Item A
. TIle ROles ol1.OCir-
Government, the State and
the Military in Growth
Management
--
AI.- fII01lti*-'o-.n
--
~~oICon1mun1ty.vr.ln
"*-y 3....... ZOO9
i.
History
. 1917t1nt.....tIIght
. 1974 FIOridI............ delIIgnates Aortda Keys and Key west 8n
",-_Ctttlml__Conc:e'ri
. 2OO4LeglMtturerecognlzesllllpllCtsot~""d8..d r ,.4
Incompatible Development
. Incompatible development of land
near military installations can affect
the ability of an installation to carry
out its mission
. Incompatible development can
prevent a local govemment from
protecting the public safety and
quality of life
- Noise and the risk of accidents
1
Section 163.3175, F.S.
(2004)
. legislature rerognizes Importance of
military and threat of encroachment
. Ex-offido Member on Planning
Commission or Zoning Board acting on
behalf of all military installations within
that jurisdiction
. Directs local government to notify
commanding officer of proposed
comprehensive plan and LDR changes
i . Military review: Will changes adversely'
Chapter 163.3177, F.S.
(2004)
. Directs local government to amend
comprehensive plan to indude the
criteria the local government will use
to achieve compatibility with military
installation
. To be completed by June 30,2006
Intergovernmental
Coordination
; . Military's Role
. State's Role
. local Government's Role
2
Military's Role
. f'roVtdespjanriing ooardwitli---
information on encroachment Issues
. Educational briefings
. Participate In discussions
. ReaJmmend mitigation
. Realmmend Joint Land Use Study to strengthen
coordination
State's Role
. Consistency with Chapter 163, Part II,
and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C.
. Comprehensive Plan, Land
Development Regulation and
development review for consistency
with the Florida Keys Prindples for
Guiding Development, Section
380.0552(7), F.S.
Principles for Guiding
Development
(h) TO~the....,~,cost ~.._~~
emOrllzed life or........... ~ MlIjor ~
1.~.~.---lnc:IudIng:
1. The Florida Keys AqUE!lb:l: and water suPPy fadlltles;
2. __and"""""I_,
3. SolId waste coIIettIon and disposal fadIIties;
4. Key WeR NImII AIr 5IatIan and .....1IIIIIIary fBcIll&.;
5.T~facIitIes;
6. Federal paries, wHcIIIfe refuges, and marine sanctuartes;
7. 5tateparks, I1lO'eiItionfaclltles, aquatic preserves, and other
pOOIidy oWned properttes;
8. Oty efecb1c service and the Florida Keys EIecb1c Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate
3
Monroe County
City of Key West
JLUS Briefing
February 2009
Office of Economic Adjustment
Office of the Secretary of Defense
...-
--
1ason~wMm"
703.t04.802Cl
cur_ ......
--~
!I:I8nInn~IDwsn.wh!;mll
"'-'116
Office of Economic Adjustment
Mission Statement
The Office of Economic Adjustment, in
coordination with the other resources of the
Federal Government, shall:
./' Assist communities to plan and caTTy out
local adjustment strategies;
:; Assist communities to engage /fle private
sector in ventures to plan and/or undertake
eltlnomic development and base
redevelopment; and
Assist communities to partner with the
Militery Depat1ments.
DoD Believes
Local land-use planning & zoning are
among the most effective tools to
ensure compatible development near
military installations
1
Factors that Affect Military Bases
U_n:_
_Iop......t
I Population
/ _nment
High ....
--
~Vl."'&
_.
_n
\ \~ _D.....
~~==I
AIr QuaUty LAnd u..
JLUS Program
. Objectives:
. Promote effective compatible land-use planning
between military and local commun~ies; future
civilian growth and develDpmenl$ are compatible
with operations I training mission of installation, and
. To seek ways to reduce operational impacts on
" lldjacent land
~. rategy: Provide technical & financial
istllhce tD state & local governmenl$lD develDp
e IVEl smart planning strategies in an open forum
Typical JLUS Process Stages
. -----...-
.AppaIIIt~"'U8wor1d1og___
. ~....oI__(8OW)
.~1IDr0EA"""
.~-opIfflIlDM-
---
. -..y--,~
....,......._,.......fIllln
---
. __..,.,.........faf-........._ .r.,..............._
...-.-........-~-- .....--....
