"That final loophole is astonishing" -- Lobeck on Hi Hat Master Plan

Letter sent March 19 from attorney Dan Lobeck to the Board, offering salient reasons why the Master Plan for Hi Hat Ranch, which will be addressed Tuesday March 22, fails to be sufficient in many ways. The text has been redacted to put the focus on Mr. Lobeck's last point, regarding road sufficiency and traffic:

Hi Hat Ranch

Honorable County Commissioners:

I and my firm represent Saddle Creek Owners Association, Inc., which operates the Saddle Creek Subdivision directly adjoining the proposed Hi-Hat Ranch Village development (and sharing a border about a mile long), which is before you for public hearing this Tuesday, March 23 .

We greatly appreciate the outreach, communications and cooperation of Jim Turner in the review and preparation of the proposed Master Development Plan.  In particular, we appreciate the relocation of the proposed Regional Sports Complex away from Saddle Creek, to a more suitable location north and east of the original site near Saddle Creek.

<A section relating to future high school, sporting areas, and another section on ground water have been elided> 

Transportation

Access to Saddle Creek is from Clark Road.  We are alarmed that the Transportation Conditions in the Master Development Order fail to address the need to maintain adequate capacity on Clark Road to handle the huge increase in traffic from the proposed Hi-Hat development, and to make the developer pay for needed road improvements for that purpose, as a Condition in the Master Development Order and as required by the Sarasota 2050 policies of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.   The same problem exists as to impacts of the development on many other east County roads.

Proposed Transportation Condition 11.B.7 provides that each rezoning in the development shall evaluate the need for widening or building only four road segments: two segments of Bee Ridge Road, North/South Roadway B, and Fruitville Road between that roadway and Lorraine Road.  That is despite the fact that the Traffic Study has identified sixteen road segments which will need improvements to handle the traffic from the Hi-Hat Ranch development, including the need to widen Clark Road from two lanes to four in the vicinity of Saddle Creek and elsewhere. 

Further, Transportation Condition 11.A.6 provides that no Development Orders throughout the development shall be approved if certain biennial monitoring of traffic impacts show a roadway becoming congested below the adopted level of service unless “funding commitments” are made sufficient to resolve the deficiency (with the developer paying its proportional share for the new capacity and the taxpayers paying the rest) or – now get ready for this, because it is actually in there -- if the Development Order includes “other traffic mitigating measures” including “the promotion of telecommuting, ride sharing or transit” acceptable to Sarasota County and “that are intended to eliminate the impact from Hi Hat Ranch development on the deficiently operating facility(ies).”

That final loophole is astonishing.  If the developer commits to promote ridesharing and telecommuting (perhaps with flyers given to purchasers), and “intends” -- intends -- that to be enough to take care of the traffic, and if County staff signs off on that, the developer is good to go gridlocking County roads in reality.   (“Whoops, sorry about that, but we really, really intended our promotion of ridesharing to keep the roads drivable.”)

Policy VOS 2.9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (in the Sarasota 2050 provisions) requires that each Village development “shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the level of service standard adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or Fiscally Beneficial.”

Instead, the Conditions now before you are woefully inadequate to comply with that requirement.  And the County has not even done a study showing who is going to pay for all the road improvements that will be needed and are in part planned east of I-75 that the County Commission is in the course of approving. 

Ben Franklin and others said that a failure to plan is a plan to fail.

More planning is needed in and for this Master Development Order, for the protection of the people of Saddle Creek and very many more, before it deserves to be approved. 

Thank you very much for your considerations.

  

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Condominium and Planned Development Law

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street, Suite 403

Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622

Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

www.lobeckhanson.com

Advocate: Unanswered Questions on county's bungled redistricting effort

Source: ScGov.net

To the Sarasota County Commission:

Below is information copied from the Redistricting page on scgov.net. It includes an official acknowledgment of the public participation in the selection of an Alternative District map, and the timeline to complete your redistricting project.  

Since the first public Open House on 9/18, additional disturbing information has been disclosed which warrants shutting down this early redistricting exercise. Yet your timeline suggests that flawed population methodology and appearances of compromise will not halt your quest to dictate the future of county voters.

