FinalReportRule28-20

11/19/03

1

Final Report of the Florida Keys Carrying

Capacity Study Implementation – Rule 28-20 Work

Group

September 15, 2003

11/19/03

2

I. Background -------- 4

The Florida Keys Community-------- 4

The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity 5

The Monroe County Work Plan------ 7

The FKCCS/Rule 28-20 Implementation Workgroup 9

II. Mission Statement -------- 11

III. Key Topic: Terrestrial Habitat Protection and Land Acquisition 12

Background -------- 12

Implementation Principles -------- 13

Supporting Recommendations ------- 15

IV. Key Topic: Allocation and Distribution of Growth 16




V. Key Topic: Affordable Housing ----- 20




VI. Key Topic: Funding -------- 24




VII. Conclusion -------- 28

11/19/03

3

VIII. APPENDICES -------- 30

A. Presentations to the Workgroup on Key Issues 30

B. Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Sept. 2003 34

C. FKCCS - Terrestrial Habitat Map Index 36

11/19/03

4

BACKGROUND

The Florida Keys Community

The Florida Keys proper are a 220-mile long chain of islands that extend from the

southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula to the Dry Tortugas. The islands lie between the Gulf

of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, stretching to within 90 miles of Cuba. The highest spot

along these rocky islands is only 18 feet above sea level and there is no point that is more than

four miles from water. Only about 30 of these 822 islands are inhabited. The more developed

islands are connected by a narrow ribbon of U.S. Highway 1 and are spanned by 19 miles of

bridges. Along this stretch of highway is an eclectic mix of residential areas, tourist

attractions, marinas, shops and restaurants - all surrounded by some of the most unique and

endangered habitat and species in the world.

The natural communities of the Florida Keys rest on the eroded foothills of the ancient

Appalachian Mountains, now covered with fossilized reefs and limestone banks. In response to

unique island conditions, isolation and colonization from the Bahamas and West Indies, many

rare and endemic species have evolved in the Keys. Over 30 of these plants and animals can be

found only in the upland habitats, hammocks and pinelands of the Florida Keys and nowhere

else in the world. Miami, a leading international commerce and tourist capital, and Miami-

Dade County with a population of over 2 million people, are located just an hour away. With

such pressures, development in the Keys has already displaced nearly half of the upland habitat

and a number of endangered species are threatened with extinction. Over half of the remaining

land in the Florida Keys is now in public ownership and managed for preservation with a

critical need for acquisition of the remaining habitat areas.

The population of Monroe County was 79,589 in the year 2000, with approximately

30%, or 24,000, residents living in the City of Key West. In addition to resident populations,

millions of tourists also enjoy visiting what is known as “Paradise” and provide the major

source of employment for local residents. Retail services, commercial fishing and government

employment make up the other industries. Nestled in the turquoise-blue waters, among

11/19/03

5

sensitive coral reefs and highly productive marine nurseries, the Keys are an international

mecca for sport fishing, diving, boating and cruising.

A significant portion of the surrounding water has been designated as Outstanding

Florida Waters and includes the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Despite this, most

wastewater demands in the islands are served by onsite septic systems and modernization to

central systems is badly needed. The Florida Keys are a place of contrast. As visitors arrive

daily to dive on the only living reef system in the continental U.S., visit historic sites in one of

America’s largest historic districts, enjoy the laid back tropical atmosphere, party during one of

the many Keys-wide festivals, and pull in prize sport fish and build expensive homes, local

governments struggle to meet infrastructure demands. Monroe County now has the second

highest cost of living in the State of Florida. Instead of demanding more economic

development, business leaders urge for affordable housing to accommodate a workforce of

close to 44,000 with a median housing cost of $241,200. It is difficult to keep traditional

communities intact when even professionals, such as teachers, police officers and nurses

cannot afford homes or rents, although family income is over $50,000 per year.

The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study

To view population growth in the Keys in its entirety, the designation of the Florida

Keys as an Area of Critical State Concern must be considered. The Florida Keys received this

designation from the State of Florida in 1975 due to the environmental sensitivity of the area

and the extraordinary development pressures looming on its horizon. The comprehensive

planning process that Monroe County has undertaken since being designated as a critical area

has resulted in the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and other efforts to manage the constant

growth pressures affecting this area. The conception of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity

Study, the associated development of Rule 28-20, Florida Administrative Code, F.A.C., its

subsequent legal challenges and ultimate adoption, gives perspective to how and why this

Work Group was formed.

11/19/03

6

The adoption of the current 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan took seven

years. After several years of legal challenges, it was finally adopted in April of 1993, but

subsequent legal proceedings prompted a Final Order and Recommendations by a hearing

officer in 1995. The Final Order, issued by the hearing officer as a result of the settlement,

initiated the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS). The goal of the FKCCS,

excerpted from Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C. was as follows:

“The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys

ecosystem and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land

development activities.”

The FKCCS was started in 1999 with a series of technical workshops to refine the

scope of work and was jointly funded by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Six million dollars was allocated to produce the Monroe

County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan and the FKCCS.

The contractor, URS Corporation, completed the FKCCS and the Carrying Capacity/Impact

Assessment Model (CCIAM), a separate component to be used in forecasting land use

scenarios. The findings of the FKCCS state, among other things, that “Development in the

Florida Keys has surpassed the capacity of upland habitats to withstand further development.”

The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the

CCIAM and FKCCS and, as a result of their review, adjustments were made to the CCIAM.

The Council’s review concluded that overall, due to data constraints and other issues in certain

portions of the CCIAM, the model proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying

capacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future

development scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The marine

module, the most data deficient module, was subsequently removed from the CCIAM. As

better data becomes available, this module may prove to be significantly useful in establishing

a quantitative, predictive relationship between land use, development and impacts to water

quality. Reviewers agreed however, that the terrestrial portion of the CCIAM was able to

provide valid analyses and conclusions with respect to upland habitat. Science can forecast

11/19/03

7

from previous data what the impacts of a trend would be into the future should things continue

as they currently are and historically have been. The accuracy of the prediction depends on the

accuracy of the data and the ability to link relationships between factors. In some portions of

the model, either data or relationships were inadequate to form conclusions about outcome.