_E.-,.....-,1IIoIIIIk
. AI*- ---'ly......................
. lJnllt_____--...-_
--
.~...-...-..................-
. _...~-......--
. c-........-...._~
2
TYPICAL JLUS ORGANIZATION
RESPON~_U f1JES
PARTICIPANTS
--....-
.........._ Comm.
--
.......
~
. ..,
....-
--
--
--
-
--
...........
""""'.......
--
--..-
-.......
loc.l.............
--
...-.~_ Wi
-
OEA Role
~ Confirm need for JlUS
~ Provide guidance to initiate, conduct and
complete a community-driven JlUS
~ Provide technical assistance to the local
jurIscIictlon and Installation
~' ProVide, funding assistance to the local
'url~ictlon to produce a JLUS
adiltate communications between the local
rlsdictlon and the installation
Installation Role
~ Recommend and support JLUS nomination
~ Represent Installation interests
~ Coordinate update of AICUZ or IENMP
~ Provide leadership, guidance, and technical
support to the JLUS Policy Committee
t., Pro," vide data and Information to study
artk:lpate in JLUS meetings
~ vide comments on study drafts
3
Community Role
~Sponsor the JLUS effort
~ Provide staff time & expertise
~ Provide the leadership to complete JLUS
~ Fund its part of the JLUS effort (10% non-
Federal match)
.~. ProVide public Information
Rtify issues and opportunities
~ esolve Issues
~ Implement JLUS recommendations
Next Steps
~Confirm interest in and need for pursuing
JLUS
~ If need and interest are confirmed:
. Identify local affected jurisdictions and potential
sponsor
. The OEA will work with the local sponsor(s) to
develop a grant application
Coordination with local, state and federal
stBkeholders
~Rorida Defense Alliance, DCA, 5fRPC, SfWMO, etx:
...Federal agendes (DOl, BLM, USFWS, Forest Service,
etx:)
Completed Joint Land-Use Studies
. 52 Completed (1985- 2008)
~oI~~
4
JOINT LAND USE STUDIES
IN FLORIDA
Walker Banning
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Completed Studies
· Escambia County
- NAS Pensacola
- 2003
· Santa Rosa County
- NAS Whiting Aefd
-2003
. Tampa
- MacOill AFB
-2006
· Miami-Dade County/Homestead
- Homestead Air Reserve Base
-2007
Studies Underway
· Avon Park Air Force Range
- Highlands, Okeechobee, Osceola, Polk
- Administered by Central Rorlda Regional
Planning Council
· Naval Support Activity Panama Oty
- Bay County, City of Panama City
- Administered by Bay County
· Eglin Air Force Base
- MUltl-COunty, many municipalities
- Administered by Okaloosa County
1
Intent of JLUS Process
· Collaborative planning process
· Identify issues
· Acree on solutions
. Intent is to implement
Encroachment Works Both Ways
Ught Commercial
Pollution~Oeve/opment
Cultural ~
Interests
onMlltliry
Lond,
Population ~
"",""",momr
AirQuatity
-
-' -
~~ ~&
---
AbIIItyto TraIn .=. <}. Commercial
.... Airspace
- ;;1,;__......_
AttematIve PI'ovisionofWlldfiNl
EnergySOun:es Habitlllt
Reduced Flexibility for the Military and the Community
"""''"==''..:......=.....
NAS
Whiting
Field
I.andAoquililionlllnd
OIherPlanningEfforts
==::..'-:=::,-~:::~.~,
-.. 021;'.!::;~'":::,_ =.o'::,;l;:_
- _ 1;:;<=. _=-~=-:.:.=
-..... =- -=~'
-=1:~::... .. ::'::';~~
~
..
~~
..",..
2
JLUS Process Should Ensure ...
. Meaningful and continuous involvement of
the public and all stakeholders
· Equitable recommendations
3
Naval Air Station Kev West @
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Brief
Presented to
Key West City Commission
Febru8ry 3, 2009
Naval Air Station Kev West @
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) Brief
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Februal'y 4, 2009
Issue
@
. Encroachment & Compatible Use/Development
.14 types of sources/challenges
. More than Air Installation Compatible Use
Zone (AICUZ) Study
. Current encroachment guidance in ordinancesJ
Comprehensive Plan is not representative of
current environment and is inadequate for both
officials and citizens.