Please respond to the following requests:

·      The County acknowledges the contributions of 2000 residents in the input survey, but at your meeting on October 7^th, you essentially dismissed the map preference selected by 90% of the respondents. Please account for this inconsistency.  

“…From Sept. 17 to Oct. 1, Sarasota County Government held five redistricting open houses as well as circulated an online public input survey. We appreciate your feedback — more than 2,000 public input forms were submitted. Read all the input submitted below….”

·      What is the agenda for your “special meeting” on October 30, 2019?  There are no details in the list of Next Steps at the end of this message, although other dates in the redistricting timeline specifically indicate an action or purpose.  On October 30^th:

o   Which maps will you consider---those “citizen” maps enhanced by Kurt Spitzer which show two Commissioners living in the same District—noted by red dots (See link and attachment: Waechter/alias Smith, former Commissioner Mason, Miller and Thomas)? Or will you display even more map options similarly unviewable on screen at a public meeting? 

Please be specific, since there’s an impression that the “Smith” map (aka Bob Waechter) may  serve as the template for the final District map. 

o   Has Mr. Waechter ever participated in configuring District maps for the County Commission in the past, e.g., post-2010 Census?  

o   How will the public be involved in your process---as spectators or active, meaningful participants? You touted this process as interactive and fair.  When will that happen?

o   By October 30^th, will you have shared your District boundary preferences privately with the consultant for a second time? If so, will you divulge what you shared since you also promised to be transparent?  

o   Will you accept additional map boundary ideas from political operatives identified by name or alias?  If so, please expound.

o   Will you go on record and dismiss the flaws discovered and confirmed by subcontractor Richard Doty, a recognized population expert at BEBR, the organization which provided the methodology for your contractor’s population study?  

o   Will you explain how it’s acceptable to demean justifiably concerned citizens by referring to them as “white noise”, when they include the Herald Tribune, Venice Gondolier Sun, SRQ Daily, the League of Women Voters and various City Commissions in Sarasota County?  

Since the “special” meeting on 10/30 is still two weeks in the making, I look forward to receiving your responses in a timely manner. 

Or, better yet---Finally do what’s best for your constituents and tell everyone that you’re waiting until after the 2020 Census to draw new District boundaries.  Displaying this questionable endeavor in plain sight does not make it right, and does not serve the public interest. 

Pat Rounds, 

District 1

Redistricting

Next Steps

• Oct. 30  - BCC Special Meeting on Redistricting

o   Time: 1:30 p.m.

o   Location: Commission Chambers, 1st floor in Administration Building, 1660 Ringling Blvd., Sarasota

• Oct. 26 - Advertise Nov. 5, 2019, Notice of Public Hearing to adopt map.
• Nov. 5 - Board action to adopt district boundaries and associated map.
• Nov. 10 and 17 - Advertise district boundary map adopted on Nov. 5, 2019.
• Nov. 19 - Board action to approve minutes from Nov. 5, 2019, including adopted map and acknowledge proof of publication for inclusion in the Nov. 19, 2019, minutes.
• Dec. 10 - Board approval of minutes from Nov. 19, 2019, acknowledging proof of publication of adopted map.

Don't let Board muzzle citizens

Update: See this panel discussion hosted by the Herald Tribune at Holley Hall for further discussion of Single Member Voting.


Guest Column to the Herald Tribune

Muntz: Don’t make petition drives harder

By Kindra Muntz, Guest Columnist
Posted Aug 27, 2018 at 5:15 AM


Don’t let the Sarasota County commissioners silence your voice: They propose to muzzle the voters by making it practically impossible for citizens to get county charter amendments on the ballot by petition initiative.

For over two years, voters of all political parties, as well as independents, have signed petitions to put a Sarasota County charter amendment on the ballot to change County Commission elections to single-member districts. Voter approval would result in commissioners being elected by the voters in the district they seek to represent, not by voters all over the county. [For more info, see SingleMemberDistricts.com]

Passage would, according to some estimates, cut campaign costs by 80 percent (there are five districts) and empower neighborhoods. That will give grass-roots candidates a chance against the candidates chosen and bankrolled by big development interests in expensive countywide campaigns. (Do you think it’s cheap to pack everyone’s mailboxes with all those glossy flyers?)