Some model predictions, however, based on the terrestrial module were shown as conclusive.

Planners, politicians and administrators and stakeholders can now work together to implement

recommendations.

With respect to terrestrial, upland habitat, the FKCCS indicated that fragmentation of

habitat is a primary concern citing research that indicated, “Small patches of forest show lower

biodiversity, increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic plant and animal species and

decreased gene flow within and among populations.” In addition, the FKCCS also indicated

that, “The secondary and indirect impacts of development further contribute to habitat loss and

fragmentation.” The conclusion is drawn by the FKCCS that, “Any further development in the

Florida Keys would exacerbate secondary and indirect impacts to remaining habitat.”

The Monroe County Work Plan

As a result of the Final Order, in 1996, the Florida Administration Commission enacted

Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., which created the Work Program in the 2010 Monroe County

Comprehensive Plan. The Work Program requires, among other things, the implementation of

the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and reads as follows:

A. Continue construction of wastewater facilities in Hot Spots begun in previous year.

Contract to design and construct additional wastewater treatment facilities in Hot Spots

in accordance with the schedule of the Wastewater Master Plan. Continue

implementation of Wastewater Master Plan with emphasis on Hot Spots.

B. Initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Stormwater Master Plan.

C. Implement the carrying capacity study by, among other things, the adoption of all

necessary plan amendments to establish a rate of growth and a set of development

standards that ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of

11/19/03

8

the County's environment and marine system to accommodate additional impacts. Plan

amendments will include a review of the County’s Future Land Use Map series and

changes to the map series and the “as of right” and “maximum” densities authorized for

the plan’s future land use categories based upon the natural character of the land and

natural resources that would be impacted by the currently authorized land uses,

densities and intensities.

D. Complete the elimination of all cesspits in areas outside of Hot Spots.

E. Develop a Keys-wide master land acquisition plan that shall include:

a) A strategy for the acquisition of those properties which should be preserved due

to their habitat value as well as those other properties where future development

is to be discouraged,

b) A management plan for implementing the strategy, and

c) A reasonable, feasible plan for securing funding for said land acquisition.

F. Initiate and complete a collaborative process for the adoption of land development

regulations, and/or comprehensive plan amendments as needed, that will strengthen the

protection of terrestrial habitat through processes such as the Permit Allocation System

and permitting processes, and the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing

stock.

In 2002, an amendment to Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., added two additional tasks to the

work program as follows:

G. A master land acquisition plan is required containing a strategy for securing funding

and the acquisition of properties that should be preserved due to their habitat and also

land for affordable housing; and

H. Adoption of land development regulations, and/or comprehensive plan amendments

that strengthen the protection of terrestrial habitat through the Permit Allocation System

and permitting processes, and the preservation and maintenance of affordable housing

stock.

11/19/03

9

Rule 28-18, F.A.C., also requires the City of Marathon to accomplish similar tasks in

the same time frame. In addition, annual progress reports from the local governments to the

Governor and Cabinet are required.

Year Six of the Work Program (July 13, 2002 – July 12, 2003) enacted in Rule 28-

20.100, F.A.C., as amended, directs Monroe County to implement the FKCCS by adopting

amendments to the rate of growth ordinance (ROGO), the local development regulations

(LDRs), the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) series and maximum permitted densities.

The FKCCS/Rule 28-20 Implementation Work Group

The current year, 2003, is Year Six of the Monroe County Work Plan. The Carrying

Capacity Work Group chose to focus on tasks C), E) and F) of the Work Plan as the other work

plan requirements are receiving broad review by other interests. Specifically, these goals

address implementation of the FKCCS, land acquisition and establishment of a collaborative

process to accomplish these goals. To further this directive, the Florida Keys Carrying

Capacity Study-Rule 28-20 Implementation Work Group (Work Group) was initiated in

November 2002 and meetings were held within the community at least monthly through

September 2003. The Department of Community Affairs (Department), with help from the

South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) designed a collaborative process to identify

the necessary steps for implementation with the assistance of representatives of various

stakeholder groups. These members were invited to participate in the meetings and represented

a balanced group of interests to discuss how the FKCCS could be implemented in their

communities.

The following is a list of committee members and their affiliations:

The Honorable Arline Carbin, Vice-Mayor, Key Colony Beach; Richard Grosso, Attorney,

Florida Keys’ Citizen Coalition; Debra Sue Harrison, World Wildlife Fund; June Helbling,

Tourism Development Board; Ed Koconis, Planning Director, Islamorada; Tim McGarry,

Growth Management Director, Monroe County; Mick Putney, Key Deer Protection Alliance;

Jim Quinn, State Planning Administrator, Department of Community Affairs (DCA); Gus

11/19/03

10

Rios, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); Natalie Schneider, Senior Planner, and

Dick Ogburn, Principal Planner, SFRPC; Bill Smith, Florida Keys Contractors’ Association;

Sonny Timmerman, Division Director, DCA; Cecilia Weaver, Director, South Florida Water

Management District; John Dolan-Heitlinger, Key West Chamber of Commerce; Ty Symroski,

Planner, City of Key West; Ed Swift, Key West businessman and affordable housing

advocate; Scott Janke, City Manager, and Gail Kenson, Planning Director, City of Marathon;

Skip Haring, Planner, City of Layton.

Other individuals that participated included local government planning staff, staff

representing Federal and State agencies and interested citizens as follows:

The Honorable Murray Nelson, Commissioner, Monroe County; Marlene Conaway,

Director, Planning & Environmental Services, Monroe County; Julia Trevarthen, Assistant

Director, SFRPC; Mike Puto, City of Marathon; Debbie Love, City of Marathon; Brian

Sheahan, City of Islamorada; Theresa Rothaus, Key West Chamber of Commerce; Mark

Rosch, Director, Monroe Co. Land Authority; Andrew Gude, Biologist, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service (USFW); Clarence Feagin, Biologist, DCA; Barbara Lenczewski, Senior Planner,

DCA; Rebecca Jetton, Director, Florida Keys Field Office, DCA; Nancy Brooking, DEP;

Captain Ed Davidson, Citizens Coalition/Audubon; Nancy Klingener, Ocean Conservancy;

Phillip Hughes, Recovery Biologist, USFW; Craig Fulhaber, Texas A&M graduate student;

Charles Bradford, David Spauldwell; Dannie Miller; Anthony Melfa, citizens

Participation from federal and state agencies, as well as citizens and local government

officials was welcomed, particularly at the meetings where issues affecting them were

scheduled for discussion. The media was informed of the meeting schedule and all meetings

were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly.