. Compliance with Florida Statutes
G AL: Protect the health, safety, .00 welfare of those
IMng near HAS Key West while pres8f'Ytng the
operational C8p11b111ty of the Installation
~ ;
I
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) @
Florida law (163.3175 F.S.) specifically
encourages the commanding officer of a military
installation (me) to provide infonmation about
'community planning assistance grants" (JLUS)
available from OEA to the community (all of us) to
facilitate community planning compatible with
military activities and the installation mission.
GOAL: Protect the heollh, oafety, and _... 01 those
living near HAS Key West wnlleJ)t8..rvlng Its
operatfonal CBpablllty
Why enter Into a Joint Land Use Study? @
. It is a communitv owned (County, City) process
funded 90% by the Federal Govemment.
. It has been successful in other communities.
. Protects the heallh and welfare of the entire
community, and the installation's mission.
. Results in a collaborative plan of action.
Identify, quantify, mltJg8te, and prevent encroachment
My Perspective @
. u.s. Navy has been a part of the Key West
community for over 185 years.
. This is a unique area; we need to take action
now to protect the future.
. A JLUS is a proven process to resolve any
differences we may have as neighbors.
. We need to improve the way we address
encroachment issues.
I sincerely hope the community will choose to
enter into a JLUS after learning about it
2
3
Qve~+' o""s..
G l-f -tk~ 1Socc ~0r-ee~
+0 +'^., ~ --S () I ~ -t t-ezvcd iJ-sr
S+ ~ ~ y~" J eel. -( k~-t 10 I" d
10.~ ~o,^-,^-4d -10 cAccef-f'J
+,^z V'e'i,lAH.<:. of -!~-e
-S ~~ (}'
@ I+- -\ 'lIdo- :::r L US s'-"-JJ cd-s
-+'^'~~; "j ~~. hoV"c~ Ccj,
b~,^~ (""c~i\M(j~\e C0,iL
-{ ~c "'^ , j, ~ C<. vJ 10 ~ '" e il 0 kJ ..'
~ \ \ \i ~"^-t -e ~( -e <- i Wt.~ "'--h, I, j J
+0 fv1.or~(,_~ 0' re-YAo;r'1~
""'Is h()~~ I HU"D1 Ab 1
FCAW\"",,~ MAl{ J ~c.\I\~ Pll4~(
(i) \)J; (\ I e (l e \/l+ "'-~ [( (0 ~ c 7
VV' '0 C<-~I ~,tty +0 d( 7W
G)
@
W,^-",- --\ h",-- f f e V\.> (-r 1h {d
("') 1/\0 CL,~re'e V'-'\f"'L-f 0'1
--f ~~ So l ---i'l OVC s? bo e...s
~~~\ S~0 eO,' e vcd --/k ~ 7
{ ^- -+ ~ \A -\ '4 0 ( vV-- if L {. M- e ve:r;r-
Lv~o dd~V'IN\;..,e.5 kJko...J-
(:> e cr: V\.. I t vJo \c . n C CiM/h evJAoH n
FU,^Jtk~le -to WhoW\..?
4t/e ,0n'
. J:F fly )JAvyMr;;;/L1>.f fi)~ -;Jbl- /3N~' /.fe.d-
cX)()Kcf{ {JJ1 ;)//lCt€;4;;-f QAf/!/2! 6-7tS) IJ0 A- :.
~L1I4-I8 6/2cuS ftLJ ~~'" ,Ai- 4(eJ61?-'~
/Yl/IfVJt.JA tu/Jf~? ~b AJAur tVod- Mde-
7'-Z/;vps; / yp Q>"y/e%? /l ;4Cz, 6bt'/,l:.()1#e4-~
J"P/l7 9~devl-?
;if:: EI> ~G u-c-D c:hiJrf:-7L c;-& W/UJI'IdWC'/1i1-
~LLe// /U:)t.-> ~ hte. (fU/3L-/6 eye: l.
~L CArUL.JCJ
6~g /4y
John G. Hammerstrom
P.O. Box 860
Tavernier, FL 33070-0860
Phone: 305 852 8722 Fax: 305 852 1940
Email: johnhammeI@bellsouth.net
To Whom it May Concern,
February 3, 2009
An investigation that may clarify the impacts of much-louder airplanes flying at NAS
Key West is underway. Until the results of that investigation are known, discussions of
land-use are premature and ill advised.
