Photos from today's Press Conference

For more about this morning's Press Conference about the many reasons to oppose the changes to the Sarasota 2050 Plan, go here.

Videos of some of the speakers here.

Tale of Two Maps: Citizens produce counter-plan

A citizens' map for Alachua

This posting on Facebook tells of a county plan and an alternative proposed by the citizens of Alachua County, FL.

The maps:

Robert Karl Hutchinson with Richard Saxe at Alachua County Administration Building

Tale of Two Maps. The map to the left shows Plum Creek's proposed development and conservation areas contrasted with the map to the right which was prepared by a group of citizens and was presented by Jason Teisinger, Jack Putz, David Moritz,Dave Wilson, and Claudia Romero. The primary difference is the width of the buffer around Lochloosa Creek, and the connectivity provided to the North-South wildlife corridor. The acreage devoted to mixed use development is reduced from 11,396 acres to 6,522 acres, and the impact on wetlands is also halved. The proponents claim that their alternative meets the basic standards of the County's Comprehensive Plan with respect to acreages of development in strategic ecosystems, and other issues.

Since most people including me have a hard time relating to large acreages, I started measuring stuff, and here's what will fit onto 6500 acres: Downtown Gainesville from Waldo Road to 13th Street and N. 16th to S.16th Avenues PLUS all of the University of Florida campus to 34th Street including the Shands and VA hospitals PLUS all of Gainesville Regional Airport PLUS the entire North Florida Medical Center complex and the Oaks Mall PLUS Butler Plaza PLUS the proposed mega- developments of Springhills, Santa Fe Villages, Celebration Pointe, and Newberry Village, PLUS Haile Village and Tioga . . . and I'm pretty sure there's still land leftover for a proper croquet court.

REMINDER: For Immediate Release: 2050 Action Network Press Conference

For Immediate Release:  2050 Action Network Press Conference   

• Monday October 20th, 10:30 a.m.

• 1660 Ringling Blvd. (outside County Administration building facing the Post Office)

The 2050 Action Network is a group of local civic organizations who have come together in shared concern over the 2050 amendments created by the Sarasota County Commission.  The 2050 Action Network joins 1000 Friends of Florida in their opposition to the 2050 changes and opposes the poor land use planning, economic development and environmental stewardship inherent in Sarasota 2050 changes.  

The Sarasota 2050 Plan is, in the County’s own words, a plan of compromise.  The County Commission is recklessly disregarding the goals of that compromise and perverting the economic, environmental, quality of life and sound planning goals and principles that are the foundation of the 2050 Plan compromise.  If it is time to review the 2050 Plan, there should be a full, open and transparent review of all portions of the Plan with representatives from all of the community at the table to develop any changes.

Sarasota County has failed in its responsibilities to the residents of the County in the development of the proposed amendments by:

1. Failed Due Diligence                                                                                    

The Sarasota County Commission has failed to demonstrate due diligence, necessary analysis, compatibility of goals regarding the following issues related to 2050 changes: 

Water issues - carrying capacity and security analysis is missing

Sarasota County purchases over 50% of our drinking water from neighboring counties.

The rural lands are an important water recharge area for our aquifer.  Vulnerability of our water supply is not included.

                        

Environmental Issues  - impact analysis on wildlife habitat and fauna, analysis on optimizing environmentally sensitive areas for wildlife and public amenity, where is inventory of wildlife corridors.  The County’s Land Management Master Plan - on the County website - is out of date.  It was due to be updated in 2010.   

Agricultural issues - future agriculture need and resource analysis 

Where is the County arable land map?  What is the plan for local food security, local produce?

Transportation/Traffic impact  - analysis of design changes and traffic outcomes is missing.  Best planning practices point toward walkable development and prioritizing walkable infill and redevelopment in existing cities and neighborhoods.  Evacuation, traffic and accident analysis is missing.

Timing of Construction - total existing housing potential of County is ignored

Municipality data and analysis missing, Impact on the home values and real estate market not evaluated.  Sarasota County currently has at least 125,000 total potential housing units (there are definitely more) and our projected 10 year demand is about 16,400 units.  The overall market is not considered in these policy changes. 