Mission Statement

11/19/03

11

“The FKCCS Rule 28-20 Work Group will provide a comprehensive set of specific

recommendations, including proposals for adequate funding, to the DCA and Florida Keys

local governments that protects our environment, private property rights and ensures a way to

have adequate affordable and work force housing with the end goal of reducing the State’s role

in regulatory oversight.”

The specific focus of the Work Group was on identifying mechanisms to better protect

terrestrial habitat, strategies for land acquisition, and to give recommendations about the type

and amount of growth that will happen in the Keys including achieving goals for affordable

housing. The charge of the group was also to discuss and propose the conceptual

implementation principles and supporting recommendations that would later serve to guide and

assist local governments in formulating their policies for FKCCS implementation. It is

important to note that the implementation principles and their supporting recommendations do

not substitute for the statutory “Guiding Principles”, Chapter 380, F.S., for the Areas of

Critical State Concern.

Early in the process, it was decided by the group that it would focus on the following

four key issues: terrestrial habitat protection and land acquisition, rate of growth allocation,

affordable housing and funding. It was the intent of the group that these issues would be

addressed individually and then reviewed as a package. The principles for each issue represent

a package deal and must fit together with the other principles to work. The implementation

principles and supporting recommendations are given in the following pages. They are

organized under topical areas and are not listed in any priority order.

A series of presentations were made to the Work Group during the course of the meetings and

served to outline the issues and summarize the challenges that needed to be addressed. A

synopsis of the presentations is attached to this report in Appendix A.

I. Key Topic: Terrestrial Habitat Protection and Land Acquisition

What should be protected and how it will be accomplished?

11/19/03

12

Background:

The FKCCS defines a terrestrial environment as “the natural environment occurring

above the mean high tide line, including embedded freshwater wetlands and the terrestrial plant

and animal communities and habitats” (p. 339). In the Keys, terrestrial, or upland, habitats are

found on limestone outcroppings at elevations above approximately +3 ft. mean sea level. The

FKCCS identifies the Keys' two major terrestrial ecosystems as tropical hardwood hammock

and pineland (p. 12). Hammocks are dense, diverse West Indian forest communities of broad-

leaved, evergreen trees. In addition to hardwood hammocks, several of the Lower Keys

support slash pine forests, a fire-maintained community with a mixed understory of palms,

shrubs, and grasses including some temperate species.

Over 30 species of plants and animals are found only in the hammocks and pinelands of

the Florida Keys and nowhere else in the world. Many of these species are facing extinction

with further degradation of their habitat. Land development in the Keys has displaced nearly

50 percent of all upland habitat. Over 90 percent of the remaining upland habitat is distributed

in fragments of 10 acres or less, and 80 percent of the remaining patches are less than 5 acres

in size. Patch size in the Upper Keys tends to be smaller because of the long narrow

geography. Due to edge effects, secondary impacts, and very specific habitat requirements,

smaller areas lose key ecological functions. As a result the remaining small patches generally

show less biodiversity, are vulnerable to invasion by exotics plants and animals, and have a

decreased gene flow between populations.

The FKCCS stresses the critical importance of curtailing the destruction of terrestrial

habitats. The study states, “Any further encroachment into areas dominated by native

vegetation would exacerbate habitat loss and fragmentation.” (p. 119). The FKCCS noted,

“Development in the Florida Keys has surpassed the carrying capacity of upland habitats to

maintain their ecological integrity.” This describes a very grave situation with regard to the

continued viability of the Keys' terrestrial habitats that will require a commitment to active

protection on the part of governments and communities.

11/19/03

13

Restoring lands to create larger patches of hammock or pineland to re-establish

connectivity is a daunting task due to various reasons such as: legal issues, high costs,

uncertain probability of success and time to complete, however, with mitigation opportunities

over time, restoration is possible and valuable. The Study suggests that continuing and

intensifying vacant land acquisition and restoration programs may provide more and faster

returns in terms of consolidating the protection of terrestrial habitat in the Florida Keys than

continuing reliance on regulations.

The findings of the Study suggest, …four main guidelines for future development in the

Florida Keys: (p. 121).

1. Prevent encroachment into native habitat.

2. Continue and intensify existing land acquisition programs, wastewater management,

and restoration efforts.

3. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill.

4. Increase efforts to manage the resources to effectively preserve and improve the

ecological values of the remaining terrestrial ecosystems.”

Implementation Principles

1. To the fullest extent allowable by law, preclude further degradation and fragmentation

of hardwood hammocks, pinelands and transitional wetlands above the mean high

water line.

a. Preserve and acquire all privately owned, individual or contiguous parcels that

make up patches of hammock and pinelands of 4 acres or more or transitional

wetlands above the MHW line, along with buffer areas where appropriate.*

11/19/03

14

b. Strongly discourage development or acquire patches of hammock, and

pinelands of between 1 and 4 acres or transitional wetlands through point

allocation systems (or equivalent processes) and development standards in city

and county comprehensive plans and land development regulations.

c. Roads shall not be deemed to interrupt contiguity with the exception of U.S.

Hwy. 1.

d. In case of a discrepancy between the attached terrestrial habitat maps found in

the appendix (ADID hardwood hammock and pineland, developed by FMRI for

this report) and the actual ground conditions, actual conditions shall rule.

*Means that where all such habitat can be preserved on property without violating the owner’s constitutional or

statutory property rights, it shall be preserved. Where such preservation would violate any such rights unless

compensation is provided, then compensation would be provided. Finally, where preservation would violate

property rights and funds for compensation/acquisition are not available, preservation will not be required and

the parcel or lot shall be eligible to apply for a Point Allocation System (PAS) allocation on other permits.) -

Grosso

2. Increase the net quantity and quality of the Keys' undeveloped hardwood hammocks

and pinelands.