On June 22, the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections submitted the last of the 15,096 petitions needed to put single-member districts to a vote this November. That’s 5 percent of registered voters at the last general election, as required by the county charter. On Wednesday, the County Commission will conduct a public hearing to put it on the ballot.

But wait! The commissioners are not happy that voters have achieved this milestone. They don’t like this referendum, because some of them might not be re-elected if the voters in their district have their way.

Commissioners also opposed previous initiatives when voters found a need to make an end-run around the politicians. Charter amendments placed on the ballot by petitions brought mandatory recycling to Sarasota County when the commission refused to do so; instituted paper ballots in county elections (to be able to confirm machine counts, in an initiative by Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections that led to adoption of paper ballots statewide); required that any comprehensive plan amendment to increase land-use density or intensity be made by a vote of no fewer than four of the five commissioners.

On Wednesday, the county commissioners will consider their own charter amendments that would severely restrict the ability of voters to again petition for needed changes to protect the public’s rights and interests.

What would their amendments, if approved by voters, do? Double the petition requirement for any citizens’ initiatives in the future to 10 percent of voters. Instead of the 15,096 petitions voters we had to gather for the single-member district amendment, we would have to collect more than 31,000 petitions! (And more as our population grows.)

That would make it nearly impossible for volunteers to meet the requirement and too expensive even for paid petition help for all but the very wealthy, such as big developers.

They would also restrict the time to gather petitions to 1½ years, limit when voters can submit them, and more.

Only seven of Florida’s 20 charter counties have a 10 percent petition requirement.

We encourage all concerned voters in Sarasota County to attend the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, August 29, at 1660 Ringling Boulevard in Sarasota, to support our single-member district amendment and oppose the County Commission’s amendments to double petition requirements. Wear a red shirt if you can, so the commissioners can clearly see our supporters.

Don’t let them make it more difficult to petition your government. Don’t let them silence your voice.

Be ready to vote in November and say “yes” for single-member districts and, unless commissioners abandon their amendments, “no” to doubling petition requirements for citizens’ initiatives.

Kindra Muntz is president of the Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections (SAFE) and Single Member Districts.

Celery Fields at the tipping point

The Sarasota County Commission is holding a "Think Tank" discussion Tuesday Nov. 28th at which it will consider the sale of surplus lands as part of a "budget reduction" process presented by the new interim county administrator, Jonathan Lewis.

These surplus lands include three parcels near the Celery Fields which occasioned two highly controversial public hearings earlier this year (Restaurant Depot and James Gabbert's waste facility).

More than 50 homeowners associations near the Celery Fields area have signed on to an initiative known as Fresh Start. The idea is simple: hold off on the sale of these public lands temporarily; consult the community; go forward with a consensus vision that will serve the economic and environmental interests of all.

Forethought: Sarasota County now has a rare opportunity to shape and nurture a critical area to which many changes are coming. If the County sells to the first comer, it's choosing to act spasmodically and without forethought.

Gift horse: The Celery fields came about as an accidental stroke of great fortune. It’s a fabulous gift -- an amenity that we deeply love for all sorts of reasons. 

The shock people felt when they learned of a plan to put a heavy industrial waste facility there was palpable. The County can choose to take the rare value of this gift of nature and its place in people’s hearts into account when looking at future development here, or it may ignore all that. In the latter case, it abdicates its obligation as steward of public lands to plan rationally, intentionally, and comprehensively.

Pound Foolish: Actual fiscal responsibility goes beyond putting out fires. The County doesn't even have a fire. Some within the administration are considering quick sales of significant public lands to replenish a rainy day fund. Fast sales to industrial developers will doom higher prospects that hold economic promise, such as the planned Fruitville Initiative, soon to break ground:

Tipping Point

The Celery Fields Area is at a tipping point. This complex, changing landscape is rich in commercial, residential, recreational, ecological and -- with the Fruitville Initiative -- potent economic assets. These opportunities will gain in visibility and significance as the I-75 corridor develops. The County would be penny-wise, pound-foolish to do in haste what all will regret in years to come.

Is this rational planning?

