review process.
DCA RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SLDP)
The Legislature should create a new section within chapter 380,
F.S. [alternatively Chapter 186], specifically authorizing the
Department of Community Affairs to develop and adopt appropriate
portions of the State Land Development Plan by rule.
Section 380.031(17), F.S., currently provides the only content
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". A separate statutory section
should be created to provide legislative direction for the contents
and effect of the State Land Development Plan outside of the
current DRI review process. These uses for the plan would take
effect only after the adoption of those portions of the plan that
will apply to others by rule. The State Land Development Plan
should be structured to contain goals, objectives and policies.
The plan would be based on best available data and analysis,
although such data and analysis should not be required to be
incorporated directly into the plan. The plan should continue to
be required to be updated biennially, timed to follow any updating
of the SCP.
The goals, objectives and policies of the adopted State Land
Development Plan should address, at a minimum, the issues of (i)
Affordable Housing, (ii) Economic Development, (iii) Emergency
Preparedness, (iv) Natural Resources, (v) Transportation, (vi) Air
Quality, (vii) Archaeological and Historical resources, (viii) Land
Use, (ix) the Identification of State and Regional resources and
facilities, and (x) Compatibility with the Florida Water Plan and
the Florida Transportation Plan. The next to last recommendation
(ix) is based both on the current role of the SLDP in the
identifications of both state and regional resources and facilities
for Chapter 380 (see 380.06(12)(a)1 & 380.07(3), F.S.), and the
role that it will need to play as a substitute for the role that
the Growth Management portion of the SCP (now recommended by the
State Issues Subcommittee to be eliminated) was to play for the
identifications of both state and regional resources and facilities
for the new ICE element and other statutory ties (see
163.3177(6)(h)l.a. & 186.009(2)(c), F.S.). In this light, the
"Applicable State Plan" reference in 163.3177(6)(h)1.a., F.S.,
should be defined as in Chapter 380 to include the State Land
Development Plan (see 380.06(12)(a)l & 380.07(3), F.S.).
With sufficient guidance from the Legislature, there may be no
need to take the additional step of adopting the SLDP by rule,
pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. One alternative is that
the SLDP could be reviewed by the Legislature as the State
Comprehensive Plan is currently required to be reviewed after
!i .]'J L)7U7 P. -5
preparation by the Governor's Office. If such legislative
oversight were to take place, no rule making would be necessary.
Without such a legislative review, it would be necessary to adopt
the SLDP by rule as recommended.
The State Land Development Plan should continue to be used for the
review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRI), and its
applicability, particularly in the identification of state and
regional resources and facilities, should be expanded to those
siting plans and programs that serve as growth management
alternatives to the DRI program.
An adopted State Land Development Plan should continue to play
the role it currently does in the DRI and Florida Quality
Developments (FQD) review processes specified in 380.06(12)(a)l,
380.06(14) (a), 380.061(3)(a)7., 380.065(3)(b) and 380.07(3), F.S.
Once adopted by rule, the State Land Development Plan should be
allowed to be used by the Department of Community Affairs as a
basis for its current statutory review roles in the following
siting plans and programs: (a) Campus Master Plans [240.155, F.S.];
(b) Military Base Reuse Plans [288.975, F.S.]; (c) Job Siting Act
[403.950 403.972, F.S.]; (d) Florida High-Speed Rail
Transportation Act [341.3201 341.386, F.S.]; (e) Ten Year Power
Plant Siting Act [186.801, F.S.] and Electrical Power Plant siting
Act [403.501 -403.518, F.S.]; (f) Transmission Line siting Act
[403.52 403.5365, F.S.]; (g) Statewide Multipurpose Hazardous
Waste Facility Siting Act [403.78 403.7893, F.S.]; (h) Natural
Gas Transmission Pipeline siting; and (i) Commercial Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Management Facility Siting [404.0617, F.S.]. At
this time, the Department does not recommend that a statutory
review role, including the SLDP as a review standard, be added for
DCA in the Correctional Facility Siting Act [944.095, F.S.]
It should be understood that the "termination" of the DRI
program in certain jurisdictions is scheduled for December 31,
1997, when the new Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE)
requirements are required to be in place. DCA has adopted a new
administrative rule and an implementation schedule to meet that
date, but it does involve a compliance process required of all
local comprehensive plan amendments under Chapter 163. This means
that some submittals are expected to be late and/or found not in
compliance in such situations, the DRI program will have to
continue in those jurisdictions. At a minimum, it would be unwise
to consider the elimination of the SLDP, therefore, until the new
Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) requirements are
complied with and the necessary local ICEs are effective.
Furthermore, given the role that the SLDP is currently statutorily
directed to play as one of the few bases for DCA's review of local
government approvals of DRI-sized developments in both "terminated"
ard "non-terminated" jurisdiction's after 1997, the Department
strongly recommends that the role of the SLDP needs to be retained
for use in the DRI program.
The State Land Development Plan should continue to be required to
be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and should be
required to be mutually-compatible with the Florida Water Plan
(rWP) and the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP). Strategic
Regional Policy Plans should be required to be consistent with the
State Land Development Plan.
Since the State Land Development Plan needs to become a
substitute for the role that the Growth Management portion of the
SCP now plays for the new ICE element in 163.3177(6) (h)l.a., F.S.,
the Strategic Regional Policy Plans should be required to be
"consistent" with the State Land Development Plan adopted by DCA.
Compatibility with the FDOT and DEP agency plans should be
achieved principally through an interagency cross-acceptance
process of negotiation, with a fall-back to final resolution of
differences by the Governor's Office (EOG). Compatibility of the
District Water Management Plans (DWMP) with the SLDP should occur
through DEP's approval role of the DWMPs.
DCA does not accept the idea that if a direct compatibility
link is established between the LGCP and the Florida Water Plan
and/or the Florida Transportation Plan, that the DCA should be
limited in finding a LGCP not in compliance if the only issue
pertains to compatibility with one of these plans.