Citizen Participation in Sarasota County Planning: An Open Letter

July 28, 2017

To: Sarasota County Planning, Matt Osterhoudt, Allen Parsons, Tate Taylor, Vivian Roe

This letter is a follow-up comment pursuant to the Comp Plan Amendment (CPA) meeting you conducted for the Planning Dept. on June 26th. It’s our understanding that the plan amendment then under consideration, 2015-G -- easing constraints on open space and buffers for developments proposed as villages or hamlets under the 2050 Plan -- may no longer go forward. But public comment during two meetings at which we were present (January 18 and June 26, 2017) made clear that the process for CPAs raises two related issues.

First, the  perception exists that with 2015-G the County, as a public entity, seems to be exploring a proposal with little relevance or benefit to any constituency other than the development industry. The changes under consideration seem related only to specific private business concerns -- yet the public meeting and process is termed “publicly initiated.”

Second, it was noted - by myself and others - that while the Board initiated this evaluative process, and Planning is doing its due diligence by holding public meetings, there is no generally understood method by which Sarasota residents might similarly initiate such public evaluations of Comp Plan changes.

When the County acting as a public entity explores certain Comp Plan options that benefit specific parties, it creates a "problem of optics," as they say. The voting public sees the County proceeding with what it calls a “publicly initiated” Comp Plan amendment, but sees no opportunity to be equally proactive. At the Gulf Gate meeting, there was a sense of being invited merely to react to a proposal introduced by an unspecified party.

Greater transparency of origin and purpose of comp plan amendment initiatives would help. To that end, this comment is offered to open a dialog that could lead to a more open and balanced public process.

Please correct or elaborate if any of the following statements regarding the steps leading to the BCC’s approving a proposed public initiative for a comp plan amendment is false or incomplete:

• The Board votes to proceed with these initiatives. That vote can include discussion, or simply be part of the consent agenda.
• When presented to the Board, the originator of the initiative is identified, and the perceived public benefit of the amendment is explained.
• If the proposed amendment applies to a specific parcel or parcels, the location and number of these parcels and acreage are presented as an indicator of the nature of the perceived public benefit.
• Any actual Comp Plan Amendment is voted on publicly by the Board, with Public comment forming part of the proceeding.

If the actualities differ from what is stated above, please clarify so that we are not proceeding upon mistaken assumptions.

When a proposed amendment comes before the Board for a vote, and the Board decides that it only serves developers, it might advise whoever is proposing the amendment to initiate a private Comp Plan amendment process.

Perceived Imbalances

Conversely, we would propose to open a dialogue with County to address the perceived imbalance between public and private sectors, with special reference to several moments in the planning and land use process. Proposed topics include:

• Basic visioning of community / sector /  neighborhood character and design.

• Practical introduction to public initiatives of Comp Plan Amendments.

• An introduction to Critical Area Planning.

• Strong expansion of public notification and input regarding any land use or rezoning changes to Public Lands, and to surplusing and sale of same -- see Ord. 2016-087.

• Putting in place a system to revisit and revise antiquated FLU designations. Given the accelerated pace of development and change in Florida, especially in places like Sarasota that are “in demand,” actual conditions on the ground change constantly. It’s both reasonable and wise to dynamically review old designations when their contexts have changed. Doing so would pre-empt conflicts arising when developers play 35-year-old land use cards that are hopelessly out of sync with all surrounding conditions.

An example

Suppose residents of an area -- say Clark Rd. east of I-75 for the sake of the argument -- wished to ask the Board to explore the idea of requiring a 750-ft buffer for all commercial projects, for the sake of preserving the rural character of the road. (750 feet here is chosen as an illustration, since it’s greater than the existing 2050 rule).

In this case, while the incentive for such a proposal would appear to come from "private" persons, its actual inspiration and purpose stems from a shared public vision of East Clark Rd. as a rural Heritage Road. To be clear, the amendment’s intent in our example is not to prevent development, but to have development fit within a shared public vision. The citizens seek a role in deciding the character of this portion of the County.

So the proposed amendment comes with a public purpose and benefit. If developers were required to abide by the 750’ foot rule, they might discover that the rural appeal of the area -- the fact that it looks entirely unlike Clark Rd. to the west of the highway -- could draw buyers seeking a locale that is neither urban nor suburban. Creativity could be one result.