Earlier this year, a large, heavy-industrial waste processing plant was proposed for public land at a fragile intersection in an East Sarasota district including a sensitive nature preserve, nearly 1,600 homes, an elementary school, a busy commercial area and several industrial parks.

The justification given for the proposal was that 25 years earlier, the public property was designated as a major employment center.

Sarasota County processed the proposal with no outreach to the surrounding community - the thousands of residents, stores, businesses and school which weren't there a quarter of a century ago.

Harmer

The public land where the waste plant was proposed was placed on the surplus lands list by County Administrator Thomas Harmer with no public consultation or advisory.

In processing the application, the County acknowledged none of the immediate, mid-term, or long-term consequences of placing a 16-acre waste plant at the heart of this upcoming district.

On Aug. 23, 2017, Commissioners Al Maio and Michael Moran voted to approve the rezoning and special exception for the waste plant. Commissioners Charles Hines, Nancy Detert, and Paul Caragiulo voted it down.

"To plan" means, "to decide on or to arrange in advance." Proposing to site an industrial waste facility in an environmentally sensitive area with tourist amenities because 25 years earlier it was designated as a possible site for light industry is not a plan. It's a calamitous anachronism.

How do we get from here to more commonsense, rational planning?

Has this partnership made sense for the people?

Pat Rounds has researched the convoluted Rowing Park deal between the Benderson developers and Sarasota/Manatee County in detail.  In response to the statement by former Commissioner Thaxton quoted in the Herald Tribune, Rounds made the comment below.

"...The original concept was for a youth rowing facility that wouldn’t require enlarging the lake to make a full 2,000-meter course. He thought it might cost about $2 million, Thaxton said..." 

Yet in a few short years at the urging of some local rowing clubs and Benderson Corp., a youth rowing facility that should have earned its way to greater investment was permitted by the County Commission to morph into a $40+ million dollar public investment "partnered" with a hollow pledge of corporate funding for a finish tower, boat house, permanent grandstands, restrooms and amphitheater to match the many millions in taxpayer revenue that built the infrastructure, including a man-made "regatta island". 

Where is the boat house? Where are the permanent grandstands? How about some restrooms---not Port-o-Johns? No amphitheater? Why not? Because the County Commission didn't require SANCA to sign a binding commitment to raise the $22 million to pay for those permanent buildings. Benderson Rowing Park was billed as a world-class venue. It's anything but.  

Three weeks before the World Rowing Championships, the park looks like the circus is setting up with rented bleachers, canvass tents where rowers can shower, and portable toilets----all paid with public $$$, not private. It's all been a clever shell game, with the joke on Florida and Sarasota County taxpayers. After the WRC leaves town, what next? More rentals at public expense to accommodate future events?  

Doesn't adjacent UTC benefit from being able to use the infrastructure (e.g., sewers, water retention ponds) created for the rowing park and paid for with public dollars? At least one party made out handsomely. Isn't this called jumping on the trolley without paying the fare?

Planner responds to Sarasota Survey on Affordable Housing

A recent Sarasota County survey on affordable housing recently circulated. Daniel Herridges, a member of the Citizens for Sarasota County group on Facebook, posted his responses. Herridges is doing graduate work in Urban and Regional Planning.


The County survey is open to all citizens through Dec. 12. All residents are urged to take the Affordability Survey here.

========

Sarasota County Affordable Housing Survey Responses

DANIEL HERRIGES·SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2016


1. Do you believe it is important for housing to be affordable for people who work in our community? Why or why not?

It is extremely important. Sarasota's quality of life depends on broadly shared prosperity. Our region's economy is heavily dependent on service-industry jobs. If enough affordable, decent housing is not available for those who work those jobs, we can expect to see worse traffic and environmental impacts as workers commute from far from their jobs; higher cost of living combined with slower economic growth; increased health problems as more people live in housing that is in poor condition; increased homelessness (already a pressing quality-of-life issue in downtown Sarasota and elsewhere); and potential negative effects on schools, crime rates, and neighborhood stability resulting from high socioeconomic inequality.


2. What type of workers is it important to have housing for? ( i.e. teachers, nurses, construction, manufacturing, government/private sector, etc.)