3. Enhance the ecological function of developed lands.

4. Promote the restoration of native hardwood hammock and pineland habitats in

disturbed areas.

5. Aggressively acquire hardwood hammocks and pinelands in the Keys for preservation.

6. Develop public/private partnerships to accelerate acquisition of hammocks and

pinelands.

7. Ensure adequate staff resources to implement acquisition of hammocks and pinelands.

11/19/03

15

8. Provide land stewardship to protect hammock and pineland habitats.

9. Direct new development to scarified or filled lots in mostly-developed subdivisions and

to redevelopment projects.

Supporting Recommendations

1. To the maximum extent allowed by law, allow no public or private development that

results in the loss, degradation, or fragmentation of the Keys' hardwood hammocks or

pinelands as defined in the preceding principals.

2. Create a working group, made up of local, state and federal officials or staff, and

representatives from environmental organizations and communities to coordinate a

comprehensive land acquisition program that significantly accelerates and expands the

rate and amount of hardwood hammock and pineland acquisition in the Keys.

3. Restore important ecosystem functions through appropriate management of developed

and undeveloped land including, but not limited to removing illegally dumped waste,

controlling invasive exotic plants and feral or exotic animals, restoring native

vegetation, and prescribed burning where appropriate.

4. Strictly enforce existing environmental regulations for the protection of terrestrial

habitats.

5. Standardize and improve methods of evaluating habitat.

6. To the extent that the potential for development is allowed in terrestrial habitat, as

required to protect private property rights, adopt comprehensive plan amendments and

land development regulations that disallow the use of aggregated lots in calculating

open space ratios, assign the maximum number of positive points to scarified parcels

within mostly built out subdivisions and the maximum number of negative points (or

11/19/03

16

equivalent system) to lots containing terrestrial habitat, assign more importance to

threatened and endangered species habitat, prohibit the transfer of ROGO exemptions

into terrestrial habitat, and prohibit the NROGO (non-residential rate of growth

ordinance) exemption for not-for-profit organizations into habitat areas.

7. Obtain funding for the acquisition of hammocks and pinelands through a combination

of sources and funding partners, such as state and federal conservation programs,

grants, tourist taxes, and others.

8. Educate the public about direct and secondary impacts of development to increase

understanding and appreciation for the uniqueness and rarity of the Keys' tropical

hardwood hammock, pineland and wetland habitat, and the importance of preserving

them for future generations.

II. Key Topic: Allocation and Distribution of Growth

Establish a Rate of Growth Allocation determining the amount, location, type and

nature of growth.

Background:

The Florida Keys’ Community faces issues related to the potential damage of property

and loss of life unlike any other area in the State of Florida. Monroe County’s problem is

partly caused by the fact that there is just one highway, U. S. Highway 1, which is available to

evacuate its residents. An additional problem is caused by the fact that all land in the Florida

Keys is coastal and is designated as a “Coastal High Hazard Area” (CHHA), defined in Rule

9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, FAC. as “ the evacuation zone during for a Category 1

hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local

government.” Since 1981, Monroe County’s policy on hurricane evacuation has been to

evacuate during Category 3, 4 or 5 storms, rather than provide shelter as an alternative. In order

11/19/03

17

to safely accomplish this evacuation, Monroe County has adopted into its comprehensive plan

a policy to “maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times at a maximum of 24 hours.”

This policy forms a primary basis for the development of a permit allocation system

that establishes both the rate and distribution of growth within the County. The rate of growth

ordinance (ROGO) was adopted by Monroe County in 1992, and allocated 2,548 additional

residential units within the County to be built over a ten-year period. The municipalities that

were incorporated at that time were allocated 1,145 additional residential units. While these

units are allocated, there remain 11,600 vacant parcels designated for residential use in

unincorporated Monroe County. In addition there are approximately 3,000 vacant residential

parcels in Marathon and Islamorada. The distribution of growth is managed by a point system

in Monroe County that guides development, is intended to avoid environmentally sensitive

resources and to maintain and enhance the traditional community character of the Keys.

Based upon the presentations made (see Appendix A), the Work Group has learned that

Monroe County is proposing to alter the existing point system by establishing a “Tier System”.

This Tier System would allocate land into one of three tiers based upon its environmental

sensitivity. Other local governments in the Florida Keys are not proposing a Tier system at this

time.

Mr. Ken Metcalf of the Department of Community Affairs also informed the Work

Group during his presentation related to hurricane evacuation issues that it is his belief Monroe

County and the Florida Keys have exceeded the adopted twenty-four-hour clearance time for

hurricane evacuation. Some members voiced concern about Mr. Metcalf's conclusion and the

evacuation of significant populations, but the data that is available must be considered in

establishing the future growth allocation for the Florida Keys.

The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Study (Miller 2001) shows hurricane

evacuation clearance times for Monroe County without showing any evacuating traffic entering

the flow in Florida City. A valid evacuation plan should evaluate regional, not just Keys,

evacuation, particularly since the hurricane modeled by Miller is a rapidly developing Category

11/19/03

18

3-5 hurricane that catches South Florida unprepared. Under those circumstances, there would

obviously be vehicles evacuating from Florida City and South Miami-Dade County.

Aside from hurricane evacuation, the Florida Keys have other growth constraints that

must also be addressed including transportation, wastewater treatment and potable water

supplies.


1. Establish an allocation and distribution of growth for the Florida Keys that would be

consistent with its infrastructure and ecological limitations.

2. Ensure that future growth sustains the protection of non-renewable resources and

protects the unique character of the Florida Keys.

3. Focus new development on redevelopment and infill of partially developed areas.

4. Guide future development to areas with existing or funded/planned state-approved

wastewater systems, striving for more cost effective collocation of infrastructure with

activity centers.

5. Promote aggressive and diverse strategies for acquisition of private property rights and

reduction of development rights (ROGO).

6. Ensure that the hurricane evacuation plan is continually updated to reflect changes in

database and technology. The population should not exceed the ability of the

community to have reasonable safety in the event of a major hurricane. Such safety

shall include safe evacuation, refuges of last resort and shelter in the community.