Why is this important? Because when developers ask for and receive 50-foot buffers (a 450-foot reduction) and other changes to the 2050 Village Plan, they are motivated almost exclusively by the specific density needs and business model of the particular project they happen to be working on.

If residents strongly believe that their area possesses distinctive general features -- without which it would lose its essential character -- they’ll work to ensure that its quality and appeal is not undermined by asystematic, ad hoc developer exceptions.

To summarize: When the County as "the Public" explores amendments that appear to primarily benefit private business, it may appear to cater to special interests. Clarifying both who is instigating an initiative and the details of the public benefit can reduce such mixed signals.

By the same token, residents who wish to have a say in shaping the future of Sarasota (East County for example) would benefit from a clarified participatory process, through which the County may receive collaborative insights to help shape the future vision.

The 2050 Plan was created to represent the vision of the people of Sarasota. To the frustration of many residents, it has been compromised repeatedly as developers line up for exceptions and amendments. Before East County becomes a mirror image of West County, we’d like to collaboratively foster public participation in shaping the undeveloped areas of Sarasota.

A version of this comment will be submitted to the UDC Portal with a request for a meeting with Planners and UDC consultants.

We invite Planning to explore this with us as well through the same public meeting process that you recently so ably conducted at Gulf Gate.

Respectfully,

Tom Matrullo

Co-Founder, Citizens for Sarasota County

Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations (CONA)

Manatee-Sarasota Group of the Sierra Club

Carlos Correa

President of HOA, Pinetree Villages, The Enclave

David Johnson

Secretary, Meadow Walk Homeowners Association, Inc.

Glenna Blomquist

NextDoor Lead, Mockingbird Parish

Keith C. Russo

Chair, Lake Sarasota Community Group

Dan Lobeck

President, Control Growth Now

William Zoller

Lourdes Ramirez

Sura Kochman

Adrien Lucas

Dennis Robertson

Margaret Hoffman

Lynn Nilssen

Geraldine Swormsted

Gayle Reynolds

Damon White

Gretchen White

Cathy Antunes
Co-Founder, Citizens For Sarasota County

Skip Parrish

LeRoy William Hasselbring

Vickie Nighswander

Susan Schoettle

Tom Walker
Co-Leader, Nation Group of Sarasota/Manatee

Patricia Troy
If you wish to add your name, write to sarasotavision@gmail.com

Sierra Club Response to County Open Space and Green Belt Initiatives

Space and Green Belt

From:  Gayle Reynolds, Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club

To:   Vivian Roe, Sarasota County Planning and Development Services

Re:   Comments submitted on behalf of the Manatee/Sarasota Sierra Club regarding Amendment No. 2015-G to the Sarasota 2050 Plans Open Space and Green Belt policies.

From 1999 to 2001 the Sarasota County 2050 Plan was developed and approved in 2002 as an alternative to the agricultural zoning that previously allowed one unit per five acres east of the Urban Service Boundary, I-75.  Although the drafting process consumed hundreds of staff hours and time donated to review and commentary by public interest groups, today we find many of the core principles of Sarasota 2050 Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2015-G have been incrementally removed or significantly weakened.

Presented as a “citizens sponsored” comprehensive plan amendment, 2015-G would result in significant density increases while reducing open space requirements from 50% to 33%. The 500’ green belt requirement around villages could be reduced down to 200’ or an undetermined and unspecified width determined by the Board of County Commission.

Contrary to policies supported by the Sierra Club that would preserve native habitat, the amendment weakens the limits on uses for Open Space and Greenbelts.  Other than lakes, at present any “storm water facility” counted as Open Space must be “regional.”  That language is deleted, allowing all swales and canals for instance to count as Open Space.  

Additionally concerning, added as allowed Open Space alternatives are “existing linear facilities that have been enhanced,” such as an FPL easement which has been “enhanced” somehow, or a path which has been converted into a road.  This loosening of open space uses is a significant issue for the Sierra Club because the more alternatives that are allowed to count as Open Space, the less a developer may be required to preserve native habitat, another and most significant Open Space use.  

The amendment’s allowable uses within the Greenbelts would also be weakened and it would strike the current important language which states, “New uses are restricted within this Greenbelt to native habitats and to low intensity agriculture and wetland mitigation that do not involve the conversion of native habitat.”  While a provision was added in the writing of the Sarasota 2050 Plan to let the County Commission also approve a “golf course using best management practices, regional storm water facilities and public parks” in Open Space designated as Greenbelt of a development, so long as it is “appropriate” and adjacent to the developed area.” That adjacency requirement would be deleted, and “new plantings, berms and walls” added as approvable Greenbelt uses, as well as all other uses which are allowed in Open Space. One of the original objectives of 2050 was to eliminate walls and vertical hardscapes.