All types of workers need reasonable, healthy, safe housing, whatever their occupation or income level. I see the most dire need in Sarasota County being among low-wage service-industry workers, however—retail salespeople, servers, bartenders, customer service / receptionists, etc. I am dismayed that nearly all of the discourse around affordable housing from the County centers around "workforce housing" for moderate-income teachers, police, firefighters, etc.—while these groups do need housing as well, this focus is limiting. The most dire housing need is among residents with low and very low incomes (under 80% of AMI). I understand the political palatability of "workforce" versus "affordable" or "low-income" housing, but I hope County officials can also show the political courage to pay due attention to their neediest citizens. 

Affordable Housing

3. What makes it difficult for these workers to find affordable housing?

Wages in Sarasota County, as in all of Florida, are below average for the United States. The region has a disproportionate concentration of low-wage jobs in the service industries, and a relative dearth of scientific and technical jobs. This means there is structurally high demand for affordable housing. At the same time, with high migration driven by retiring baby-boomers, there is steady demand from outside the region for larger and more expensive homes, thus our home builders see little incentive to build "starter homes" or apartments when they have a profitable business model in higher-end, single-family subdivisions. Finally, the region's land-use policies stifle the organic growth of an affordable housing stock by largely disallowing "missing middle" housing types (buildings with 2-20 units), disallowing multifamily housing entirely in many locations, disallowing ADUs almost everywhere, and making it difficult to economically build small "starter" homes on small lots due to lot size and setback requirements. Sprawling, low-density suburban growth and a lack of infill development means that transportation costs eat up a high share of many households' budgets. Finally, the large-scale subdivision growth model (as opposed to incremental infill) means that whole neighborhoods are built out at the same time and age at the same rate; thus, almost nowhere in Sarasota County is there a diversity of housing age, size, condition, and thus affordability within one neighborhood like you find in many older U.S. cities. This makes it hard for young professionals to establish themselves here and for older people to downsize and age in place. 

4. What creative ideas do you have to removing the barriers to finding affordable housing?

Dedicate county-owned properties acquired through tax forfeiture to permanently-affordable housing. Seek to create a permanent, replenishable fund at the county level for gap financing to help nonprofit developers make affordable projects pencil out (meeting the “gap” between federal / state subsidies, the developer’s own financing sources, and total development costs). Reform land-use policy to broadly allow small, inherently affordable housing types like ADUs. Couple mandatory inclusionary zoning with density bonuses / exemption from things like setback requirements to incentivize the building of smaller housing units. Identify infill opportunities for larger multifamily projects on key transportation corridors (such as aging shopping centers in places like Clark Road and Tamiami Trail), zone these sites in advance for high-density mixed-use to ease the regulatory process, and work with land owners and developers if and when redevelopment occurs to ensure that plans have a housing component. New supply overall will help restrain prices in the region's housing market, but priority should be on encouraging rental housing, smaller units whether rental or ownership, and infill rather than greenfield development. "Affordable" housing in remote areas of North Port or east of I-75 is NOT affordable once transportation costs are factored into a household's budget! Do not let developers use "affordable housing" as a pretext for accelerated greenfield sprawl or exemption from the letter or spirit of 2050 requirements. 

5. What are the five most important reasons having housing affordable to these workers positively impacts the community?

Less inequality is associated with stronger economic growth. Workforce housing helps area employers attract workers and diversify the regional economy. Diversity of housing types and price points will help Sarasota weather boom-and-bust cycles better. Affordable housing near jobs restrains sprawl, resulting in less traffic and cleaner air. It's the right thing to do. Everyone should have access to adequate, safe housing.


6. Are there any particular areas or locations that make more sense than others to encourage or allow additional housing? (i.e. address, parcel, new developments, in existing developments, west of I-75, etc.) 

Along existing major transit corridors (coupled with increased transit investment to meet mobility needs that come with greater population). In existing neighborhoods in the form of ADUs. In older retail centers ripe for redevelopment—many of these have huge parking lots that are sparsely used even at peak hours and could be partially redeveloped as housing. Near major job concentrations (downtowns, hospitals, on the mainland near barrier islands). West of 75 almost exclusively! (Only exception: Lakewood Ranch) We have so much room for infill that it is environmentally and fiscally irresponsible to allow continued sprawl into greenfield areas, whether in the name of affordable housing or not.