7. A stable rate of growth should be maintained in order to avoid disruptive construction

cycles and rapid changes to community character.

11/19/03

19


1. Establish a fair and equitable allocation and distribution of growth for the Florida Keys

that is consistent with its carrying capacity and the above principles, including potable

water supply and hurricane evacuation.

2. Develop and implement an inter-jurisdictional allocation system that promotes

development in urbanized areas served by appropriate wastewater and stormwater

management facilities, while providing funding across jurisdictional lines for

acquisition of hardwood hammock and pineland.

3. The Department of Community Affairs will initiate a comprehensive analysis of

hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys in order to identify a means to reduce

actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from

hurricanes. The analysis will include the following items:

a. An evaluation of the Transportation Systems Management(TSM)

recommendations contained in the Miller model report.

b. An exercise to realistically evaluate the potential clearance time adjustments

related to the TSM recommendations.

c. Involvement by all relevant federal, state and local agencies.

d. Recommendations and requirements that would have to be put in place in order

for the State and local governments to agree to any changes in the existing

clearance times.

e. Strategies to guide the re-entry of those who have been evacuated.

4. While property rights are to be respected, development rights associated with some of

the 5,000 to 7,000 buildable parcels may need to be extinguished.

III. Key Topic: Affordable Housing

11/19/03

20

How much affordable housing is needed and where should it be located?

Background

The Principles for Guiding Development under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, requires

the provision of adequate affordable housing. Yet, affordable housing continues to pose a

major challenge for public agencies and the private sector in the Florida Keys and Key West.

This occurs primarily due to the tourist based economy and unique geography of the Keys.

The service and retail industries generate high demand for housing from workers earning

incomes below that needed to purchase or rent housing at market rates. In addition, the limited

land area and linear geography of the Keys severely constrict the potential supply of housing

these workers can afford. As a result, a severe imbalance exists between supply and demand,

resulting in escalating housing prices. This imbalance is worsened by a number of other

contributing factors, including the following:

1. A strong demand for second homes that reduces the supply of housing for permanent

residents;

2. Conversion of permanent housing for transient uses such as vacation rentals. This

reduces housing supply and increases the affordable housing demand from service

workers that attend the rental units;

3. High construction costs due to transportation costs of goods and a limited labor market;

11/19/03

21

4. Higher costs due to regulations that have been adopted to assure residents’ safety,

including: FEMA elevation standards, county wind-load standards and regulations

adopted to protect environmental resources (density limits, open space standards,

setback requirements, etc.);

5. Limited permit allocations due to hurricane evacuation standards and water quality

objectives (ROGO and nutrient credits); and

6. Limited non-profit and private sector capacity for funding assistance and housing

production.

As noted, the ability to provide adequate affordable housing is a function of supply and

demand, which determines market price. Government cannot change the physical

characteristics of the Keys that limit supply, and the State of Florida highly values the tourist

economy that drives demand. Therefore, affordable housing inherently poses a difficult

challenge for the public and private sector in the Keys. However, government does impact on

supply and demand through its policies.

The Principles for Guiding Development require regulations to ensure protection of the

environment and water quality and to maintain acceptable hurricane evacuation clearance

times. In response to these requirements, Monroe County has adopted a Permit Allocation

System to limit the annual number of permits as necessary to maintain hurricane evacuation

clearance time at 24 hours or less. The comprehensive plan also requires wastewater

improvements and removal of cesspits as a condition for issuing new permits. These

requirements limit the ability of the private sector to build new housing to meet affordable

housing demands. Affordable housing strategies must also work in concert with evacuation

and environmental policies. These decisions will affect the timing and potential permitting

capacity available for affordable housing.

It is also evident that the affordable housing deficit cannot be corrected solely through

11/19/03

22

new permitting. Actions must be taken to preserve the existing housing stock and expand

supply through redevelopment. Keys local governments must work to preserve existing

housing stock through financial and regulatory incentives and by preventing further conversion

of housing to the transient market. Similarly, local governments must identify opportunities

for adaptive reuse of existing developments for use as permanent, affordable housing.


1. Provide additional workforce housing in the Florida Keys to significantly reduce the

current shortage.

2. Maintain existing affordable and workforce housing in the Florida Keys.

3. Maximize public/private partnerships to address affordable housing needs.

4. Promote aggressive and diverse strategies for acquisition of affordable housing sites.

5. Provide an allocation of permits for affordable housing on an accelerated rate for the

first five years.

Supporting Recommendations*

1. Ensure that the existing stock of affordable housing is preserved. For example, we

should acquire existing housing by providing seed money to local land trust housing

authorities and similar institutions.

2. Upgrade substandard housing while maintaining affordability and avoiding

displacement of existing residents.

3. Strongly discourage any new proposals that would increase the size or number of

transient rental units (hotel/motels, vacation rentals and time shares) and enforce

11/19/03

23

existing transient rental requirements.

4. Increase the future allocation of market vs. affordable units from the existing 20% ratio.

5. Discourage further platting of land except on commercial tracts for affordable housing.

6. Encourage the elimination of our commercial vacant land. Identify funding for the

governmental purchase of commercial land such that the commercial building rights be

retired in favor of affordable housing.

7. For every $2.00 of funding secured for environmentally sensitive land, $1.00 should be

secured for affordable housing needs.

8. Whenever commercial or other sites are purchased by the government or land trust for

affordable housing, fee simple ownership of the land will remain with the government

or the trust. Sites should be leased to private or public interests for the building of

affordable units with agreements for rental rates and re-sale (in the case of ownership)

being monitored and controlled with limited appreciation.

9. All current infrastructure requirements, i.e. waste disposal standards and

comprehensive plan requirements, etc., will remain tied to permit availability.

The 28-20 Work Group could not come to agreement on future permit allocation in the

terms of numbers; however, the group offers the following data and conclusions for

consideration and evaluation:

1. From Monroe County and its municipalities we received information that set the total

number of vacant residential parcels at approximately 14,500.

2. That we were presented with data and arguments that led us to believe that up to 8,000

parcels should be purchased to protect habitat.