Fiscal Neutrality - the work of creating a mathematical model/formula to ensure existing taxpayers do not pay for surplus development has not been required/ completed.  2050 Changes give the County zero to limited audit capacity.  The County is bypassing this responsibility.  Models exist (work of Joe Minicozzi and Charles Marohn ignored).

2.  County Commission has a history of failing to look at the big picture, changes do not conform with state law, best planning practice ignored

According to 1000 Friends of Florida, the 2050 changes do not conform with Florida statutes 163.3177(1)(a)9, 163.3177(1)(b) and 163.3177(1)(f).  (see attachment)

Development at University at I-75 was slated to be walkable, bike-able and include affordable housing.  Design standards were systematically weakened.  Now taxpayers will be funding an 80 million dollar traffic solution  - the diverging diamond - a direct result of failure to embrace best planning practices.

The County’s failure to plan properly is ultimately funded by citizens, either through tax increases and/or reduced quality and availability of public services.  Example:  According to recent news reports, Sarasota taxpayers will be funding Lakewood Ranch Blvd. expansion despite a development agreement requiring Schroeder-Manatee Ranch, Inc. to fund it.  (see links below)

3.  By Failing to Conduct a Truly Public Process, Sarasota County’s piecemeal approach is undermining our future.  A Broad Vision requires real public participation.  

               

        

Public input has had no substantive impact on the creation of any of these  amendments.  These substance of these amendments to 2050 policy was created in private meetings from September 2012 through January 2013 primarily with SMR and Pat Neal Communities.

Public input has been window dressing in this process.   The scoping process was eliminated.  Open houses and public workshops throughout the phases were inconsistent (no workshops regarding phase one changes) and poorly timed (open houses held in rural areas during fair week, a workshop held in the City of Sarasota during a City Commission meeting, workshops held during the holiday season and the dead of summer).  Public input has not resulted in any substantive addition or change to these amendments.  Public concerns regarding Clear Water and Air, Wildlife Habitat, Greenway Amenities,  Fiscal Neutrality, Infill and Redevelopment, Walkability, Traffic, effective Economic Development, Housing Values are being ignored.  We are witnessing the Browardization of Sarasota County.

Conclusion 

We join 1000 Friends of Florida in opposing these ill-conceived amendments to Sarasota 2050 due to insufficient due diligence, inadequate public input and failure to optimize Sarasota County’s natural and economic resources.  We support the findings of 1000 Friends of Florida, that the 2050 amendments fail to comply with state statutes.  In short, the best information and best practices on planning and development are being ignored in the local planning policies created by the Sarasota County Commission. We urge the County Commission to protect our quality of life and reject these changes. We urge the public to stand up for our future quality of life in Sarasota by attending Wednesday’s 2050 hearing . 

Selected References:

Water Issues:

Water mismanagement at SWFMD             

http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/Dr_Water_Qual_Rep_2003.pdf

Environmental Issues:

Sarasota County Land Management Master Plan - not updated since 2010

Timing of Construction, Walkability, Prioritizing Infill and Redevelopment, Fiscal Neutrality:

The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities

Foot Traffic Ahead

Charles Marohn: The Growth Ponzi Scheme

Lakewood Ranch Blvd Extension 

Lakewood Ranch Blvd. Funding

Attachments:

• “Supply and Demand, Sarasota Housing” 
• “Development That Pays for Itself - Minicozzi” 
• Private 2050 meetings - see 2050 Meetings PDF 
• 1000 Friends of Florida letter

2050 Action Network includes members from:

• Better Government Association of Sarasota County
• CONA Sarasota
• Coalition of City Neighborhood Associations
• Control Growth Now
• Progressive Women of Southwest Florida
• Sarasota Audubon
• Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government
• Sierra Club
• Suncoast Waterkeeper
• The Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida

Jono Miller: County Painting Itself into a Corner

Ms. Valerie Brookens
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
107 East Madison Street
Caldwell Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4120

                                                                                                                                                                        19 October 2014

Ms. Brookens et al.

