Loading...
Item I1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: .....August 17 2011 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes X No Department: Marine Resources Office Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Richard Jones/289-2805 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of an Inter -Local Agreement (ILA) between Monroe County and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) hiring the SFRPC at a total cost of $50,000.00 to revise the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan, perform a Needs Analysis, develop Marina Siting Criteria, and write a comprehensive plan amendment adopting Marina Siting Criteria into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. ITEM BACKGROUND: The 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy 212.4.3 requires the adoption of marina siting criteria by the County, and approval by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The ILA provides for a Needs Analysis to be performed to determine the need for additional marinas and/or slips in the unincorporated areas, revisions to the Marina Siting Plan drafted by SFRPC in 2007, development of Marina Siting Criteria, and drafting of amendment language adopting Marina Siting Criteria into the Comp Plan. The completion of the Needs Analysis, Marina Siting Plan, and Marina Siting Criteria will fulfill the requirements of Comp Plan Objective 212.4 which currently prohibits the development of new marinas of three slips or more. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: September 2006- Approval of ILA with SFRPC to develop a Working Waterfronts Master Plan, a Marina Siting Plan, comprehensive plan amendments, and land development regulations. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: $50,000 INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes X No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: $50,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS: County BIF REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Atty X OMB/Purchasing X Risk Management X DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # CONTRACT SUMMARY Contract with: S.FI. Reg. Flan. Council Contract # Effective Date: Expiration Date: Contract Purpose/Description: _ _Approval of an Inter -Local Agreement between Monroe revise the Monroe County Marina Siting; Plan, perform a Needs Siting Criteria and make necessary revisions to the 2010 Comm Contract Manager: Richard .cones (Name) for BOCC meeting on 8/17/2011 8/17/2011 1/31/2013 and the South Florida and develo Marina Plan 2805 Growth Management/l 1 (Ext.) (Department/Stop #) Deadline: 8/2/2011 CONTRACT COSTS Total Dollar Value of Contract.: $ 50,000.00 Current Year Portion: $ 50,000.00 Budgeted? Yes® No ❑ Account Codes: 157-62613-530340- Grant: $ County Match: $ ADDITIONAL COSTS Estimated Ongoing Costs: $ /yr For: (Not included in dollar value above) Eeg. maintenance, utilities, 12n4to6 , salaries, 4 CONTRACT REVIEW Changes ate In Needed 1 Reviewer Division Director 12�- lj Yes❑ No . =f Risk Managerript _W Yes[] No[ O.M.Bg�;�A� ./Purc in Y80 Na "Ir County Attorney 7 h0 1Yes❑ No[' Comments: OMB Form Revised 2/27101 MCP 92 Date Out 2-1 f ! INTER -LOCAL AGREEMENT THIS iNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) is entered into as of this day of , 2011, between Monroe County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (COUNTY) and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), a state regional planning agency. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the SFRPC was created pursuant to Section 186.501, Florida Statutes (1982), as amended and known as the "Florida Regional Planning Council Act" (the "ACT"); and WHEREAS, Section 186.505, Florida Statutes, provides that the SFRPC may enter into contracts to provide, at cost, such services related to its responsibilities as may be requested by local governments or organizations within the region and which the SFRPC finds feasible to perform; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to hire the SFRPC to provide professional services to make revisions to the County Marina Siting Plan (Plan) in accordance with the December 7, 2007 Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC Report) issued by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) pertaining to the Plan, perform a Needs Analysis for new slips and marinas, and develop Marina Siting Criteria and make necessary revisions to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan adopting those criteria; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed upon a Scope of Services for work to be performed hereunder by the SFRPC and attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment 1; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, the mutual covenants, conditions, provisions and undertakings herein contained, and for other good and valuable considerations, the parties do mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows: Section 1. Scope and Term. The SFRPC and the COUNTY, for the consideration named agree to perform their respective obligations as provided in this ILA as well as in the detailed scope of services contained in Attachment 1, Section A— Scope of Services and in accordance with the timeline contained in Attachment 1, Section D- Timeline, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The term of the ILA is August 17, 2011, through January 31, 2013. Section 2. Reporting. In consideration of the services described above, SFRPC agrees to provide monthly reports of all of its activities documenting project progress and completion of timelines, as well as any general findings related to the services provided. Reports shall be in writing with supporting documentation and delivered to the Marine Resources Senior Administrator at the address listed in Section 9. Section 3. Payment. The total funds available to pay the SFRPC for the services provided pursuant to this Agreement is an amount not to exceed $50,000. Payment to the SFRPC is contingent upon annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. The COUNTY will process invoices from SFRPC pursuant to the Local Government Prompt Payment Act. The Draw Schedule is indicated in Attachment 1, Section C. Section 4. Termination of Inter -local Agreement. Either party may terminate this ILA because of the failure of the other party to perform its obligations under the ILA. If the COUNTY terminates this ILA because of the SFRPC's failure to perform, then the COUNTY must pay the SFRPC the amount due for all work satisfactorily completed as determined by the COUNTY up to the date of the SFRPC's failure to perform but minus any damages the COUNTY suffered as a result of the SFRPC's failure to perform. The damage amount must be reduced by the amount saved by the COUNTY as a result of the ILA termination. Section 5. Records. SFRPC shall maintain all books, records, and documents directly pertinent to performance under this Agreement in accordance with the Florida Public Records Law, Ch. 119 F.S., and generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. Each party to this Agreement or their authorized representatives shall have reasonable and timely access to such records of each other party to this Agreement for public records purposes during the term of the Agreement and for four years following the termination of this Agreement. If an auditor employed by the County or Clerk determines that monies paid to SFRPC pursuant to this Agreement were spent for purposes not authorized by this Agreement, the SFRPC shall repay the monies together with interest calculated pursuant to Sec. 55.03, Florida Statutes, commencing on the date the monies were paid to SFRPC. If the amount owed by the SFRPC to the COUNTY is not enough to compensate the COUNTY, then the SFRPC is liable for any additional amount necessary to adequately compensate the COUNTY up to the amount of the ILA price. Section 6. Employees Subject to County Ordinance Nos. 010 and 020-1990. The SFRPC warrants that it has not employed, retained, or otherwise had act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 020-1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the County, in its discretion, may terminate this ILA without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from the ILA or purchase price, or otherwise recover the full amount of any fee, commission, percentage gift, or consideration paid to the former County officer or employee. Section 7. Convicted Vendor. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on a ILA to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a ILA with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not perform work as a SFRPC, supplier, sub -supplier, or SFRPC under ILA with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017 of the Florida Statutes, for the Category two for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. Section 8. Insurance. The parties to this ILA stipulate that each is a state governmental agency as defined by Florida Statutes and represents to the other that it has purchased suitable public liability, vehicle liability, and Workers' Compensation insurance, or is self -insured, in amounts adequate to respond to any and all claims which are not limited by Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, arising out of the activities governed by this agreement. Section 9. Communication Between Parties. All communication between the parties should be through the following individuals or their designees: Monroe County Richard Jones, Senior Administrator Monroe County Marine Resources Office Planning & Environmental Resources Dept. 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, FL 33050 SFRPC Rachel Kalin, Regional Planner South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Section 10. Governing Law, Interpretation, Costs, and Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida applicable to Interlocal Agreements made and to be performed entirely in the State. Section 11. Venue. In the event that any cause of action or administrative proceeding is instituted for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the COUNTY and SFRPC agree that venue will lie in the appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in Monroe County, Florida. Section 12. Mediation. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that, in the event of conflicting interpretations of the terms or a term of this Agreement by or between any of them the issue shall be submitted to mediation prior to the institution of any other administrative or legal proceeding. This Agreement is not subject to arbitration. Section 13. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement (or the application thereof to any circumstance or person) shall be declared invalid or unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, shall not be affected thereby; and each remaining term., covenant, condition and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the enforcement of the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement would prevent the accomplishment of the original intent of this Agreement. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree to reform the Agreement to replace any stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision. Section 14. Attorney's Fees and Costs. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that in the event any cause of action or administrative proceeding is initiated or defended by any party relative to the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses, as an award against the non -prevailing party, and shall include attorney's fees, courts costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses in appellate proceedings. Mediation proceedings initiated and conducted pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and usual and customary procedures required by the circuit court of Monroe County. Section 15. Binding Effect. The terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the COUNTY and SFRPC and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Section 16. Authority. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary COUNTY and corporate action, as required by law. Section 17. Claims for Federal or State Aid. The SFRPC and COUNTY agree that each shall be, and is, empowered to apply for, seek, and obtain federal and state funds to further the purpose of this Agreement; provided that all applications, requests, grant proposals, and funding solicitations shall be approved by each party prior to submission. Section 18. Adjudication of Disputes or Disagreements. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that all disputes and disagreements shall be attempted to be resolved by meet and confer sessions between representatives of each of the parties. If no resolution can be agreed upon within 30 days after the first meet and confer session, the issue or issues shall be discussed at a public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If the issue or issues are still not resolved to the satisfaction of the parties, then any party shall have the right to seek such relief or remedy as may be provided by this Agreement or by Florida law. Section 19. Cooperation. In the event any administrative or legal proceeding is instituted against either party relating to the formation, execution, performance, or breach of this Agreement, COUNTY and SFRPC agree to participate, to the extent required by the other party, in all proceedings, hearings, processes, meetings, and other activities related to the substance of this Agreement or provision of the services under this Agreement. COUNTY and SFRPC specifically agree that no party to this Agreement shall be required to enter into any arbitration proceedings related to this Agreement. Section 20. Nondiscrimination. COUNTY and SFRPC agree that there will be no discrimination against any person, and it is expressly understood that upon a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that discrimination has occurred, this Agreement automatically terminates without any further action on the part of any party, effective the date of the court order. COUNTY or SFRPC agree to comply with all Federal and Florida statutes, and all local ordinances, as applicable, relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: 1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; 2) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, as amended (20 USC ss. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (20 USC s. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; 4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 USC ss. 6101- 6107) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; 5) The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (PL 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; 6) The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (PL 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; 7) The Public Health Service Act of 1912, ss. 523 and 527 (42 USC ss. 690dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patent records; 8) Title V111 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 USC s. et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; 9) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC s. 1201 Note), as maybe amended from time to time, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; 10) Monroe County Code prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender, identity or expression, familial status or age; and 11) Any other nondiscrimination provisions in any Federal or state statutes which may apply to the parties to, or the subject matter of, this Agreement. Section. 21. Covenant of No Interest. COUNTY and SFRPC covenant that neither presently has any interest, and shall not acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner or degree with its performance under this Agreement, and that only interest of each is to perform and receive benefits as recited in this Agreement. Section 22. Code of Ethics. COUNTY and SFRPC agrees that officers and employees of the COUNTY and SFRPC recognize and will be required to comply with the standards of conduct for public officers and employees as delineated in Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, regarding, but not limited to, solicitation or acceptance of gifts; doing business with one's agency; unauthorized compensation; misuse of public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationship; and disclosure or use of certain information. Section 23. No Solicitation/Payment. The COUNTY and SFRPC warrant that, in respect to itself, it has neither employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach or violation of the provision, the SFRPC agrees that the COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from monies owed, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration. Section 24. Public Access. The COUNTY and SFRPC shall allow and permit reasonable access to, and inspection of, all documents, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or under its control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the COUNTY and SFRPC in conjunction with this Agreement; and the COUNTY shall have the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of this provision by SFRPC. Section 25. Non -Waiver of Immunity. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 768,28, Florida Statutes, the participation of the COUNTY and the SFRPC in this Agreement and the acquisition of any commercial liability insurance coverage, self-insurance coverage, or local government liability insurance pool coverage shall not be deemed a waiver of immunity to the extent of liability coverage, nor shall any ILA entered into by the COUNTY be required to contain any provision for waiver. Section 26. Privileges and Immunities. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from Iaws, ordinances, and rules and pensions and relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any public agents or employees of the COUNTY, when performing their respective functions under this Agreement within the territorial limits of the COUNTY shall apply to the same degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties of such officers, agents, volunteers, or employees outside the territorial limits of the COUNTY. Section 27. Legal Obligations and Responsibilities. Non -Delegation of Constitutional or Statutory Duties. This Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, relieving any participating entity from any obligation or responsibility imposed upon the entity by Iaw except to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by any participating entity, in which case the performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility. Further, this Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, authorizing the delegation of the constitutional or statutory duties of the COUNTY, except to the extent permitted by the Florida constitution, state statute, and case law. Section 28. Non -Reliance by Non -Parties. No person or entity shall be entitled to rely upon the terms, or any of them, of this Agreement to enforce or attempt to enforce any third -party claim or entitlement to or benefit of any service or program contemplated hereunder, and the COUNTY and the SFRPC agree that neither the COUNTY nor the SFRPC or any agent, officer, or employee of either shall have the authority to inform, counsel, or otherwise indicate that any particular individual or group of individuals, entity or entities, have entitlements or benefits under this Agreement separate and apart, inferior to, or superior to the community in general or for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement. Section 29. Attestations. SFRPC agrees to execute such documents as the COUNTY may require, to include a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug -Free Workplace Statement. Section 30. No Personal Liability. No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County in his or her individual capacity, and no member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement. Section 31. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by singing any such counterpart. Section. 32. Section. Headings. Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part of this Agreement and will not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. Section 33. Indemnify/Hold Harmless. SFRPC is a state agency as defined in Chapter 768.28, Florida Statutes, and COUNTY is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Each agrees to be fully responsible for acts and omissions of their agents or employees to the extent permitted by law. Nothing herein is intended to serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity by any party to which sovereign immunity may be applicable. Nothing herein shall be construed as consent by a state agency or political subdivision of the State of Florida to be sued by third parties in any matter arising out of this Agreement or any other contract. This section intentionally left blank IN WITNESS WHEREOF each party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized representative. (SEAL) Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Attest: Title APPROVED AS TO FORM -4v COUNTeY/ATTORNEY'§ OFFICE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA M Mayor/Chairman South Florida Regional Planning Council B. JACK OSTERHOLT Title Executive Director, SFRPC APPROVED AS TO FORM SAMUEL S. GOREN, ESQ. General Counsel to SFRPC Attachment 1 Scope of Services for Revisions to the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan, Perform Needs Analysis & Prepare Marina Siting Criteria for Adoption into Comprehensive Plan July 19, 2011 The following sections describe the Scope of Services, Deliverables, and Timelines for the revision and processing of the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan and associated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Goals, Objectives and Policies. Section A: Scope of Services 1. Communication and Coordination: Communicate and coordinate with Monroe County staff, the State Land Planning Agency, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other pertinent agencies regarding necessary and appropriate revisions to the current Marina Siting Plan and the development and refinement of marina siting criteria in the Comp Plan. Include Monroe County Growth Management staff in all phone calls and meetings with pertinent agencies. 2. Prepare. marina siting,criteria: a) Compile and document marina siting criteria as specified in the current County Comp Plan and Land Development Code. Conduct a literature review of local, regional, and/or other coastal jurisdictions in Florida and compile and document marina siting criteria utilized by those entities. From the research conducted, provide recommendations on the possible development of new and/or the refinement of Monroe County marina siting criteria and standards. Ensure recommended criteria and standards are consistent with the Comp Plan (except for Comp Plan policies that are recommended for revision) and other pertinent rules, regulations, and documents. b) Submit recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). c) Submit proposed marina siting criteria, with appropriate revisions based upon Monroe County Growth Management comments, to the State Land Planning Agency for a courtesy review. d) Submit revised recommendations, based upon State Land Planning Agency comments, to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). 1 e) Submit recommendations to DEP and USAGE. The submission to DEP and USACE shall include a cover letter explaining the purpose of the documentation and approval request, on behalf of the County (see Policy 212.4.1 and Policy 212.4.2). f) If DEP and/or USACE have concerns or recommendations, South Florida Regional Planning Council staff and Monroe County Growth Management Staff shall coordinate and review the DEP and/or USACE comments. Recommended marina siting criteria shall be revised, as appropriate, and resubmitted to DEP and USACE for review and approval. 3. Perform a Needs Analysis for additional marinas/slips: a) Conduct a literature review on the best practices for determining and conducting a needs analysis for additional marinas/slips. The review will focus on local, regional, and/or coastal jurisdictions in Florida that have adopted marina siting criteria and standards. Compile information and recommendations for a Needs Analysis methodology and submit to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). b) The Needs Analysis methodology shall include the provisions of Policy 212.4.6 regarding the need for full utilization of existing marinas within a five mile radius, including both marinas located in municipalities and unincorporated Monroe County. Consult with County staff and State Land Planning Agency to define a full utilization threshold and to finalize the needs assessment methodology for determining future marina/slip development in the County. Submit final Needs Analysis methodology recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). c) Perform a Needs Analysis to determine the need for additional marinas/slips, including but not limited to, the following: • vessel registration trends; • the inventory of marine facilities (type and distribution of facilities) included in the April 30, 2007, Monroe County Marine Facilities Inventory; • recent County aerials from February 2006 and January 2009 to determine utilization, and to identify utilization patterns associated with recent economic trends. • the 2009 FWC Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study (recreational and economic demands); and • other data sources as appropriate. The Needs Analysis shall be a stand-alone document. d) Integrate the findings of the Needs Analysis into the Marina Siting Plan. 4. Revisions to the Marina Siting Plan: a) After the Needs Analysis and marina siting criteria are finalized, address all sections of the December 7, 2007, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report [Attachment I] issued by the State Land Planning Agency pertaining to the Marina Siting Plan. Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address deficiencies indicated in the ORC Report [Attachment 1] and 2 based on the Needs Analysis and marina siting criteria. Submit recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). b) Revise the Site Suitability Analysis Section II.(c)(3.) of the Marina Siting Plan to clearly identify and explain the criteria utilized to determine and map the Site Suitability Zones (preferred, conditional and exclusionary). Revise the Suitability Maps utilizing best available information. Submit revisions to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). c) Revise the Introduction of the Marina Siting Plan to include a clear and concise purpose of the Marina Siting Plan. d) Include clear recommendations regarding the need and appropriateness of future, new marina development based on the siting criteria, existing number and distribution of marinas, the Needs Analysis, and environmental protection. e) Include a brief discussion of the goal of preservation of existing marinas and incentives for the redevelopment of existing marinas to encourage modernization, environmental protection and public access. S. Ensure the revised Marina Siting Plan meets statutory requirements and is properly processed: a) The completed Marina Siting Plan will meet/address the minimum requirements of the December 7, 2007, ORC Report by the State Land Planning Agency [Attachment 1], and the provisions of Chapter 163, F.S. 6. Revise the Comp Plan to reflect completion of the Marina Siting Plan the Needs Analysis, and approval of marina siting „criteria by DEP and U SACE: a) In accordance with Objective 212.4 and Policy 212.4.3, provide recommendations of marina siting criteria for inclusion in the Camp Plan. Provide revisions of the applicable Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comp Plan to address the completion of surveys and analyses and to ensure consistency with the Marina Siting Plan (format with strike -through & underline). Submit proposed amendments for Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). b) Submit proposed amendments for Planning Commission and Board of County Commission (BOCC) review and transmittal to DCA (state land planning agency). c) If necessary, review & analyze State Land Planning Agency Objections, Recommendation & Comments (ORC) Report for the transmitted amendments and prepare a response. Submit recommended response to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (If necessary, up to two reviews). d) Prepare recommended final Comp Plan amendments for the BOCC adoption. Submit recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews). 3 7. Participate in public meetings: South Florida Regional Planning Council staff will attend four public meetings to present the Marina Siting Plan and proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the public, receive input, and assist with the approval process in accordance with established County procedures, including: ® One community meeting to discuss the Marina Siting Plan and proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria; and ® One Planning Commission meeting for consideration of approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria; and • One BOCC meeting for the transmittal of the proposed marina siting criteria Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to State Land Planning Agency. • One BOCC meeting for the adoption of the marina siting criteria Comprehensive Plan amendment(s). The Needs Analysis and Marina Siting Plan shall be submitted as data and analysis for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria. 4 Section B: Deliverables 1. Marina Sitin Criteria for DEP and USACE approval a) Two copies and l CD copy of the marina siting criteria recommendations for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by December 31, 2011. b) Two copies and l CD copy of draft marina siting criteria for State Land Planning Agency courtesy review (up to 2 revisions) by January 31, 2012 c) Two copies and 1 CD copy of revised draft marina siting criteria for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by February 29, 2012. d) Two copies and 1 CD copy of final marina siting criteria and a cover letter addressed to DEP and ACOE requesting approval (up to 2 revisions) by April 1, 2012. 2. Needs Analysis: a) Two copies and 1 CD copy of draft Needs Analysis methodology for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by September 30, 2011. b) Two copies and 1 CD copy of final Needs Analysis methodology for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by October 31, 2011. c) Two copies and 1 CD copy of Needs Analysis document by February 29, 2012. 3. Revised Marina Siting Plan (including Suitability Maps): a) Two copies and l CD copy of draft Marina Siting Plan for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by April 30, 2012. b) Two copies and 1 CD copy of second draft Marina Siting Plan for State Land Planning Agency courtesy review by May 31, 2012. c) Two copies and 1 CD copy of the third draft Marina Siting Plan for staff review (if necessary) by June 29, 2012. 4. Comprehensive Plan revisions: a) Two copies and 1 CD copy of draft Comp Plan amendments for staff review (up to 2 revisions) by April 30, 2012. b) Eight copies and 1 CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments to staff for Planning Commission meeting by XXX (meeting date to be determined). c) Eight copies and l CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments for the BOCC transmittal meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be determined). d) Two copies and 1 CD copy of draft responses (up to 2 revisions) to Objections, Recommendation & Comments (ORC) Report by XXX (meeting date to be determined). e) Eight copies and 1 CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments (up to 2 revisions) for the BOCC adoption meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be determined). 5 Section C: Draw Schedule The compensation associated with this Scope of Services is $50,000.00 and shall be distributed as follows: Upon execution of contract by BOCC Upon delivery and acceptance of the Needs Analysis Upon delivery and acceptance of the Marina Siting Criteria Upon delivery and acceptance of the Revised Marina Siting Plan... Upon completion of all final deliverables, including the Comprehensive Plan Revisions and attendance at the final Board of County Commission Meeting for approval Total 6 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 550,000.00 Section ]D: Timelines for Marina Siting Plan and Comprehensive Plan Revisions \M �\\\ k\o 3/E=m 7=f x j ky / [o ( > \} } \ ` + / ) � \ > \ � < ` co \00w 2// § CL 22/ - \ k° (\co (0I U) 7\\\ zz m'0! #_ )\o CL )) w f !: ` 7 < E� \ \20 ƒ � -)\\ EL 0 /22®� �E`0 \kj\ \\\, )EL - < EIL0& E > {($} $>< )@22 }0o k75 :f , » § \ \\}k0 co - 2>J \k\ 3 CL E ) \ \ k k\:®/*§ /2:° p w2 `®] 33 ) {{\}\\)ƒ3\ \/ A\ §0>o ^ _ §! \ ��� \\ ��0�0 }�{«_ }2 > f00 coE � ƒ e »:0 ƒ: ! ) /:y a ) f�\\ co _\ f)§«§ CL C /)7}� ` �c k/ J 2{ ` »� \})f\/ G752 / ) M -r- < 0 {\ £/k §Ll EE 2< 2= §)&\ ( G uW Section E: State Land Planning Agency December 7, 2007, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report E STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRIST THOMAS G. PELHAM LOvemcr crt;_< . December 7, 2007 The Honorable Sonny %1cCoy Mayor, Monroe County 530 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mayor McCoy: The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No. 07-2), which was received on October 9, 2007, Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 163, Part 11, Florida Statutes and has prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. Monroe County is proposing amendments to address the maintenance and enhancement of commercial and recreational working waterfronts by seeking to guide development in a manner that preserves the working waterfront identity of the County. Although the Department generally supports the intention expressed by Monroe County, several concerns must be addressed. The Department has identified objections to the proposed amendments related to internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, vague language that sloes not provide meaningful and predictable standards or provide meaningful guidelines for how the activities will be implemented, and the lack of data and analysis to support the amendments. The Department's identified objections reflect the concerns raised by commenting agencies. A detailed discussion is provided in the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100 Phone. 850.488-8466/$UNCOM 278-8466 Fax: 850-921-07811SUNCOM 291-0781 websile; www.dca.81a1e I.us COMMUNM PLANNING AREAS OF CRFMAL STATE CONCERN RELD OFFICE HOUSING AND COMMUNfrY DEVELOPMENT Phone: 850-4E8-235&SUNCOM 278-2356 Phone 305-2W2402 Pnare: 854.4g5-796&SUN1-OM 278-7956 Fax: 8.90.488.33OWSUNCOM 278-3309 Fax: WS-289-2442 F2x 650.922-_56230UNCOM 292.5623 The Honorable Sonny McCoy December 7, 2007 Page 2 My staff and l are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our report. If you have any questions, }Tease contact Mayte Santamaria, Plaruier, at (850) 488-47'5. Sincerely, Mike McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MM/ms Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Mr. Townsley Schwab, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2 December 7, 2007 Division of Community Planning Areas of Critical State Concern This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9I-11.010, F.A.C. INTRODUCTION The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of iMonroe County's proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan (DCA number 07-2) pursuant to Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Aii objection will include a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some objections may have initially been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each objection must be addressed by the Iocal government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections, which are not addressed, may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination of the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. 2 OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2 NNIONROE COUNTY CONSISTENCY WITH Ch. 9.1-5, F.A.C. Ch. 380.0552 7 F.S. and Ch. 163 F.S. The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the proposed amendment. I. Future Land Use Element Oblection_1: Objective 101.4 - This objective is directed toward regulating future development and redevelopment to maintain and "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community and protect the natural resources..." The objective lacks a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. The objective does not define the phrase "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community;" therefore, there is no measurable provision to determine achievement of the objective of flexibly guiding the evolving community character. The proposed amendment is creating an internai inconsistency within the objective with the direction to both "maintain" the character of the community and to flexibly "guide its evolution." [Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Rule 9J- 5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5,005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Objective 101.4 to either "maintain" the character of the community or to "guide its evolution" to address the internal inconsistency. The objective must include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes progress toward the community character that the County envisions in its comprehensive plan. If Objective 101.4 and its associated policies are revised to "maintain" the character of the community, then the objective and policies need to identify the communities to be maintained. Another objective and associated policies can be established to guide the "evolving communities" to achieve the County's desired outcome for these communities. Objection 2: Policy 101.4.5 - This policy relates to the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category and to allow retail and office uses "consistent with the evolving community character and the natural environment." The policy is also directed to the "maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing" and other related uses "which support the fishing industry." As with Objective 101.4, the policy attempts to address two incompatible actions: maintain and enhance commercial fishing and guide the evolving community character. The policy does not define the phrase "evolving community character" and does not provide meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines for making land use decisions consistent with the "evolving community character" nor are there meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines to encourage "[t]he maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing, and related traditional water dependent and water related uses..." [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6). F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(1), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to include the meaninaful and predictable standards and guidelines to guide the evolving community character to the outcome desired and include a definition of the evolving community character or the desired outcome or include the guidelines and incentives that will be used to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing. If the policy and Objective 101.4 will guide the development toward the "evolving community character." then "evolving community character" and the intended outcome needs to be defined. Obieetion 3: Policy 101.4.6 - The policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is considered "evolving water dependent and water related uses;" and does not specify how affordable and employee housing will be encouraged. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to define the "evolvin; water dependent and water related uses." Also, include specific guidelines or incentives that will be used to encourage affordable and employee housing. Obiection 4: Policy 101.4.7 — The County has proposed to amend Policy 101.4.7 to include language describing the Maritime Industries (MI) (zoning) District within the Industrial future land use category. The proposed amendment does provide criteria of where or how the MI (zoning) District can be applied, and it relies upon a document that exists outside of the Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Land Development Regulation Zoning Maps). The proposed amendment proposes an allocated density of 8-12 du/ 10-15 rooms per acre and a maximum net density of 12-18 du/25 rooms per acre for the Maritime Industries (zoning) District within the Industrial future land use category. This proposed amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 101.4.21, the Future Land Use Densities and Intensities Table that assigns the fAdustrial future land use category a density of ldu/0 rooms per acre and a maximum net density of 2 du per acre. Additionally, data and analysis was not provided to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed density increase with the principal purpose of the Industrial future land use category which is to provide for the development of industrial, manufacturing, and warehouse and distribution uses or with the purpose of the MI (zoning) District which is to establish and conserve areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities and maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses. Data and analysis was not provided to evaluate the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources. Data and analysis was not provided evaluating potential impacts to hurricane evacuation by 4 the proposed increase in density. Furthermore, data and analysis has not been submitted to address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density. The proposed amendment proposes to allow the construction of public lodging facilities and commercial and Industrial non-residential floor area that will serve as storm shelters and recovery centers within the Maritime Industries (MI) district pursuant to Land Developineni Regulations: Section 9.5- EMA (d) "Development not impacting hurricane evacuation times - and Section 9.5-124.3 "Development not affected." The proposed amendment defers to the land development regulations to exempt the construction of public lodging facilities and commercial and industrial non-residential floor area outside of the Permit Allocation System. The proposed amendment is internally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because (1) Policy 101.2.6 prohibits new transient residential units including hotel or motel rooms; (2) Policy 101.4.21 does not allocate density for transient residential uses within the Industrial future land use category; (3) Policy 101.3.1 directs the County to maintain the balance between residential and non-residential growth by limiting the square footage of non- residential development to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of new non- residential development for each new residential unit permitted through the Residential Permit Allocation System; and (4) Policy 502.1.1 that directs the County to permit only port and port related land uses within the Safe Harbor/Peninsular port area of Stock Island. Data and analysis has not been submitted to demonstrate how public lodging facilities are a compatible use within the Industrial future land use category. Data and analysis has not been submitted to address potential water supply issues for the proposed increase in density and intensity. The proposed amendment states that "no development order for new residential uses or stnrctures shall be issued except for portions of the MI District unsuitable for dockage of vessels." This language does not provide meaningful and predictable standards related to determining the suitability of the location for the dockage of vessels or new residential uses. The proposed amendment proposes to allow "dwelling unit allocations attributable to houseboats be transferable to uplands." The proposal to transfer "dwelling unit allocations attributable to houseboat" is internally inconsistent with Policy 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 which state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity as well as Policy 101.4.21 which states that the allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and that maximum net densities bonuses shall not be available. Additionally, allocations attributable to houseboats appears internally inconsistent with Objective 101.5 and Policies 101.5.1, 101.5.2, and 101.5.4 which direct residential allocations to proposed dwelling units that encourage a compact form of residential growth that results in infill development in platted, improved subdivisions and provide disincentives for locating dwelling units within coastal high flood hazard areas. Data and analysis has not been provided to specify that houseboats have been awarded residential dwelling unit allocations or that the density for these structures is recognized under the Comprehensive Plan. Data and analysis has not been submitted to demonstrate if any or how many houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit allocations and through what process such allocations were made. Data and analysis has not been submitted on the locations of the houseboats and meaningful and predictable standards have not been provided to determine or guide where the allocations attributable to houseboat can be transferred. [Section 163.31.77(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(a) and (c), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3177 (10)(a), (e) and (h); Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2) through (6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(l), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(2)(a) through (e), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Demonstrate, through additional data and analysis that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Permit Allocation System, is consistent with the prohibition on new transient residential, is consistent with maintaining a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time, is internally consistent with density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, maintains the balance between residential and non-residential growth, and is consistent with preserving the port area of Stock Island. Provide data and analysis to evaluate the compatibility of the proposed residential and transient density increase with the purpose of the Industrial future land use category as well as with the purpose of the MI (zoning) District. Provide data and analysis evaluating the suitability of the locations with the proposed density increases with natural resources. Provide data and analysis to address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density. Revise the policy to provide standards or meaningful guidelines for determining locations unsuitable for dockage and where new residential uses are appropriate. Revise the policy to remove the inconsistencies with the other Comprehensive Plan provisions that state submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves are not assigned any density or intensity. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate how many or if any houseboats have been awarded dwelling unit allocations. Identify the process by which houseboats obtained allocation(s). Submit data and analysis identifying the locations of the houseboats and provide meaningful guidelines of where the allocations attributable to houseboats can be transferred to uplands. 1. 11. Conservation and, Coastal Management Element Objection 5: Objective 212.4 and Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3 Monroe County proposes amending Objective 212.4 to refer to the Marina Siting Plan and to delete Policies 212.4.1, 212.4.2, and 212.4.3 because of "the adoption of the Marina Siting flan and completion of the marine facilities survey" (Support Data and Analysis, page 2 of 6). The Marina Siting Plan was not included as an amendment in this package and has not been adopted by Monroe County. The County has not provided data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has completed the marine facilities survey. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5,003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.: Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4). F.A.C.] Recommendation: Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is Finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can propose other interim protections and guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Plan. The County also needs to provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has completed the marine facilities survey. The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 6: Objective 212.4 - The Objective proposes deleting language that requires Monroe County to complete an analysis of the need for additional marina facilities. Data and analysis was not submitted to indicate that the needs analysis was completed or if the study determined a need for additional marina facilities. The proposed amendment defers the standards to be implemented to the `Marina Siting Plan' for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities. The Marina Siting Plan was not included as an amendment in this package and has not been adopted by Monroe County. The objective does not meet the definition of an objective [see Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.] because the objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. In addition, the objective does not define what is considered "maximum physical advantage" and "no unreasonable or excessive impacts ... on marine resources." The objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward the goal of preserving and enhancing existing commercial harbors capable of accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 1633178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(g), F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.012(2), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Submit data and analysis indicating the needs analysis for additional marina facilities has been completed. The needs analysis is necessary in order to determine if existing marinas will meet the needs of future demand. The County can revise the objective to include the language that directs the County to complete the survey as well as language that directs the County to periodically update the survey to dctermine the future needs for additional marina facilities. Revise Objective 212.4, as a policy [see Rule 91-5.003(90), F.A.C.] with specific and !Meaningful standards to define ` maximum physical advantage" and "no unreasonable or cxcessive impacts...on marine resources." In addition, include a new Objective 212.4 that includes a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable for ensuring the protection of marine resources with the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities. Include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and mattes progress toward the preservation and enhancement of existing commercial harbors capable of accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean. -going vessels, including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels in new Objective 212.4 or include a new objective with associated policies to address this issue. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 7: Policy 212.4.2 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.2 which requires Monroe County to complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial marinas, including, at a minimum: 1. number of wet and dry slips; 2. usage rates of wet and dry slips; 3. breakout of slips by boat size; 4. on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces; 5. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems; 6. availability for public use (recreational marinas only); 7. number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp; S. condition of facilities; 9. existing DER -accepted documentation of water quality trends; 10. availabilitp of pump -out facilities; and 11. potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria (See Policy 212.4.3). The County has not provided any data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has implemented this Policy. The Marina Siting Plan does provide information on the average densities of marine Facilities and boat ramps, the total number of marina .facilities in the Florida Keys and the types of marine facilities; however, the County has not provided sufficient data and analysis to ensure that Policy 212.4.2 has been entirely implemented. A copy of the Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan was not submitted with this amendment package. The Review Draft Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan (dated April 30, 2007) on Monroe County's website includes a section describing the update of a marine facilities database by surveys conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at FAU. The marine facilities database update may satisfy the tasks of this Policy but data and analysis was not submitted to indicate the surveys were completed_ Failure to complete the sun-ey and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of a marina siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met consistent with the protection of marine resources_ [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b). F.S.; Section 163.3I77(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.2 if the policy has not been implemented. Provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has implemented Policy 212.4.2. Also include data and analysis evaluating whether existing marinas will meet future demand and, if not, include guidelines and standards in the policy to guide land use decisions toward meeting future demand. Objection 8:policy 212.4.3 — The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.3 which directs Monroe County to develop and adopt marina siting criteria and outlines specific criteria to consider when adopting marina siting criteria, such as that marina construction not involve the destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagms beds and to consider shoreline modification when siting marinas. It is presumed that this policy was included in the County comprehensive plan because these specific criteria were important to address the protection of natural resources. It is premature to delete Policy 212.4.3 before the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, data and analysis has not been provided to demonstrate that the Marina Siting Plan incorporates all the criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas. Failure to include criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of marina siting plan, which should both identify the need and how that need can be met consistent with the protection of marine resources. [Section 163.3177(i), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] 0 Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for ensuring the protection of natural resources with the development and the redevelopment of marine facilities. These standards can be interim guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan with criteria as good or bettor than the criteria specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas. The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 9: Policy 212.4.4 - The proposed amendment renumbers this policy to 212.4.1. The proposed amendment states that "applicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in the Maritime Industries (MI) District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County`s marina siting criteria set forth in the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan; and 2. Monroe County's dock siting criteria." This is inconsistent with Objective 212.4 which states ".Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities." This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan or include meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime Industries district. This amendment is also inconsistent with Policy 212.5.4 which establishes restrictions that apply to all structures built over or adjacent to water, such as restrictions on the maximum permitted length of docks and the percent of the navigable portion of a man-made waterbody that must remain free from obstruction. This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the dock siting criteria or meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime Industries district. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Address the internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to delete the reference to the Marina Siting Plan and retain the reference to Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Provide data and analysis to support exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan and dock siting criteria. Revise the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for the development of marinas within the MI District. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting 10 Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the 'Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition ofthe document is being adopted. Objection 10: Policy 212.4.6 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy ? 12.4.6 which directs Monroe County to prohibit the siting of new marinas until the full utilization of existing marinas has occurred within a 5 mile radius of the proposed new marina site. The County did not include data and analysis to support the deletion of this policy and its deletion without the adoption of a marina siting plan is inconsistent with the protection of marine resources as specified in the Principles for Guiding Development. [Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Retain Policy 212.4.6 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan or provide data and analysis supporting the deletion of this policy. The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved. Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the `Marina Siting Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. Objection 11: Goal 219 - The County has proposed adding Goal 219 to address the preservation of commercial, recreational and public access to the navigable waters of the State of Florida. While the goal guides the County to address recreational and commercial working waterfronts based upon current and projected demand, the goal does not define the ultimate direction towards ensuring commercial, recreational and public access or how the County will "flexibly balance the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of water - related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as evolving local and regional land use needs ." [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (1) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J- 5.003(52), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Goal 219 to establish what is the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed and accomplished by "flexibly balanc[ing] the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of 11 water -related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as cvolving local and regional land use needs." Dbiec#ion 12: Policy 219.1.1 — The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.1. The policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is to be considered "evolving community character,`" "public values" or the "evolving local and regional interests and needs.'yhecn 6 in this Policy, allows public access and the creation of public spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities "subject to reasonable limits" but does not include guidelines for determining "reasonable limits." Also, item 7 in this Policy. provides for variances to be granted to enable traditional uses and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs within the Maritime Industries District, Commercial Fishing Area District, Commercial Fishing Village District and the Commercial Fishing Special District but does not include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional uses ... and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant variances. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 1633177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(fl, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219,1.1 to define the "evolving community character," "public values" and the "evolving local and regional interests and needs." Include guidelines for applying "reasonable limits" on public access and the creation of public spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities. Also, include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the "traditional uses...and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant the variances. Obiection 13. Policy 219.1.2 - The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.2 that identifies strategies to protect and enhance recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The Policy further directs the County to "include all land as defined in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including land utilized as port facilities" to calculate densities and intensities within the Maritime Industries (zoning) District. Chapter 380.31(7), Florida Statutes, defines land as "the earth, water, and air above, below, or on the surface, and includes any improvements or structures customarily regarded as land." This approach is internally inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as it includes submerged lands in the calculation of densities and intensities. Policy 101.4.21 states the allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0. Furthermore, Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2.1 state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 12 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.AC.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rulc 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the policy to explain how densities and intensities within the Maritime Industries (Ml) District will be determined and ensure that the methodology is not inconsistent with any Comprehensive Plan provisions. Obiection 14: Objective 219.2 and Policy 219.2.1 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.2 to establish a comprehensive program to promote and protect commercial, recreational and public access and Policy 219.2.1 to establish a Working Waterfront Program. The objective and policy lack specificity in accomplishing the policy and achieving the objective because neither the objective nor the policy state when the comprehensive program and the Working Waterfront Program will be established or propose interim protections until the programs are established. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: The County should establish a date/deadline for developing its Working Waterfronts Program and include interim standards and guidelines to preserve working waterfronts until new guidelines and standards are adopted based upon the inventories and analyses specified in the policy. Obiection 15: Policy 219.4.1 — The County proposes adding Policy 219.4.1 to develop strategies to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access through the identification and implementation of regulatory incentives, but the policy lacks meaningful and predictable standards because it does not provide the incentives or the criteria to be use to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 0), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5,005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.0 I 2(3)(c) I , 6 and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the policy to include the incentives and criteria to be utilized to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to navigable waters and provide guidance for developing the more detailed land development regulations. Objection 16: Objective 219.5 — The County proposes adding Objective 219.5 "to promote a No Net Loss Policy" for working waterfronts. The proposed objective states the loss of working waterfront in one geographic area must be balanced by a gain elsewhere. The Objective could result in an oversupply of working waterfronts in one area of the County and an undersupply in other areas. The Objective does not include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards on how to achieve a no net loss in working waterfronts within geographic areas. 