11/19/03

24

3. That we were provided with data from the Shimberg Center (enclosed) that shows that

there were, in 2002, 6,491 cost-burdened households (using the national standard of

30% or more of gross household income) in Monroe County that are considered central

workforce (24 to 54 years old) and 10,096 in all age brackets countywide.

4. That we were provided by Monroe County and municipal planning staffs data that set

the total number of buildable non-habitat sensitive parcels between 5,000 and 7,000.

5. While we could not get across-the-board agreement to draw definitive conclusions from

this data, we believe it will provide future work groups and government bodies with a

starting place.

* We recognize that the current ROGO system may favor the wealthy. Therefore, should

an adequate funding source for land acquisition for the purchase of terrestrial habitat be

secured, the section of the ROGO ordinance that allows for the purchase of environmentally

sensitive land to gain permit (ROGO) points should be eliminated.

IV. Key Topic: Funding

Background

The most vexing and difficult issue in the Florida Keys has always been finding the

adequate amount of funding for the environmental and socioeconomic needs of the Florida

Keys. These needs are based upon the following facts:

1. Monroe County has a relatively small permanent population (approximately 79,000)

residents and a very high number of tourists.

2. The tourist-based economy and second home market tend to increase housing costs

making affordable housing an unobtainable reality for many workers in the Florida

11/19/03

25

Keys.

3. Monroe County has an abundance of native endangered species that need large amounts

of undeveloped and undisturbed habitat to survive as a species.

Monroe County has taken some steps to deal with these funding issues by enacting a

local bed tax that annually provides approximately $1.8 million for land acquisition and an

infrastructure sales tax, which provides funding primarily for wastewater and stormwater

treatment. While beneficial, these funding sources cannot provide the necessary funds needed

for land acquisition, affordable housing and wastewater treatment.

While trying to determine the precise amount of funding that would be needed to both

meet local government needs and implement the recommendations of this workgroup may not

be possible, the Workgroup did come to the conclusion that a significant amount of local

funding will be needed in the near future. This conclusion was based upon the following facts:

1. Funds needed for acquisition of environmentally sensitive parcels range from $144

million to $450 million.

2. Funds needed for land acquisition for retiring development rights and providing

affordable housing could be just as much as that needed to purchase the

environmentally sensitive lands.

3. The existing sources of funding are clearly not adequate.

4. The Workgroup did look at a number of potential sources for additional funding

including:

a. Property Transfer Tax: Sliding scale added to documentary fee on transfer of

property ownership to buyer. Based on 2002 records, can generate

approximately $10,000,000.00 annually.

b. Card Sound Bridge Toll Revenue: Revision of the Florida Statutes to allow a

11/19/03

26

percentage of toll funds to be used for additional use such as protection of

environmentally-sensitive lands. This change would affect all counties, and

therefore support for the revision from other counties would increases its chance

of passage. (FY00: 1%, $16,176.52; 2%, $32,353.04 and 5%, $80,882.60)

c. Toll on U.S. Highway 1: (state and federal) Toll would have to be approved by

state and federal government, with the support of county residents (Based on

2000 traffic: one dollar toll: $3.1 million, two dollar toll: $6.2 million, three

dollar toll: $9.3 million).

d. Residential Impact Mitigation Fee: Assessed at $2.50 per square foot of lot

space and $5.00 per square foot of enclosed space. Affordable housing units

would be exempt from the fee. Fees could generate up to $5 million per year.

e. Bed Tax: Change in the Bed Tax legislation to allow for alternative allocation of

the funds (one cent added = $3,777,121.66 per year).

f. Infrastructure Sales Tax: Revise the existing allocation for this tax ($3 million

per year as a possible request).

g. Ad Valorem Taxes: additional .25 to .50 mills designated specifically for land

acquisition.

h. State Sources - Florida Communities Trust: up to $6.6 million per year with

matching funds and Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) funds for

areas designated by CARL for acquisition.

i. Housing Corporation Funds for construction of affordable housing units.

j. Tourist-based sales tax: This tax would be applied to all tourist-related

purchases.

k. Annual fee for affordable housing: This fee would be applied to existing and

future non-residential commercial properties and transient accommodations, and

require an affordable housing impact fee for new non-residential development.


1. Provide consistent, dedicated, bondable sources of funding to carry out these

implementation principles.

11/19/03

27

2. Establish multiple funding sources to include state, federal, local and private funds.

3. Develop an allocation mechanism for the distribution of funds across jurisdictional

boundaries based on identified needs of the Florida Keys.


1. Provide significantly increased funding for land acquisition and affordable housing

infrastructure improvements through additional revenues or a re-allocation of existing

revenues from the following options such as:

a. A residential impact mitigation fee.

b. An increase in the percent of the bed tax available for these purposes.

c. An increase in the infrastructure sales tax used for these purposes.

d. An additional local real estate transfer tax.

e. An increase in the sales tax on appropriate tourist-related items.

f. An Ad Valorem bond referendum.

g. A toll placed on U.S. Highway 1.

h. State and federal matching funds.

i. An across-the-board annual fee for affordable housing on existing and future

non-residential commercial properties and transient accommodations, and an

affordable housing impact fee for new non-residential development.

2. Initiate a local government driven process to distribute funds across jurisdictional

boundaries based upon identified needs.

3. It is recognized that federal, state and local funding will be required to implement these

recommendations.

Conclusion

11/19/03

28

By any measure, the Keys’ problems still remain critical and as far as expenditures are

concerned, have rocketed. With each year, costs of land and infrastructure rise as development

pressures increase. Yes, it is less expensive to buy land in other areas of the State, and perhaps

easier, where willing sellers still abound. Local governments in the Florida Keys however, are

struggling to implement required changes and to preserve the lands that so many visitors enjoy.

As local governments intend to limit the use of private lands, they must in turn purchase those

lands. There has been a tremendous amount of effort and money put into twenty-five years of

“Critical Concern” in this region. We must not let these efforts fail now for the lack of a

funding mechanism. We must implement the programs that will guarantee the success of our

natural systems and habitat. We must continue to strive in achieving balanced communities

that will sustain a work force to service even our most basic needs of health care, safety, law

enforcement and education.