I’m writing to share some concerns regarding proposed changes to Sarasota County’s comprehensive Plan. I stand with Becky Ayech, John Wesley White, Maynard Hiss, Bill Zoller, Cathy Antunes, Dan Lobeck, Ann Kaplan, Mollie Cardamone and others who are questioning the process and outcome of the proposed revisions to Sarasota County’s comprehensive plan. I’ve worked with all the above-mentioned citizens, some for decades, and while we don’t always agree, I can attest to the fact that all of the above care deeply about the future of our county. I’ve attached some brief material related to my qualifications at the end of this document.

To begin with, I don’t object to any interest group prodding the County Commission to initiate major changes to our comprehensive plan. But when the County commits to doing so, it should be following adopted procedures, fully involving the Planning Commission, taking a comprehensive approach, and proceeding in a logical sequence. In my opinion, the County has failed to do so.

My intent is to focus on some procedural or structural issues others may not have focused on, and there are three I find most relevant: Failure to involve the Local Land Development Regulation Commission, Failure to be comprehensive, and Improper phasing of adoption.

 Failure to Appropriately Involve the Local Land Development Regulation Commission

1) Since 2011 an adopted Scoping Process pursuant to Sec. 94-85 has required that staff conduct a two part scoping process wherein “the proposed amendment will be clearly defined and all pertinent issues identified.” The County followed this process when considering changes to the Transfer of Development process in 2013 and it required LPA (Planning Commission) involvement. Commissioner Barbetta mistakenly implied this wasn’t the case.

2) The Board initiated the scoping process in this case when they directed staff to prepare a scoping document and posted that intent on the 2050 webpage (screenshot from County 2050 webpage below). The staff initiated the scoping process as directed and held the required workshops.

3) The next step according to the law and the flow chart used in the TDR process should have involved going to the Planning Commission and providing for public comment. Then, once the Planning Commission weighed in, it should have gone back to the County Commission, which authorizes the scope and processing of the CPA (or not). This makes perfect sense because you would want the LPA involved in determining what should and shouldn’t be considered in an amendment.

4) Instead the County Commission aborted their adopted scoping process. Instead of following the adopted procedure they were partway into, on May 8th 2013 they took a short-cut, aborting the legally-required scoping route they started on, thus depriving the public and Planning Commission of the opportunity specifically laid out in Staff flow charts.

Millennials Shunning Malls Speeds Web Shopping Revolution

This story from Bloomberg was noticed by David Brain of New College on the page entitled 2050 Comprehensive Plan sor Sarasota Citizens.

By Matt Townsend Jun 25, 2014 9:42 AM ET

Facebook

CJ Chu is a retailer’s nightmare.

The 24-year-old associate for a private-equity firm does “99 percent” of his shopping online -- even toothpaste. He’d rather buy groceries on the Web than walk to the supermarket.

“Convenience and free time is something I value,” said Chu, who works for Bridge Growth Partners LLC in New York. “Ordering online just makes more sense.”

Chu is an extreme case. Yet millions of Americans like him are abandoning stores faster than executives predicted, pushing the industry to a precipice. Traditional retailers, for the first time ever in 2014, will generate half their sales growth on the Web, according to Stifel Financial Corp. That means about $18 billion in new revenue generated this year will come from online purchases, an analysis of U.S. Census data shows.

The stampede online will only accelerate as 80 million U.S. millennials start families, buying homes and filling them with stuff. Mobile shopping is giving e-commerce another boost. Next month, Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) will start selling a smartphone that will allow shoppers to scan a product in a mall and purchase it from the company’s online store, giving retailers another reason to fear their most potent Web rival.