A citizen's questions about Sarasota County traffic & safety

Traffic is probably the highest priority concern for residents of Sarasota County - it raises issues of safety, civic welfare, and quality of life.

Vicki Nighswander has been highlighting road safety and traffic for some time, and had researched many relevant aspects of this problem that is worsening with overdevelopment, as we see every day.

Below is Nighswander's email to the Sarasota County Commission. Her questions are in italics, with inline responses from Paula Wiggins, transportation manager for Sarasota County, indented.

Wiggins prefaced her inline comments as follows:

Thank you for voicing your concerns about the mobility and safety of Sarasota County’s transportation network. Please know that the safety of the citizens and users of the county’s roadways are of the utmost importance to our Transportation staff. That being said, please see staff’s responses to your questions below. Should you have additional questions regarding this information, please contact me.

From: Vicki Nighswander <nighswan1@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Allen Parsons; Alan Maio; Paul Caragiulo; Charles D. Hines; Carolyn Mason; Christine Robinson
Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update Input

Dear Planners And Commissioners,

I have spoken with County Staff, City staff, emergency management staff, FDOT, MPO and communication with the MPO, politicians and most recently with a consultant to the Regional Planning Council and still don't have answers to some very basic questions that should form the basis for decision making if safety's truly on the forefront of decision making which should be guiding growth decisions.

What are the construction requirements for designated evacuation roads?  One engineer mentioned that they are supposed to be Functionally Classified Routes but who monitors this?

           In Sarasota County, designated evacuation routes are to be built so they do not flood in a 100-year storm event.  A 100-year storm event means that there is a 1 percent chance of a 100-year storm occurring in any given year.   Evacuation routes are designated by county emergency management officials.  See below link for further details included in the State of Florida Administrative Code. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.flrules.org/gateway/notice_Files.asp%3FID%3D1220762&ved=0ahUKEwj3066EkOXPAhVLlx4KHRq3DO4QFggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNHROu6yK0IqL0EtWgl3DiupfxlAPA&sig2=a4qdfhgNhuEcG8zhvl6dlA

Shouldn't there be a study on how to move people around most effectively and efficiently with each new building and development approval process?

·         Developers are required to submit traffic studies for developments that generate 100 pm peak hour trips or more to determine their impacts on the roadway network. For those developments generating less than 100 pm peak hour trips, staff evaluates those impacts. As part of the evaluations crash data is reviewed.

For that matter, when was the last time the traffic analysis process evaluated for validity and whether it meets present needs particularly around safety?

·         Every five years the Sarasota Manatee MPO evaluates the roadway network for the two counties and their respective municipalities. This information is used to determine the Needs Plan for the bi-county region. The most recent analysis occurred last year, with the adoption of the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. In addition, Sarasota County Transportation Department evaluates crash data and levels of congestion on thoroughfare roadways annually.

Shouldn't comprehensive crash data and trends and analysis for the last 5-10 years be an integral component of the building and development approval process and include both county and state data?  Still County data doesn't include on and off ramps to 75, nor 75 and probably not other state roads.  Once again, I requested such data with now basically a run around and even a referral to a private service that charges $90.00/hr.  for this public data.

·         Crash data is considered as part of the traffic analysis when considering new developments and we do have access to data on I-75 and the on/off ramps as well.

Until ongoing needs are routinely captured and addressed, I see this comprehensive Plan as a stagnant bible falling short of what it could be. I do see promise in what's coming down the pike the National Performance Management Measures that will force decision making to be more strategic regarding highways and traffic.  I have been asking the question for some time "how do you measure success?"

·         Sarasota County does have performance measures related to traffic.  These are as follows:

• o   Crash Rate by Population ≤ to 3%
• §  For calendar year 2015 this was 2.4%
• o   % of Lane Miles that Meet adopted LOS
• §  For calendar year 2015 this was 90.06%

At this time, I wish to go on record with a vote of no confidence in the Boards action on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update.

Sincerely,

Vicki Nighswander 

Voices heard at the Final Comp Plan Hearing 10.25.16

Some of the people's voices heard at the Final Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan hearing - apologies for inaccuracies,  just fragments. 

