|
Home >
Legislative Tracker
> Development of Regional Impacts Exemptions
Sprawl:
Development of Regional Impacts Exemptions
Our Position: oppose
Bill Number: SB1020/HB683
Sponsor: Senator Mike Bennett/ Representative Trey Traviesa
Legislative Session: 2006
7/5/06: Approved by Governor; Chapter No. 2006-220; See also HB 1363 (2006-69), CS/SB 1194 (Ch. 2006-218) on Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:22 AM
5/5/06: HB683 passed; ordered enrolled
5/14/06:PASSED: 5/5/06: Development of Regional Impact Exemptions: SB1020/HB683: The DRI bill was amended in the Senate with some language for a new bio-research park in St. Lucie at the last minute and it bounced back to the House. We were successful getting a loophole closed with regard to permitting, and requiring an Environmental Resource permit be done but we couldn’t get our “mandatory” to replace “encourage” local governments to use the Boat Siting Facility Plan guidelines when building MARINAs, dry storage or wet slips. The bill was ordered enrolled and then sent to the Governor. The essence is that DRI’s in many categories have been eliminated, and because of that, local comp plans will be even more important players in growth decisions on many major projects and facilities.
5/5/06: The House voted today and there were still some no votes. Click here to see how your member voted. The House legislators' voting no did not like the amendment by Senator Bennett that added language for an existing research park. bar code 934780 (this is not Scripps, it is for establishments already in existence.)
4/29/06: House bill passed 108-5 and is now in Senate messages. The Senate version SB1020 is still in Senate Transportation and Economic Development Appropriations, however, the rules allow for bills to be withdrawn from committees and placed on the floor calendar. The "bill language (2)" below still applies.
4/20/06: The CS/CS SB1020 passed out of the Senate Transportation meeting without the mandatory Boat Siting Facility Planning guide being used when permitting Marinas, dry storage or wet slips. The House version also passed out of the State Infrastructure Council, with a watered down new town amendment to the Rural Stewardship Lands statute and some language addressing our concerns regarding the exemption from Marina DRI's that 1000FOF signed off on, that, while we can support, does not get us to the issue we continue to stress in our alerts. Here is the language where all we wanted was "mandatory" to replace "encouraged"...
2. As part of this element, a local government that has a coastal management element in its comprehensive plan is encouraged to adopt recreational surface water use policies that include applicable criteria for and consider such factors as natural resources, manatee protection needs, protection of working waterfronts and public access to the water, and recreation and economic demands. Criteria for manatee protection in the recreational surface water use policies should reflect applicable guidance outlined in the Boat Facility Siting Guide prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. If the local government elects to adopt recreational surface water use policies by comprehensive plan amendment prior to submittal of its evaluation and appraisal report amendments, such comprehensive plan amendment is exempt from the provisions of s. 163.3187(1). Local governments that wish to adopt recreational surface water use policies may be eligible for assistance with the development of such policies through the Florida Coastal Management Program. The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability shall submit a report on the adoption of recreational surface water use policies under this subparagraph to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2010.
WE need for you to ramp up your calls targeting Senator Bennett and Represenative Traviesa, as well as Senate President Lee and Speaker Bense. Next stop for the Senate bill is Transportation and Economic Development Appropriations; the next stop for the House bill is the House Floor.
4/14/06: CS/CS/HB683 passed out of HOUSE Transportation & Economic Development Appropriations Tuesday, April 11th.
3/31/06: Our lobbyist met with Senator Bennett requesting that the marina DRI exemption in the bill have a "mandatory" not voluntary boat facility siting plan be done. The Senator was somewhat agreeable and we, together with 1000FOF and Save the Manatee Club are continuing to work on this effort together.
4/20/06: THIS MESSAGE STILL APPLIES: After first claiming that the proposed change to eliminate dry storage boat slips from the DRI process was being done due to duplications from the ERP process the boating side finally admitted that (just as the Save the Manatee Club had said) if dry storage was eliminated from DRI's that many of these facilities would never be reviewed for their secondary and cumulative impacts to the aquatic systems in which boats will operate. So they accepted some language from DEP to deal with this loop-hole, provided they could now exempt all marinas and boat slips from the DRI process. Unfortunately, since most of the comprehensive planning process requirements stop at the waters edge in most cases, very few local governments have made the effort to develop boat facility siting plans that could help off-set the need for DRI review for these large marina complexes.