Lakewood Ranch's Three Card Monte Turns Four Lanes into Two

Proof that we are subsidizing development

Via CONA Sarasota: Who is paying for roads? In 2010, Lakewood Ranch development received approval to increase their Sarasota 2050 project from 57 units to over 5,000 housing units in exchange for open space, walkable communities and included paying for the new roads needed by the development. The developers signed an agreement with Sarasota County called the Adequate Facilities and Transportation Agreement (AFTA) which clearly outlines who pays for the roads needed by the new development. The 2010 AFTA agreement stated (see attached) 'SMR or Lakewood Ranch Stewardship district will remain responsible for constructing all on site and site related roadways,at its own expense... 'Lakewood Ranch Boulevard, from Communications Parkway to Fruitville Road:  construct two lanes prior to first construction plan; (and) two additional lanes...' Yet, if you read the October 8th Sarasota Herald Tribune article on the construction of Lakewood Ranch Boulevard, the newspaper stated 'Jensen has also proposed four lanes for the road - instead of the two he's required to build - and for the county to pay the difference.' This article refers to comments made by Rex Jensen of the Lakewood Ranch SMR development company.  (see attached link to article) So when did it change from Lakewood Ranch development paying for all four lanes of Lakewood Ranch Boulevard to where they are only required to pay for two lanes?  When did we get stuck with the bill for paying for 2 lanes? This is one example of how existing Sarasota County taxpayers will be subsidizing new development in the rural lands. There were several 2050 developments approved to date and more expected. We have no idea how much subsidizing new development will cost the Sarasota County taxpayers in the near future. So join us in sending your objections to the state.  Send your objections to: valerie.brookens@deo.myflorida.com ray.eubanks@deo.myflorida.com

"A steady erosion" - Former Sarasota County Administrator

"The adoption of the 2050 plan itself was a manifestation of this ill-advised shift but it contained some safeguards to protect taxpayers. These safeguards are now being rendered meaningless.  -- Former Sarasota County Administrator John Wesley White.

I would like to express my opposition to the changes proposed to Sarasota County’s Comprehensive Plan. I moved to Sarasota County in 1987. At that point, Sarasota County was an award-winning exemplar of sound planning and strong environmental policies. For the first ten or so years of my residency in Sarasota County, the County Commission pursued a balanced approach to growth, development, and environmental protection; however, over the past fifteen years, there has been a steady erosion of those policies as development interests have gained increased control of the local political process.

The adoption of the 2050 plan itself was a manifestation of this ill-advised shift but it contained some safeguards to protect taxpayers. These safeguards are now being rendered meaningless. Public opinion in Sarasota County, as validated by official opinion surveys, has remained committed to protection of vital natural resources and preventing harmful development, yet the Board of County Commissioners has consistently approved development that has ignored its urban service boundary, degraded transportation on state and county roads, reduced fees paid by development, diverted infrastructure resources from correcting decades-old deficiencies to support projects that foster increased development, and sought to shift responsibility for growth impacts from the development interests sponsoring increased growth to current residents and state government.  

 The proposed changes in the county’s comprehensive plan would continue and exacerbate those patterns and are inconsistent with state policies to manage growth, preserve agriculture, and protect environmental resources. These misguided policies have already cost state government millions of dollars and the proposed changes will greatly increase demands on state financial resources, while also requiring County taxpayers to pay more for the inefficient infrastructure of sprawl. I support enlightened growth management based upon sound planning principles and I celebrate the rebirth of downtown Sarasota during the period since I moved here. There is abundant opportunity for growth and development without these proposed changes. I ask that the County Commission defer these proposed amendments to Sarasota County’s comprehensive plan and adopt a more prudent and balanced approach to managing growth.

John Wesley White
"I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day."

-- E.B. White

See more letters here.

Matrullo: Flawed, Missing Pieces, Disfigured Image

Oct. 17, 2014

Dear Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens and Sarasota Commissioners,

Sarasota County to the East of I-75 is largely an open, green world populated by ranches, a few farms, some multi-acre homesites, and waterways.

Now there is substantial interest from developer/builders in transforming that rural landscape into another sort of world, replete with subdivision-style development and commercial shopping. They feel the time has come for a scattering of “villages” and “hamlets,” despite the fact that as many as 50,000 infill locations are open on the West side of I-75 which would place fewer demands on the taxpayers for services and support.