Also most significantly, the policy that any Greenbelt “preserves native habitats, supplements natural vegetation, and protects wildlife within the area” would be modified with the caveat, “with exceptions and alternatives as noted below.” This change alone greatly diminishes the incentives, protections and importance of preserving native habitat in Greenbelts as well as the loss of their function and value in the ecosystem.

One principal result of these changes would be to strike the requirement, that any agriculture and wetland mitigation in a Greenbelt, shall not convert any native habitat to those uses.  The current wording could be read as allowing the alternative uses only after preserving native habitat and that potential would be lost with the amendment revision.

Most importantly, this amendment would remove the opportunity for the public to have a voice in the process and oppose inappropriate open space/green belt uses and reductions.

The County has revealed no calculation as to how much additional development the amendment could allow by reducing the amount of Open Space and Greenbelts currently required in Sarasota 2050 developments, either for new ones and any previously approved ones.  Previously approved developments could come back for these greenbelt and open space revisions under the weakened standards.

The changes in this amendment could potentially add a significant increase in developable acreage and increased densities to proposed and existing developments, which equates to a lot more rooftops in the east county than is currently allowed in the 2050 Plan.  The county must tell the tax payers how much population increase could occur due to the associated density increases with these proposed open space revisions.  

The public interest has already lost far too much of the original 2050 Plan. Amendment G-2015 is neither sustainable nor in the public interest and would degrade our quality of life and protections for Rural Heritage, native habitats and species.  

The Sierra Club recommends retaining the existing 2050 policies for Green belts and Open Space and withdrawal of this bad proposal to reduce open space and green belt policies.

Gayle Reynolds

greynoldsdesign@gmail.com

Letter from Sarasota Audubon to Commissioner Al Maio

Sarasota Board of County Commissioners

1660 Ringling Blvd-Second Floor

Sarasota, FL 34236

February 22, 2017

Dear Commissioner Maio,

I know you are all well aware of the parcels up for rezoning, sale and development at the Corner of Apex Road and Palmer Boulevard. I also know that several groups have and are organizing protests against the sale of these sites for commercial development. This letter is on behalf of Sarasota Audubon Society which speaks for itself and no others.

A BENEFICIAL COLLABORATION

The Collaboration between Sarasota County and Sarasota Audubon was specifically entered into in order to enhance and develop the Celery Fields as a haven for wildlife and for passive recreation. Working together, we have achieved that goal. The Celery Fields is one of the most well-known birding hotspots in Florida, hosting visitors from all over the world (see attached visitor logs). The financial impact of a prime birding site cannot be overstated; birders spend lots of money in pursuit of their hobby. In order for the Celery Fields to maintain its prime eco-tourism reputation, Audubon and the County are continually improving habitat, and therefore the Celery Fields experience for all. The investment by Sarasota Audubon of $1.4 million at the Celery Fields is testament to the area's rich birdlife.

THE IMPACT OF HEAVY AND NEARBY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

I want to make a few points about birds: The Fields provide forage for 3 Federally listed species of birds, for 8 Florida listed species and provides safe nesting for 48 bird species (see attached Celery Fields checklist). This is a phenomenal number in such an urban area. However, some of these birds (and ecotourism) will be at risk for the following reasons:

• Noise and ground vibration of traffic, especially heavy trucks, impact breeding rates of birds
• An inadequate buffer zone between the Fields and commercial development will push birds further into the Fields setting up competition for food, thereby reducing survival rates
• The eco-tourism aspects of the Fields will be degraded due to increased commercial interests

In view of our concerns for the future use of the sites at the corners of Apex and Palmer, we request the BCC deny the proposed rezone action and create an advisory group of affected citizen stakeholders to Work with County staff in determining a land use suitable to the affected parties and the citizens of Sarasota County. The recommendations of this group will be presented to the BCC for further action if necessary.

We are grateful for the BCC's Support of Sarasota Audubon over all these years and hope we can continue to work together for the benefit of wildlife and the eco-tourism sector.

Sincerely,

Jeanne Dubi, President

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.