The State has partnered with Monroe County through these many years, and we hope

that the partnership will continue through to the tasks at hand. We believe that every effort

must be put forth to acquire the funds necessary for land acquisition on the part of the County

and, that the State will, through its Florida Forever land acquisition program, do its utmost to

assist in purchase of the land that the Carrying Capacity Study has targeted as important to our

endangered species. If it is ultimately necessary, the legislature, the Governor and Cabinet may

need to exercise the power of “eminent domain” to complete these acquisitions and we would

support this decision.

Without the partnership of the State of Florida, our ability to use the “Carrying

Capacity” as a planning tool, to carry out further land acquisition protecting the environment

and our ability to survive as communities that protect our work force through construction of

affordable housing cannot be accomplished. Monroe County and its municipalities have now

reached the end of a long road where local legislation that was designed to protect and restrict

use has been stretched to the limit of the law. We ask that the State of Florida partner with our

local governments now, to focus on the Keys as a priority for funding and, help withstand the

legal and financial challenges that we face in accomplishing our mission.

11/19/03

29

The annual report from the DCA is due to the Governor and Cabinet by September 30,

2003. The implementation phase of this report will be from August 2003 - July 2004. During

that time, a successive work group consisting of local officials will meet to develop and adopt

the necessary changes to comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations as

well as to identify support for funding sources. The existing FKCCS – Rule 28-20 Workgroup

will be available to the new group as needed for consultation.

11/19/03

30

APPENDIX A

Presentations to the Workgroup on Key Issues

Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study Update:

Mr. Ricardo Calvo, Program Director of Natural Resources for URS Corporation and

developer of the FKCC study and model presented the latest update on both. His presentation

concentrated particularly on the “Smart Growth” scenario. Among his observations, was that

there is scientific data demonstrating upland habitat has already been so compromised that it

cannot withstand additional development. He made the point that the Carrying Capacity

Model does not yield a specific number that should be allowed for additional development,

rather, it is the location of the development that is critical. He cautioned that the group should

be careful about basing recommendations on the Carrying Capacity Study if it is not able to

support them and he was concerned about basing an ultimate number on anything other than

the hurricane evacuation model.

Monroe County’s Goal 105 and the Tier System:

Ms. Marlene Conaway, Planning Director, Monroe County, gave a presentation

outlining Monroe County’s Goal 105, also known as its “Smart Growth Plan”. This plan

provides for an overlay acquisition map that would classify land into three tiers. Tier 1 would

contain natural areas that would be targeted for land acquisition and development will be

discouraged. Tier 2 represents areas with fragmented natural areas that act as buffers to Tier 1

but will allow limited development. Tier 3 represents infill areas with scarified lots where

growth will be encouraged. She indicated that maps and Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)

changes for Big Pine would be completed by September; however, funding sources are needed.

Monroe County would like to use the tier acquisition maps as a basis for obtaining funding and

would like to undertake an additional fiscal analysis prior to implementation. Ms. Conaway

11/19/03

31

indicated that about 98% of the land has been relatively simple to assign to a particular Tier,

but the remaining 2% has proved challenging.

Land Acquisition:

Mr. Mark Rosch, Director of the Monroe County Land Authority, gave a presentation

on land acquisition in the Florida Keys. As an estimate of what it costs to manage land, Mr.

Rosch stated that generally, traditional natural areas in a conservation land use category are a

savings for fire, schools, police and other services. Mr. Rosch indicated preferences for land

acquisition projects as those that: 1) complete existing projects; 2) provide high quality habitat;

3) avoid primary impacts; 4) are larger sites; 5) consist of edges and a fewer numbers of

parcels; 6) upland property vs. wetland sites and 7) fee simple acquisition and voluntary

negotiated sales, although eminent domain has been exercised by the state. He brought a series

of maps depicting the already publicly owned lands in Monroe County and also showing those

that remain in private ownership that would be desirable for future acquisition.

Affordable Housing:

Ms. Tracy Suber, Senior Planner, Department. of Community Affairs gave a

presentation on affordable housing issues in the Florida Keys. She defined affordable housing

as “housing that costs no more than 30% of a family’s or individual’s monthly income.” Ms.

Suber identified several factors that indicate a need for more affordable housing in the Florida

Keys including information from the “Affordable Housing Needs Assessment” that indicates

approximately 10,000 owners/renters in the Florida Keys are cost-burdened. This means that

they are spending more than 30% of their income for housing. Other indicators included low

vacancy and turnover rates, overcrowded units and lengthy commute times. In addition, Ms.

Suber indicated that an abundant supply of affordable housing is critical to a healthy business

climate and that a range of housing options also facilitates a strong, diverse employment base.

She concluded her presentation with the following comments and recommendations:

1. All communities must ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing;

11/19/03

32

2. The communities knows best how to meet their own housing needs; and,

3. In order to meet the most important affordable housing needs of the Florida Keys the

communities should consider allocating more ROGO credits to rental units as opposed

to owner-occupied units.

Habitat Mapping:

Dr. Phil Frank, Project Leader for the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish

& Wildlife Service, gave a presentation on mapping significant habitat for federally

endangered species in the Florida Keys and offered discussion points on the Carrying Capacity

Study. Dr. Frank stated that the Tier system represents a change in process trending toward

more generalized identification of habitat that includes threatened and endangered species. The

process is simplified by associating, or grouping, species with similar range and habitat needs

rather than identifying each species and its habitat and range individually. He recommended

that the lists of species be collapsed and simplified in such a way with a series of maps for the

“indicator species”. If the “ indicator species” and their habitat are protected, then the

associated species will also benefit from this protection. With regard to what minimum patch

size of habitat is considered significant, Dr. Frank stated that there should be a biological

justification for the decision. He further stated that the existing conditions should rule the day –

if a site visit indicates that the site is scarified, then the condition is scarified. The same holds

true for intact natural communities. If an existing map does not show the area as habitat, but a

site visit indicates characteristics of high or moderate quality habitat, this means the site should

be considered as such. Dr. Frank used the white crowned pigeon as an example, and described

how the 1994 Bancroft study of its viable habitat has yielded an acreage figure for minimum

patch size that is cited widely as an absolute standard but does not consider the assumptions,

methods and specific conditions of the study. Careful consideration of these factors by trained

staff is important before citing or codifying any resulting standards for application. As to the

Carrying Capacity Study, Dr. Frank stated that there are points of confusion some of which

included understanding clearly what is being given up when a threshold is set, inadequate or

conflicting information about certain species, an inadequate analysis of secondary impacts and

the question of species contiguity and minimum patch size.