The developer/builders also are seeking to shift the risk of development from their enterprises to the taxpayers of the County through modifications to the Fiscal Neutrality provisions of Sarasota County’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan.

Regarding the proposed Amendments, I wish to make three brief comments:

1. Flawed process: The original 2050 plan grew organically out of a long process of consensus and compromise between planners, citizens and developer/builders. The amendments, on the other hand, are the product of closed-door conferences between county staff and developer/builders. The proposed revision deviates from the original pact, and from ethical governance, in ways so serious that some are researching grounds for legal action.

2. Missing Pieces: If one were to attempt to draw a map of what the Amendments organize within the areas of the 2050 Comprehensive Plan, one would have little to go on. The guidelines call for villages and hamlets that would presumably be built on various tracts of land now used for ranching or agriculture.

What neither the Amendments nor the original 2050 guidelines address is some positive purposeful plan for all the lands and waters between the housing subdivisions. In other words, what the developer/builders and the county are proposing is nothing but a loose set of rules for new housing. That might be all developer/builders need to think about, but it is hardly what the governmental custodians of the County’s future land use ought to be concerned with.

Specifically, to my knowledge there is little or nothing in this plan that uses the metrics and analytical methods of physical planning to meaningfully integrate:

1. Wildlife
2. Environment
3. Water and water quality
4. Public use, e.g. recreation
5. Tourism
6. Anchoring elements that add community value - a university, for example, or a research institute, think tank, park, public sports facility, etc.
7. Incentives to create a coherent, walkable configuration, when studies show walkability adds real value to a community.
8. A systematic plan for roads, commercial spaces, greenways, amenities so that each developer does not have to reinvent the wheel for his/her particular subdivision.

In short, we are looking at a large swath of Sarasota County that will contain isolated housing products that lack a unifying context, a theme, and coordinating incentives. Each builder can entirely ignore what each other is doing, or, more likely, compete with them to attract buyers. This is not a plan but a carte blanche to ignore planning. A plan that actually makes provisions for the public lands, waterways, wildlife corridors and elements of community value - indeed, a plan that actually serves as a PLAN pure and simple, is not what’s coming before the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners on Oct. 22, 2014.  

3. Disfigured Image: From what I’ve heard so far from the developers and builders who have sought these changes, it seems they have given no thought to the landscape, history, natural qualities, or public value of the Eastern portion of Sarasota County. They simply view it as land, pure and simple, as if all land were the same, in some idealized Cartesian universe.

All land is not the same, nor are all counties the same. In our public hearings, over and over we have heard people say that they never intended to move to Florida -- what they saw did not have the sort of cultural values they sought in retirement. Then they happened upon Sarasota, and found a community of intelligent residents passionate about the arts, nature, science, thought, and community. And now they fear, as do I, that that social identity, that “Brand Sarasota,” is slipping away, to be replaced by a mechanical, cliche-driven machine that has been called “Browardization.” The resulting damage to the image of Sarasota could be irreparable.

One final irony: By pressuring the County administration and planners to jettison key aspects of the original 2050 plan, the developer/builders are more likely to open themselves to failure. If they simply build replicant gated communities as they have done forever West of I-75, they may end in producing costly disasters. The younger generations want real land, and are interested in Nature, in growing real food, breathing real air, drinking real water. The developers are behind the Zeitgeist, but suffer the illusion they are leading the way.

As a citizen who believes that Sarasota’s old values are worth preserving, I ask that you reject the changes to the County’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan on the grounds that they reflect aberrant judgment, poor if not unethical governance, and an abandonment of the civic and aesthetic values to which Sarasota citizens have long subscribed.

What we need to do is bring back to the table all the original stakeholders -- the people of Sarasota, the county planning staff, and the developer/builders, and hammer out a practical vision worthy of all -- a vision that will underscore how Sarasota is not a cluster of tired cliches, but a special community that will continue to attract people of taste and discernment.

