Home > Legislative Tracker > St Joe Coastal Redevelopment Hazard Mitigation

Coastal:
St Joe Coastal Redevelopment Hazard Mitigation

Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: HB1359/SB2216
Sponsor: Representative Holly Benson/Senator Charlie Clary
Legislative Session: 2006

6/1/06: Governor Bush signs bill into law. 6/1/06

5/14/06:

PASSED: 5/4/06: St. Joe Coastal Hazard Mitigation: SB2216/HB1359:  The Florida Chapter Sierra Club had National Sierra purchase some St. Joe stock a few years ago. And we worked on a hurricane resolution to take to the upcoming stockholder meeting. This resolution pointed out that St. Joe was not addressing coastal wetlands protections and did not have hurricane evacuation routes for all of the upcoming new towns they are creating. So, voila, what does St. Joe do, but indirectly answer our resolution (which was rejected by the Securities Exchange Commission on technicalities with the stock ownership at national) with last minute legislation that would allow them to meet hurricane evacuation by paying money, building roads, or some structures that would provide hurricane shelters. And they can build to their hearts’ content, using “mitigation” to keep building where (as we all know) nothing should be built. Check out the Naples News article below: this bill  is on the way to the Governor.

Click here to read about SB2216

Status

6/1/06: Governor Bush signs bill into law. 6/1/06

5/4/06: The bill passed the Senate on Monday and has now been ordered enrolled and will then be sent to the Governor for signature or letting it become law without his signature, or veto. Our concerns remain the same as stated below in the Background section.

4/30/06: House bill is now in Senate messages and the Senate bill has been amended and is now rolled over to third reading for final passage.

4/22/06: These bills could allow for development at a fast pace in less compacted, developed areas along the coast based on hurricane evacuation route and time.

Background

4/30/06: St. Joe, the Panhandle developer nemesis we are fighting to save our Northwest from condos and concrete, has managed to amend HB1359 by Rep.Holly Benson and SB2216 by Senator  Clary, the bills named "Hazard Mitigation for Coastal Redevelopment."

Basically, what is problematic about this bill now is that areas that are sparse in development, can do hurricane evacuation mitigation by just paying money for mitigation, or maybe building a hurricane shelter (what type is not well defined), or maybe building ROADS.... Here is the summary of the bill as described by the House staff:

HB1359:General Hazard Mitigation/Coasts/Hurricanes; specifies entities that are authorized to install or authorize installation of rigid coastal armoring structures; requires Emergency Mgmt. Div. to manage certain hurricane evacuation studies; provides that application of development policies shall be at discretion of local government; authorizes local governments to amend comprehensive plans to increase residential densities for certain properties, etc. Amends Ch. 163, 161.085, 381.0065. EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon becoming law.

Here is the amendment that was adopted yesterday to answer some criticism, but it leaves the mitigation plan between the developer and local government, still a bit of a mystery and secret.  And again, St. Joe keeps its overall planning out of the public discussion, and only changes what it wants, piece-by-piece,  one local government-by-local government plan amendment at a time.

HOUSE AMENDMENT

Bill No. HB 1359 CS

Amendment No. (for drafter’s use only) 915075

4/26/2006 1:41:07 PM

CHAMBER ACTION

Representative Benson offered the following:

Amendment (with title amendment)

Remove lines 141 through 155 and insert:

3. Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy

the provisions of subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate

mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money,

contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and

transportation facilities. Required mitigation shall not exceed

the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts

reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a

developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize

the mitigation plan.

(b) For those local governments that have not established

a level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation by

July 1, 2008, but elect to comply with rules 9J-5.012(3)(b)(6)

and 9J-5.012(3)(b)(7), Florida Administrative Code, by following

the process in paragraph (a), the level of service shall be no

greater than 16 hours for a category 5 storm event as measured

on the Saffir-Simpson scale.

======= T I T L E A M E N D M E N T =======

Remove line 26 and insert:

certain circumstances; requiring local governments and

developers to enter into certain agreements; providing a

deadline for local

Here is the analysis by 1000 FOF:

 HB 1359 (Benson, R-Pensacola) and SB 2216 This(Clary, R-Destin) related to hazard mitigation for coastal redevelopment. Originally the legislation addressed coastal armoring after hurricanes, but the scope has been expanded. This well-intentioned legislation now requires that new development in Coastal High Hazard Areas meet either a minimum 12 to 16 hour evacuation time or appropriate mitigation standards. 

Here are some concerns:

• There are no state standards in place to determine evacuation time; this is currently done on a county-by-county basis.
• Mitigation options include providing shelter for residents of the new development, but the legislation does not specify what category storm the shelter should be able to withstand, how much space should be provided per person, or other related issues.
• Another mitigation option is to improve roads to meet evacuation time requirements, but this is subject to the "proportionate share" provision. This means that a developer is required to pay for the portion of road improvement needs generated by the new development, but the improvements might not be undertaken for several years.
• Mitigation options also include donating land for a shelter but there is no requirement that the shelter be built concurrent with the new development.
  
  Either appropriate shelter space or improved roads must be in place at the time the new development is completed and not at a later date. The events of recent years have underscored the need for a smooth evacuation for those who leave, and safe shelter for those who remain. While this legislation could make new development more difficult in urbanized coastal counties, it might make it easier in less developed areas including much of the Florida Panhandle.
  
  Initially, the Florida Department of Community Affairs signed off on this legislation, but the agency is now coming forward with language to address some of the above concerns. Representative Benson and Senator Clary have indicated their willingness to take amendments to address these issues, and we continue to work with them. This legislation continues to move forward, with a few minor improvements. The Senate version has been amended to make this legislation optional for counties. If a county opt's in, they adopt mitigation standards through a plan amendment. We are also calling for the legislation to include specific measurable standards for mitigation.