Instead the CS/SB1020 & CS/CS/HB683 now throws a bone to the issue by encouraging local governments to adopt boat facility siting plans and offers them some token funding and assistance. The reality is that current law exempts marinas from the DRI process if a local government has adopted a boat facility siting plan based on DCA best marina management practices. These most recent amendments will actually take this incentive away for local governments to adopt boat siting plans. We want the boat facility siting plan to be mandatory.
Status
4/29/06: House bill passed 108-5 and is now in Senate messages. The Senate version SB1020 is still in Senate Transportation and Economic Development Appropriations, however, the rules allow for bills to be withdrawn from committees and placed on the floor calendar. Click here to follow the history of CS/SB 1020.
Action Needed
4/29/05: 4/20/06: 4/14/06: Tell your legislator that we want both bills to require all local governments that permit marinas/docks/dry slips use the Boat Facility Siting Plan process. The Sponsors are not accepting any amendments, but we keep trying. URGE SENATORS TO REJECT DELETION OF DRI MARINA PROVISIONS SB 1020 recklessly removes Development of Regional Impact review for large dry storage and marina developments. Unlike developments that affect uplands in Florida, which must undergo review for consistency with the local government’s comprehensive plan, local governments, with few exceptions, are not required to plan beyond the water’s edge.Because there are no meaningful planning requirements for large-scale marina projects, other than the DRI review process – the elimination of Marina’s from DRI will leave the planning for marinas and other boat facilities undone. Why is this important? Our waterways must be used for our wildlife and boating transportation and recreation. Unlike highways, we cannot build another cloverleaf, extra lanes or subways in our waterways. All increased boating uses of our waterways must be fit into the physical and biological carrying capacity of those waters. Inadequate planning leads to increased risks to boaters as well as the aquatic ecosystems including manatees, fisheries and sea grasses. Furthermore, without adequate planning, public access for boaters will continue to suffer as the best marina locations continue to be converted to private condominium docks. Please email or call your legislator and ask them to protect our aquatic resources and boater’s safety by insisting that marina DRI provisions remain in place until local governments have adopted comprehensive boat facility siting plans. Such plans have the potential to help balance the protection of our aquatic resources while providing safer boating access to the public. Thank you for your support on this important manatee, aquatic resource, and boater protection issue.
More information
Please note all the bills that are being compared to SB1020. This means that pieces of the content of those bills are found in SB1020. Thus the Growth Management monster is forming. S1020 GENERAL BILL/CS/CS by Environmental Preservation; Community Affairs;
Bennett (Compare H 0683, H 0905, H 1363, CS/S 0132, S 1862, S 2104)
Growth Management; encourages local governments to adopt boating
facility siting plans; adds recreational activities as important state
interest; removes waterport & marina developments from
development-of-regional-impact review; prohibits sale or exclusive
control of real property or operations of any port in this state to
entity controlled by foreign government or foreign business entity
without express consent of Legislature, etc. Amends FS. EFFECTIVE DATE:
07/01/2006.
Contact
John Hedrick for more information. johnhedrick13@yahoo.com
Background
This legislation is the developers' perennial attempt to continue to weaken Florida's growth management laws. There have been a few workgroup meetings with the developer attorneys, and a few public interest organizations have been working to make the bill better. The bill sponsor is Senator Bennett, who also chairs the Community Affairs Committee. To date the bill: 1. eliminates DRI review for "dry dock storage" and would permit dry boat storage blocks away if not miles from access to the water. We argue that this will increase boat traffic on the water ways and impact sea grasses, habitat, and MANATEES. The cumulative impacts need to be addressed via the DRI process. Other areas of concern include but are not limited to: *Exempting hospitals and electrical transmission lines regardless of size; *Increasing the number of slips at marinas that would enable a bypass of the substantial deviation review; *Ignoring science based information about specific sites and bypassing DRI review by weakening the standards by which changes to various types of developments no longer are defined as a a "substantial deviation"... all without adequate notice given to the homeowners who bought in that neighborhood because they wanted natural surroundings, not houses on all sides. *Weakening local governments' ability to: require mitigation, amend development orders, enforce DRI orders near build-out, to tax public lodging establishments, and require transportation facilities to be under construction during the three years before completion of a development. 3/12/06: two new gems were amended to the CS/SB1020: one creates a new town rural lands policy and the other prohibits a local government from approving an application to rezone a property except by a majority vote of the governing body of the local government (Section 7). On 3/27/06 Senator Bennett's latest version removed the NEW TOWN language and that is a very good thing. The House version does not contain this language either. The House Version, CS/CS HB683 is almost identical, but does not include these two gems in the Senate version.
|