If you spoke at the Oct. 25th hearing, you are welcome to send a full copy of your comments to sarasotavision@gmail.com and we'll post them.

The Comprehensive Plan was approved at the meeting.


Mr. D.

• "We need a clear picture of what we don't want."

Jono Miller -

• The plan needs measures/benchmarks/dates to track progress.
• Find better way to better engage the community on planning related projects
• Slow the Comp Plan update process down
• Staff is proposing vaguer language
• We’ve lost ⅕ of our beach - replaced with rock

Margaret C. - (shows images of torn up wetlands at Whole Foods site on University Parkway)

• Wetlands in process of being destroyed
• Not against development - do it in thoughtful, gentle way
• Environmental part of plan - “required” and “shall” being replaced by “may, voluntary,” etc.

Mike Cosentino

• I feel I’m protecting the biz community and the public from the County Commission 
• The only way to help us - make the County Charter like a phone book 

Woman -

• I would like to know how we keep natural parts safe from developers

Glenna Blomquist

• As a county we need rules that protect us from ourselves.
• Tallahassee has decimated state power to monitor local development
• My neighborhood - rezoned from 1 unit per 10 acres to 2 units per one acre - 
• Stringent language is lacking in the comp plan 
• The proposed plan may make our plan less protective
• Full text of Blomquist remarks.
• 
  

The Comp Plan Hearing:: 10.25. 2016

Michael C

• I want to believe changes are valid
• I do not hear why the controversial changes are needed or beneficial - I end with doubts.
• I respectfully request that the Comm address the criticisms the main ones - write an article, or be interviewed, answering in-depth questions.

Margaret Jean Cannon

• In 2010 - Sarasota came in 11th in growth - adding another city the size of Venice - we had been 18th
• Hypergrowth - challenges - look at 2050 plan 
• County mission statement - enhanced quality of life - 
• 1. protect the quality and integrity of our established neighborhoods
• 2. Storm surge
• 3. Looking at siloes - need traffic studies
• 4. “Should” and “shall” 

Linda Hunter

• I’ve lived here 26 years - love Sarasota
• I’m sure your goal was to protect the citizens
• Compatibility with neighborhoods
• Traffic - do you want to sit on 41, or drive on it?
• Environmental impact - Once you pave paradise, it’s gone
• Make intelligent choices
• The plan seems to remove a lot of your ability to protect our interests

Geraldine Swarmsted

• One member of Sierra Club - 2,100 members -
• I wish this were an update, not an evisceration
• Meetings when 19 people speak against something, 3 or 4 speak for, and it goes thru

Tom Matrullo

• "This new Comp plan is a behemoth. Few other than highly paid, specialized experts will master its intricacies." 
• Do you aim to govern? Or just “encourage?”
• "This is a moment of gigantism, and the new Comp Plan, in its size, complexity, and lack of clarity, looks strangely like the outsized growth it was supposed to control."

Dan Lobeck

• Density or intensity “may be lower” - it doesn’t talk about mitigation measures
• This is an evisceration of the neighborhood compatibility plan - you are taking away a very important provision
• Traffic - you are not required by state law to eliminate concurrency. If you do, your cty attorney has pointed out that you can limit a proposed rezone or special exception based on traffic considerations
• 1.3.12 - if you mean what you say, amend this to add “rezoning and special exceptions.”
• The people are right -
• Took out regs that affect mobility, environment - evisceration of 72? Policies.

Wade Matthews

• Conservation chair of Audubon Society
• We have about 1200 members
• What I hope you do is don’t approve this today
• Take some of the changes they have brought up
• Pervasive elimination of “shall”
• Majority of people don’t like the loosening of the comp plan
• Susan McManus - study - prime concerns of people of Sarasota Cty - principle concern is overdevelopment, congestion, too many people, 2nd issue is traffic
• I hope it’s not required that you make your decision today - deserves more time
• Take account of the clear feelings of the people of Sarasota County

Man from Osprey

• Your emphasis should be for the people
• Do not adopt this current update as it stands.
• Commissioner Robinson should recuse herself from this vote.

After the close of public comments, The Board of County Commissioners approved the Final Plan.