11/19/03

33

Secondary Impacts in the Florida Keys:

Dr. Barbara Lenczewski, Senior Planner, Department of Community Affairs, gave a

brief presentation about secondary impacts during which she offered a definition of secondary

impacts that read as follows. “Secondary, or indirect, impacts result from an activity that is not

specifically related to the desired result of that activity. These impacts can occur later in time

and be further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable “. Dr. Lenczewski

introduced Mr. Craig Faulhaber, Master’s Candidate, Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences,

Texas A&M University to give some examples of specific secondary impacts for the Lower

Keys marsh rabbit. In his presentation, Mr. Faulhaber noted that the recent habitat survey for

this species showed a much larger range than had been previously known. He concluded that

this fact probably reflects an expanded search for the rabbits, rather than an expanded

population of the species. The majority of the marsh rabbit’s habitat lies within military-

owned or proposed Tier 1 lands. Secondary impacts to this species are particularly significant

and come from cats, imported fire ants, raccoons, road crossing injuries, fragmentation of

habitat (rabbits need corridors to travel between habitat areas), and exotic plant species. Dr.

Lenczewski concluded, pointing out that secondary impacts are species specific, depend on a

particular situation, can be complex, can change and are sometimes difficult to predict. She

pointed out that decisions concerning how to manage secondary impacts needed to be

scientifically defensible and were best made when planners and biologists worked together to

create an effective management plan for the particular species.

Hurricane Evacuation & Sheltering Issues:

Mr. Ken Metcalf, Regional Planning Administrator, Department of Community Affairs,

gave a presentation outlining the background and issues surrounding hurricane evacuation and

sheltering in Monroe County. The Miller Model numbers are what the emergency managers

operationally use and the model shows that evacuation time currently exceeds the 24-hour

standard. Mr. Metcalf did indicate that the model has been updated with Census 2000

population numbers. This remains a controversial issue in Monroe County with some arguing

that evacuation itself is not safe and that additional refuges of last resort should be built and the

11/19/03 focus should be on hurricane survivability in the Keys. Mr. Metcalf acknowledged that

argument, but stated that since the core issue is the safety of those in the Keys, planning must

be adequate for the worst case scenario, a severe storm where everyone has to leave for their

own safety.

The Keys are very hurricane prone and forecast accuracy is still a problem. Other

challenges include low elevations subject to flooding; inadequate shelter space; high

evacuation clearance times; and post disaster recovery problems. Forecasting intensity of

storms is difficult and a 12-hour buffer is necessary for evacuation to be completed by the time

a storm arrives so 36 hours is really needed for a 24-hour evacuation. Complicating

calculations is the fact that forecast error increases with time and makes the decision to call for

evacuations particularly challenging in Monroe County.

Mr. Metcalf offered some suggestions to improve hurricane preparedness in the Keys.

For Category 1-2 storms, when people are least likely to evacuate, shelters should be improved,

safe rooms and refuges of last resort should be provided. For Category 3-5 storms evacuation

time needs to be reduced and shelter capacity in Miami-Dade needs improvement. Regardless,

the Keys should continue to improve its post-disaster recovery and redevelopment planning,

focusing on actions that will reduce evacuation clearance times. Mr. Metcalf suggested

consideration of population limits based on public safety with a build out strategy that is based

on growth limits and land acquisition. He also suggested tying the permitting rate to the rate of

land acquisition with dedicated funding for lot buy down; shelter improvements, and

evacuation improvements keeping in mind that costs will increase over time due to inflationary

effects.

B. Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Sept. 2003

34

11/19/03

35

APPENDIX B

Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Sept. 2003 Cost Burdened 2002

Jurisdiction Cost Burden

Owners Aged 25-

54

Renters Aged 25-

54

Owner Renter

Monroe County <30% 17,164 8,288Monroe County 30-39% 1,488 1,244 2,327 1,864Monroe County 40-49% 459 714 888 942Monroe County 50+% 1,074 1,512 1,858 2,217

Total 3021 3470 5,073 5,023 6,491 10,096

Islamorada <30% 1,791 569Islamorada 30-39% 146 90 236 132Islamorada 40-49% 42 53 89 69Islamorada 50+% 95 109 179 157

Total 283 252 504 358 535 862 Key Colony Beach <30% 247 68Key Colony Beach 30-39% 8 8 25 13Key Colony Beach 40-49% 3 3 9 3Key Colony Beach 50+% 4 8 20 15

Total 15 19 54 31 34 85 Key West <30% 4,009 3,750Key West 30-39% 348 575 543 859Key West 40-49% 110 324 208 428Key West 50+% 259 693 439 1,017

Total 717 1,592 2,304 2,309 3,494 Layton <30% 35 12Layton 30-39% 2 0 2 0Layton 40-49% 0 0 0 0Layton 50+% 0 0 0 0

Total 2 0 2 0 2 2 Marathon <30% 2,272 1,077Marathon 30-39% 188 160 304 241Marathon 40-49% 57 92 118 122Marathon 50+% 141 200 255 287

11/19/03

36

Total 386 452 677 650 838 1,327

Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, Sept. 2003 Cost Burdened 2002

Jurisdiction Cost Burden

Owners Aged 25-

54

Renters Aged 25-

54

Owner Renter

Unincorporated <30% 8,818 2,802Unincorporated 30-39% 796 411 1,214 623Unincorporated 40-49% 247 242 464 321Unincorporated 50+% 578 501 973 740

Total 1,621 1,154 2,651 1,684 2,775 4,335

11/19/03

37

APPENDIX C

FKCCS - Terrestrial Habitat Map Index

Please see the attached compact disk.

FinalReportRule28-20

Documents