Thank you,

Tom Matrullo

Letter from a former Planning Commissioner

October 17, 2014

Becky Ayech

421 Verna Road

Sarasota, Fl.  34240

Email:  beckyayech@gmail.com

Ray Eubanks ray.eubanks@deo.myflorida.com

Valerie Brookens valerie.brookens@deo.myflorida.com

Sarasota County BCC commissioners@scgov.net

VIA EMAIL

Re:  Sarasota County’s proposed changes to Sarasota’s Comprehensive Plan, Specifically 2050

Mr. Eubanks and Ms. Brookens,

I have been a resident of Miakka (also known as Old Miakka) for 34 years.  I am also the president of the Miakka Community Club Inc. (MCC).  The MCC was formed in 1948 to give a voice to the rural residents in Miakka for preserving and conserving the rural Miakka Community.  Since the Growth Management Act required counties to adopt comprehensive plans, MCC has been an active participate.

When the first Comprehensive Plan (Apoxsee) was adopted in Sarasota, there were provisions to protect the rural area of the county.  Apoxsee recognized the need to have areas in Sarasota for food and fiber production.  Over the years this rural protection has been eroded away.  The “food and fiber” protection was removed several years ago.  The urban service boundary has been moved into the rural area allowing removal of prime agricultural lands¹ and replacing them with urban development.  The proposed amendments do nothing to further agriculture protection or rural lifestyles.  The clustering of hamlets under the guise of allowing more land available for agriculture is a ruse.  No data or analysis was presented to identify what lands would be used for agriculture and which lands would become the clustered hamlets.  My experience, as well as experience throughout this country, has been for urban developments to drive agriculture away because of neighbors’ complaints about odors, sounds and smells.  To place 2,400 homes, roughly 5,000 people (the average household in Sarasota is 2.2 persons) in the midst of agriculture is a death toll.  The “hamlets” are supposed to represent a transitional area from urban to rural. This volume of people and the urban style development does not represent or function as a transition. 

The proposed reduction in green space between the “hamlets” also is not a functional transition between developments.  Most property in the area identified for “hanlets” is zoned at one unit per 5 acres and one unit per ten acres.  The property sizes are generally 330 feet by 660 feet and 660 feet by 660 feet, with some at 330 feet by 1320 feet.  A 50-foot setback between “hamlets” isn’t indicative of any rural or agricultural lifestyle or practice.  It is merely “urban sprawl” in the rural area.

   

As a former Sarasota Planning Commissioner, I am cognizant of the requirements of comprehensive plans.  The proposed amendments are not consistent with 163.3177(1), F.S.; 163.3177(1) (a) 9, F.S. and 163.3177(1) (b), F.S. i.e. predictable development standards, urban sprawl and mitigation standards.  The data and analysis as required by 163.3177(1) (f), F.S. were not met. Therefore, DEO has no other alternative than to deny these proposed amendments.

I challenged the 2050 plan per se, and know these amendments would not rise to the “reasonable person” standard in the administrative hearing process.

During a very rigorous DOAH proceeding, there wasn’t any testimony presented to show that these proposed changes were necessary.  Additionally, there weren't any amicus briefs filed to support the proposed changes.

Growth management isn’t about granting privileges to a few but rather about managing growth in a way that protects the existing residents , supports urban infill, protects natural resources and offers a diverse economic base.

Becky Ayech

1 ^{History of Agriculture in Sarasota County.  The Sarasota County Fair Directors and the Sarasota county Historical Commission}

Find more letters here, here, and here.

Walkability - A good investment

There are strong connections between walkable environments and economic viability.

"Real estate values over the next 25 years will rise fastest in "smart communities" that incorporate traditional chareacteristics of successful cities including a mix of residential and commercial districta and a "pedestrian-friendly configuration." - Walkable Communities, Inc.

Two studies shed light on the issues of Walkability and can be downloaded from the sites below:

From the Local Government Commission, The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities.

From Smart Growth America, Foot Traffic Ahead.

Walkable communities are not just wealthier, but healthier. More here and here.