As a Retired Naval Aviator, I understand and fully support the Navy's need and
obligation to restrict development surrounding Naval Air Stations. I've witnessed
encroachment problems develop at several facilities, and the consequences of failure to
constrain encroachment mean escalating conflicts between the military and civilian
communities. It's a continuing source of frustration to aviators when folks knowingly
move next to an airport and then complain about the noise. The Air Installation
Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) system is intended to define areas surrounding an air
station in which development should be constrained to protect the health, safety and
well being of residents, the value of property surrounding the facility and the Navy's
operational capability. The current and proposed zone demarcations surrounding NAS
Key West were provided by the Navy and are included in the codified 1977 AICUZ, the
proposed 2004 AlCUZ and the most recently proposed 2007 AICUZ. In a perfect world,
the zones would be defined, agreed upon and codified prior to civilian property
purchases, future property purchases and development would not encroach on the
Navy's operations, and those who purchased property outside of those zones would not
be subject to encroachment from the Navy.
The land use issues surrounding NAS Key West are a very untidy mess, because some
property-owners' rights predate the Navy's, development has been proposed within
established zones, and inappropriate taller and more intense development has been
promoted. In addition, assertions have been made that by introducing the F / A-18E/F
Super Hornet to N AS Key West - a much louder airplane than its predecessor the F-14
Tomcat, the Navy's impacts have "overflowed" their self-defined zones. In certain
configurations and patterns, Navy data shows the Super Hornet to be more than four
times as loud as the Tomcat. While there are valid Navy concerns regarding
development near the Naval Air Station, the folks most personally, adversely and
unfairly affected are those who, in good faith, purchased homes beyond the published
zones and now find themselves effectively within the noise zones because of the much-
louder airplanes.
The Navy maintains that their 2003 "Environmental Assessment for Fleet Support and
Infrastructure Improvements," and the subsequent release of the April, 2003 "Finding of
No Significant Impact," properly evaluated the effects of the louder airplane and found
those effects to be minimal. Because of insufficiencies in that report, including the
glaring fact that the Navy's "Finding of No Significant Impact" letter does not mention
the airplane that they claim is exonerated by that document, the Government
Page 1 of2
Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to investigate. The GAO found sufficient
evidence confirming the complaint, assigned it Control Number 51428 and referred the
matter to the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (OIG), who initiated
Case number 105900 in November, 2007. OIG, in turn, requested information from the
Navy, and during the past year the Navy reported back to the OIG.
On December 1, 2008, the DOD OIG referred the matter back to the Navy requesting
more information and asking them to report back within 60 days. After receipt of that
additional information (which is now overdue), the DOD OIG will complete their
investigation and issue a report, which will then undergo a three-part internal review.
The results of their investigation and the report will be made public when all of that is
complete. The Department of Defense will then report to the Government
Accountability Office.
One possible outcome could be that the Navy is fully exonerated and that no further
studies of the impacts of the Super Hornet will be required. However, if OIG or GAO
find that the Navy must perform another Environmental Assessment, there are two
possible subsequent outcomes. A new Environmental Assessment could result in
another "Finding of No Significant Impact." However, if there were significant impacts,
the Navy would be required to perform an Environmental Impact Statement. The 2003
Environmental Assessment process took over six months. Environmental Impact
Statements often take at least a year, and sometimes much more. If an Environmental
Impact Statement is required, the impacts of the Super Hornet on the community
surrounding NAS Key West will not be known until at least 18 months from today and
land-use decisions without those results would be imprudent.
On Monday, February 2,2009, I spoke with Mr. Leonard Trahan, the Director of the
Defense Hotline - the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. While my
goal was to obtain a written statement confirming their investigation, he told me that
specifically because of the investigation, he was unable to provide such a statement.
Nevertheless, he said, "Since the Navy is very aware of the investigation, they should be
able to provide confirmation." Why would the Navy embark on a Joint Land Use Study
now, when they know that information central to any land use discussions is in
question?
While a Joint Land Use Study may ultimately be the best means to unscramble the mess
and I support the concept in principle, embarking on such a study is premature until
the results of DOD Office of Inspector General Case number 105900 and Government
Accountability Office Control number 51428 are made public.
Sincerely,
John Hammerstrom
Page 2 of 2