13 [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section I63.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(c), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5,005(2)(g), F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; RuIe 9J-5.012(2 ). F.A.C.; RuIe 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that defines how the County will achieve no net Iosses of working waterfronts within each geographic area [e.g. within the same ROGO sub -area, between ROGO sub -areas, within or adjacent to Tier I (NIatural Areas) or Special Protection Areas]. Objection 17: Objective 219.6 and Policy 219.6.1 -- The County proposes adding Objective 219.6 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access to marine and coastal waters. The Objective does not provide guidance for what is considered "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access." Furthermore, this Objective relies on Policy 219.6.I6 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access, but Policy 219.6.1, the only associated policy with this objective, does not include meaningful guidelines to achieve the objective. The Policy states that the County "may" establish an acquisition program and the County "may" establish a fund for acquiring Iands. [Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3I77(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(c) I and 9, F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise to provide guidelines for what is "an adequate stock of Cotnmercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access" and include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that define how this "stock" will be achieved. Obiection 18: Policy 219.8.1— The County proposes adding Policy 219.8.1 to provide land use bonuses to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. This amendment presents various types of potential bonuses (increased FAR, increased number of slips, parking variances, increased area for water -related uses, or other measure of land use intensity) but does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding the bonuses and it does not establish the increases in density and intensity that will be granted. [Section I63.3I77(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section I63.3I77(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(1), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5A05(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise the Policy to establish meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding Iand use bonuses and establish the increases in density and 14 intensity that will be granted to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. Objection 19: Police 219.9.1 and Objective 219.10— The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1 to conside,- establishing a working waterfront overlay district to provide for use restrictions, development regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the County proposes adding Objective 219.10 to promote traditional maritime activities in the waterfront overlay district. W '1'his creates an internal inconsistency as Objective 219.10 is dependent on Policy 219.9.1 which inay or may not be implemented by the County. Policy 219.9.1 also defers the establishment of -Design Guidelines and Development Standards for recreational and commercial waterfronts" to the land development regulations rather than including meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and meaningful guidelines for the more detailed land development regulations. Furthermore, Objective 219.10 does not define "traditional maritime activities" or provide guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all appropriate land use categories." The appropriate land use categories have not been identified and meaningful and predictable standards have not been provided to determine circumstances when "traditional maritime activities" would not be allowed. [Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (0, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the establishment and implementation of the working waterfront overlay districts will be completed. Additionally, the County should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities and protect recreational and commercial working waterfronts until the overlay districts are completed. Define 'traditional maritime activities" in Objective 219.10 and in the implementing policy provide guidelines for permitting "traditional maritime activities... within all appropriate land use categories." Provide meaningful and predictable standards for when "traditional maritime activities" would and would not be allowed and specify the appropriate land use categories where "traditional maritime activities" are permitted. Revise Policy 219.9.1 to include meaningful and predictable standards to guide the development of recreational and commercial working waterfronts. These standards can be established as interim standards until the Design Guidelines and Development Standards are prepared and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. 15 Ob[ntion 20: Policy 219.9.1 & Policy 219.11.1 — The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1 to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district and, when appropriate, establish desip guidelines and development standards in the land development regulations. Additionally, the County proposes adding Policy 219.11.1 to protect the public's view of the waterfront by enforcing setbacks, height restrictions, etc as set forth in the Design Guidelines and Development Standards. This creates an internal inconsistency as Policy 219.11.1 is dependent oil Policy 19.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County. [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5Al2(3)(b) 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the development of the design guidelines. The County should specify when the design guidelines will be completed, or if need be, provide a schedule for the completion of the design guidelines. The County should develop additionaUinterim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities and protect the public's view of the waterfront until the design guidelines are completed and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can adopt the Design Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the document is being adopted. 111. Marina Siting Plan Objection 21: The Marina Siting Plan — The Marina Siting Plan is inconsistent with proposed amendment as it refers to Policies 212.4.1 and 212.4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan that are proposed to be deleted and refers to Policy 212.4.7 which is proposed to be renumbered as 212.4.3. The `Marina Siting Plan' includes the Marina Site Suitability Maps that depict several coastal islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. This is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.7.2 which directs the County to restrict the activities permitted on offshore islands, for example marinas are not to be permitted on offshore islands. The Marina Site Suitability Maps are also inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.8.2 which states Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). [Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.] V Recommendation: Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address the inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) provides the following mm recommendations: FWC recommends that the Marina Siting Plan be revised to address the protective measures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan and that it is premature to rely on the FWC management plan for manatees within the Marina Siting Plan because the it has not been approved by the FWC Commissioners. The Department of Environmental Protection also offers recommendations: Section 18- 21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., should be referenced in the Marina Siting Plan and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13. and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 40-41 should be revised to reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged lands can be built over a benthic community. As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the Marina Siting Plan, most Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly, Subsection 373.414(l), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the Marina Siting Plan, since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example, although the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted. CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR GLIDING DEVELOPMENT The proposed amendments are not consistent with the following Principles for Guiding Development, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute: Principle (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. Principle (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. Principle (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. Principle (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. 17 Principle (.0 To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. Principle (g) To protect the historical herita`v of the Florida Keys. Principle (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the objections stated above. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendments are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statute, including the following goals and policies: Goal (6) Public Safety, Policies (b) 22 and 23: Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents; and require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives from the effects of natural disasters. This requirement relates to Objection 4. Goal (7) Water Resources, Policies (b) 5 and 13: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing local and regional water supplies and identify and develop alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater to reduce degradation of water resources. This requirement relates to Objection 4. Goal (8) Coastal and Marine Resources, Policies (b) 4, 6, and 10: Protect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development; encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources; and give priority in marine development to water -dependent uses over other uses. This requirement relates to Objections I through 21. Goal (9)-Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Policies (b) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7: Conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and u-ildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values; acquire, retain, manage, and inventory public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and related public benefits; prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats; and protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. This requirement relates to Objections I through 21. Goal (15) Land use, Policy (b) 6: Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Goal (17) Public Facilities, Policies (b) 1 and 2: Provide incentives for developing land 11-1 a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities; and promote rehabilitation and reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18. Goal (19) Transportation, Policies (b) 5: Ensure that existing port facilities and airports are being used to the maximum extent possible before encouraging the expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to support economic growth. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 9, 10, and 18. Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 2, 3, and 7: Ensure that every level of government has the appropriate operational authority to implement the policy directives established in the plan; establish effective monitoring, incentive, and enforcement capabilities to see that the requirements established by regulatory programs are met; and ensure the development of strategic regional policy plans and local plans that implement and accurately reflect state goals and policies and that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a region. This requirement relates to Objections I through 21. These State Comprehensive Plan issues can be resolved by addressing the objections stated above. =. South Florida Regional Planning _ Council MEMORANDUM DATZ.- NOVEMBER >, 2007 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF f, Q--A -,� � � - I AC1-F\ND:1 ITEM 46d SUBJECT: MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENT Introduction On September 25, 2007 Council staff received proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistency 1,,-ith the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP). Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, fart 11, Florida Statutes f F.S.), and Rules 9j-5 and 9j- 1I, Florida Administrative Code (F.A-C.). Community Profile Monroe County, incorporated in 1824, is the southernmost county in the State of Florida- The County consists of a mainland portion (782 square miles) bordered by Collier County to the north and Miami - Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Florida Keys, extending from northeast to southwest for 120 miles (102 square miles), and separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland portion is occupied by Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve and is virtually uninhabited. According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, the unincorporated portion of Monroe County had a population of 36,466 in 2006, an approximately 1.2% increase in the population since 2000. The economy of Monroe Count, is based on tourism, fishing, retirees, and the military. Monroe County's growth is constrained by a number of characteristics. The vast majority of the County is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and rare and endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway serving the entire population, traffic is a concem, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of adequate infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater magnifies the effects of population growth on nearshore coastal waters. The desirability of the County as a place to live and the limited amount of developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable housing and adequate school sites. With infrastructure and the environment shmving signs of stress and over 10,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Keys has been designated an Area of Critical State Concern, under Chapter 380.05, Florida Statutes. Additional information regarding the County or the region may be found on the Council's website, ww w�sfr c.com. 3440 Hotlywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 1800) 985-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417. Rrmf;nm FAY A 71-AA 17 Summdr`• of Staff Analysis Proposed amendment package #07-2 Would revise 40 goals, objectives and polices in the Future land Use and Conservation and Coastal ,'�,Ianagement Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan regarding recreational and commercial working, v aterfronts. The general locution of the County is exhibited as ,attachment 1. The purpose of the 'Monroe County Working Waterfronts Program is to implement the relevant provisions of Chapter 2003-157 and Chapter 2006-220, of the La%.s of Florida. %Sore specifically, the purpose is to protect and promote ;Monroe County's recreational and commercial working waterfronts; protect and improve commercial, recreational and public access to the shorelines and the waters of Monroe County; presen•e, protect and enhance the cultural heritage and physical character of the area as a working waterfront community, and enhance the aesthetic character of the area by directing development in a manner that maintains the working waterfront identity of the County. Monroe County is experiencing the loss of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and the loss of public access to the water due to the redevelopment of marine facilities, including, but not limited to marinas, boatyards, wet and dry storage, fish houses and commercial fishing vessel dockage, at an unprecedented rate. The County feels that it is important to preserve an acceptable level of working waterfront while still allowing an appropriate mix of water dependent and non -water dependent uses. Fundamental elements of working waterfronts should be preserved to ensure that the ongoing need for working waterfronts is not exacerbated by non -water dependent development or redevelopment of water dependent facilities currently provided in numerous land use districts and distributed throughout the County. In order to address these issues, the proposed amendment would amend existing goals, objectives and policies and would add new goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. According to the October 3, 2007 letter from Andrew O. Trivette, Monroe County Division Director of Growth Management, the proposed amendment is supported by the data and analysis and recommendations of the "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan". Obiection The proposed amendments to 40 goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan are not clear, contain vague language, are not consistent with the cited documents ("Monroe County Working -Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan") and additional supporting data and analysis has not been provided to support the amendments. For example: a.) Objective 101.4 requires the County to regulate future development and redevelopment to maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources. The objective would be amended to maintain"and flexibly guide the evolution of "the character of the community and protect the natural resources. However, the amendment is vague, no policies have been included to implement the policy, no data and analysis has been included to support the amendment. b) It is not clear why in Policy 101.4.5 "permanent residential development", other than employee housing and commercial apartments, are being permitted. Data and analysis have not been included to support the amendment. c) It is not clear in Policy 101.4.7 how natural resources would be protected and areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, maritime uses, and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses would be conserved if residential (up to 18 dwelling units/25 rooms per acre) and commercial facilities, such as public lodging establishments, are permitted in the ",tifaritime Industries [distinct." It is also not clear how the residential and commercial facilities would be compatible with the industrial and maritime uses permitted in the land use category or if adequate public faculties and services exist to support the residential and commercial uses. d) Policy 219.1.1 contains vague language and it is not clear how the policy will be implemented. Until these issues are resolved, the proposed amendment package is incompatible with the goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Polity Plan for South Florida (SRPP), particularly with the following goal and policies, Goal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of the Region by ensuring the adequacy of its public facilities and services. Policy 4.3 Utilize the existing infrastructure capacity of regional facilities to the maximum extent consistent with applicable level of service (LOS) standards before encouraging the expansion of facilities or the development of new capacity. Goal 11 Encourage and support the implementation of development proposals that conserve the Region's natural resources, rural and agricultural lands, green infrastructure and: • utilize existing and planned infrastructure in urban areas; • enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems; • incorporate mixed -land use developments; • recycle existing developed sites; and • provide for the preservation of historic sites. Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of proposed development shall be based on the existing or programmed capacity of infrastructure and support services or on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development; in addition, consideration should be given to the impact of infrastructure and support services on natural resources. GOAL 20 Achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development patterns that protect natural resources and connect diverse housing, transportation, education, and employment opportunities. POI icy 20.2 Guide new development and redevelopment within the Region to areas which are most intrinsically suited for development, including areas: a. which are least exposed to coastal storm surges; b. where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal; and c. where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically. Recommendation Council staff recommends that the amendments to the Future Land Use and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan be revised to eliminate vague language, to be consistent with "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation blaster Plan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting Plan" and additional supporting data and analysis be provided to support the amendments. Staff %% ill continua to work %� ith the County staff throughout the irnrndment process. The Monroe County Board of Car:ntv Commissioners approved the transmittal of the amendment fcir r.. is %% by the Florida Department of Community :affairs by unanimous vote at its September 19, 2007 County Commission meeting. Pecommendation Find proposed amendment package n07-2 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to be generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida, particularly with Goats 4, 11 and 20, and Policies 4.3, 11.10, and 20.2. Approve this staff report for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Attachment 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS General Location IMap NIonrt.-e County Proposed ;amendment #0 -3 t<<;r: For Etatt:tintttr -•, loth., Ail ii.! tttcc,arc.tp� rc ti:ntal�. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Callahassee, Florida 32399-3000 November 14, 2007 Mr. D. Rai- Eubanks Bureau of Local Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak. Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-2 Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -captioned package of proposed comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Monroe County (County), under the required provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 9)-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Department provides the following comments and recommendations to assist your agency in developing the state's response to the proposed amendment. OVERVIEW The transmittal package includes policy modifications related to the recreational, com- mercial and working waterfronts portions of the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The County proposes the addition of a new Maritime Industries (MI) district to the County's existing IndtisMal land use category, with changes to various policies intended to establish and conserve waterfront areas for maritime uses. Although the Department generally supports the intention expressed by the County, several concerns must be addressed. The County failed to provide the Department with adequate data and analysis on the potential resource impacts that creation of the new land use district will engender. Among other things, the amendment establishes a new district that allows high -density development, exempts new marinas from the requirements of the Monroe County Marina Siting PIan (MSP), and refers to a policy in the MSP that it proposes to delete. More Protection, Less Process" mtiv.rlep.state fl.trs �.. Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe Countv 07-2 1`lovember 14, 2007 Page 2 of 7 DETAILED COMMENTS Policy 101.45 According to the Support Data and Analysis submitted, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to "maintain and erdiance the commercial fishing activities within the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category." The proposed policy revision would add the word "evolving" to the description of the community character, which contradicts the stated purpose of maintaining and enhancing commercial fishing activities. The proposed amendment would also add the following underlined phrase: "Employee housing and commercial apartments are also permitted, along with other Permanent residential development compatible.with the mix of uses allowed." The Department does not believe that the addition of permanent residential development will maintain or enhance the County's commercial fishing industry. Because the proposed text would allow all categories of residential development within the district, it would increase economic pressure on current commercial fishing enterprises to sell out and make way for large residential structures, thus undermining attempts to preserve and enhance working waterfronts. The Department therefore recommends that the added text (including the word "evolving") be deleted from the proposed policy. Policy 101.4.7 The County seeks to add a Maritime Industries (MI) district to the existing Industrial land use category. The stated purpose of the new district is "to establish and conserve areas suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, and maritime uses such as ship building, ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service uses." While the stated purpose of the new district is acceptable, several components of the proposal are problematic. No supporting data and analysis was submitted upon which the Department could base an analysis of the proposed text. The new policy language also promotes high -density residential development in environmentally sensitive areas, and allows supportive workforce housing in offsite areas. The proposed density for the MI district is 8-12 du/acre (or 10-15 rooms/acre), which is comparable to the Residential- High category in the County's comprehensive plan. The amendment contained no information on the general areas of the County that may qualify for the new designation. Also, while the policy states that "no development order for new residential uses or structures shall be issued exce t for pgqtjions of the MI District unsuitable for dockage of vessels[ ' the language provides no details about who would make the suitability determination and the criteria upon which that determination would be made. Other parts of the policy contain vague or contradictory statements. The Support Data and Analysis submitted with the amendment states that the intent of Policy 101.4.7 "is Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 3 of 7 to clarify that the MI Iand use district's main purpose is to establish and conserve areas for maritime uses, including employee housing." The proposal would, however, allow high -density "public lodging establishments," which contradicts the intent of the polic% and allows a huge loophole for new hotel/motel development. Other provisions in the policy, such as "[d1welling unit allocations attributable to houseboats „shall be transfer- able to uplands[]" create additional questions. How many units could be transferred under that provision? Could uplands located anywhere in the County receive those transferred density credits? What protection measures are in place to ensure that only existing houseboats receive the density transfer? If adopted, Policy 101.4.7 will allow more high -density residential development along the waterfronts of the Florida Keys. In addition to increasing hurricane evacuation times, implementation of the proposed policy could exacerbate existing water quality problems. Recent studies have identified nearshore water quality problems in Monroe County. In a comprehensive 1999 report entitled Water Quality Concerns in the Florida Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions, William L. Kruczynski states: Historically, development in the Keys relied on the use of cesspits and septic tanks which provide little treatment of domestic wastewater in porous lime rock substrates. In addition, stormwater runs untreated into nearshore surface waters. Lack of nutrient removal from domestic wastewater and stormwater has resulted in the addition of nutrient -rich waste waters into confined waters and adjacent nearshore areas. The cumulative effects of these discharges have led to water duality degra- dation of these inshore areas.' By allowing the development of high -density residential development within the MI district, Policy 101.4.7 avoids application of important environmental protection measures to waterfront development. Objective 212A Revised Objective Policy 212.4 states that "Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan [MSP1 for the development of new marinas and the redevelopment and expansion of„current marine facilities." No further identification of the intended siting plan is contained in the proposed amendment, and the MSP was not appended to or adopted by reference in the amendment. Because the MSP was not Dr. Kruczynski's white paper, prepared under the auspices of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection Program, can be found at the Sanctuary's web site at h floridakevs.noaa. ov research monitorin w white a er, df 1tiir. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 4 of 7 clearl�� identified in the amendment and has not been adopted into the County's com- prehensive plan, it can be changed at any time by the Board of County Commissioners without going through the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Department is theretore concerned that significant changes can be made to the MSP without review by state and regional agencies. The Department recommends that the MSP or other marina siting criteria be adopted into the Count\"s comprehensive plan. Department staff also notes that the latest draft of the MSP (April 2007) makes several references to Policy 212.4.3, which would be deleted by the proposed amendment. The Department encourages the County to either retain all policies referenced in the MSP or revise the MSP so there are no conflicts or omissions between the two documents. Policy 212.4.1 Proposed Policy 212.4.1 provides that "(a)pplicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in MI District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set forth th iL disthe trict from the MSP se County hin Siting Plan(.1" This provision will exempt marinas g criteria, even though Objective 212.4 states that "Monroe County shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Siting Plan for the develo ment of new marinas and the redevelo Dment and expansion of current marine facilities." Exempting new or expanded marinas located in an MI district from marina siting criteria is highly inappropriate, since the proposed amendment deletes nearly all of the County's current siting requirements (Policies 212.41, 212.4.2, 212.4.3, and 212.4.6), and the County has just invested a great deal of time and money to create a siting plan that would protect the County's fragile and valuable natural resources. Additionally, no supporting data and analysis was provided to suggest the areas that might qualify for the exemption or the environmental impacts that could result from application of the exemption, such as degradation of the nearshore water quality. The Department cannot support the changes contained in proposed Policy 212.4.1 and strongly recommends that the County remove the revisions from the proposed amendment. Policy 219.8.1 The County's proposal to encourage certain types of development along waterfront areas is vague, Iacks adequate definitions or standards, and will lead to increased development -- particularly in conjunction with the County's adoption of the MI district. Policy 219.8.1 states: Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page a of 7 The County shall provide land -use bonuses to encourage development that provides Commercial Recreational and Public Access to the shorelines, and waters of Monroe Count . These bonuses may be granted,i.n the form of - increased FAR increased number of sli s arkin variances increased area for water -related uses or other measure of land use intensitK..ji-ppropriate to permitted uses on the parcel(s) proposed for development. This policy would encourage more intense development along the shorelines and waters of Monroe County, thereby leading to increased impacts on the surrounding waters. No data or calculations were provided with regard to the amount of increases in intensity that could result from the bonuses. The Department believes Policy 219.8.1 is unnecessary and strongly recommends that the County remove the proposed policy from the submittal. Marina Siting Plan Since the MSP is widely referenced and its criteria relied upon heavily in the proposed amendments, Department staff has reviewed the April 2007 draft document and offers the following comments. Section 18-21.0041(1)(b)9, F.A.C., states as follows: No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the purpose of providing multi -slip docking facilities shall be considered for approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat mooring area, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic com- munities to reach acceptable areas. This shall not preclude them from applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose of using the minimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress and egress. Multi -slip docks are defined as three or more slips, and benthic communities includes seagrass beds, hard and soft corals or sponges. This rule should be referenced in the MSP and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13 and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 40-41 should be revised to reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged Iands can be built over a benthic community. Mr. D. Ray Eubanks Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 6 of 7 As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the MSP, most Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). Accordingly, Subsection 373.414(1), F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the MSP, since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references contained in the Federal Regulation section (4-6) should also be verified. For example, although the State Programmatic General Permit (SPGP) was listed, Monroe County is specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference should be deleted. The MSP references the North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee Final Report on page 49. The Department can not comment as to its applicability to the MSP, however, since the report was not included in the submittal package. Finally, the maps included in the MSP depict several coastal islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. If those sites remain as conditional marina Iocations, they must comply with Rule 18-21.004(1)0), F.A.C., which should be referenced. In addition, the maps appear to designate some mangrove areas, especially on North Key Largo, as conditional marina sites. Mangrove forests are not appropriate locations for marinas, and the Department suggests the maps be reevaluated and edited. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the information and analysis submitted, the Department finds that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S., and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is therefore objectionable. The proposed amendment was not supported by adequate data and analysis and contains components that contra- dict the stated intent of the amendment. One of the most troublesome features is that proposed densities for the MI district are comparable to densities allowed in the existing Residential -High Iand use category. In addition, several policies contain vague language that may lead to further problems as plan policies are implemented. The County should address the issues and questions contained in this letter and provide adequate data and analysis to support the proposed amendment. The County may also wish to review new water supply guidelines developed by the Department, the water management districts and the Department of Community Affs, air which provide detailed information on the data and analysis local governments should submit to support proposed comprehensive plan amendments and the 10-year water supply facility work plan due by August 15, 2008. The Guide can be found on DCA's website at htt www.dca.state.fl.us fdc do 11 ublications final idelines. df. Mr. D. Ray Eubanl<s Monroe County 07-2 November 14, 2007 Page 7 of 7 The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendrnrtent. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Nfr. Chris Stahl at (830) 245-2163 or Chris .StahIl le .state.fI.us. Yours sincerely, Or - Sally B. Mann, Director Office of Intergovernmental Programs SBM/cjs November 20, 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Florida Fish Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 and Wildlife Conservation Re: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Proposed Amend:-.,ent 07-02) Commission Dear Mr. Eubanks- Commissioners Rodney Barreto The Imperiled Species Management Section of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Chair Miami Commission (FWC) has coordinates{ agency review of the referenced document, and provides the following comments and recommendations. Kathy Barco Jacksonville Ronald M- Bergeron Description Fart Lauderdale Richard A. Corbett Tampa Monroe County proposes to amend its year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by including an ordinance to address its needs to promote recreational, Dwight Stephenson oefrayseach commercial, and working waterfronts. Our review is limited to the amendments made under Goal 212 of the Conservation and Coastal Element. This nneiW. wrigttt goal states: "Monroe County shall prioritize shoreline land uses and establish criteria for shoreline development in order to Wi Winter P nter Park preserve and enhance coastal resources and to ensure the Brian S. Yablonskl continued economic viability of the County." Objective 212.4 addresses marina siting, and its Tallahassee associated policies provide specific criteria by which marinas will be sited. The amendment deletes the part of the objective that requires the County to analyze future needs and develop "meet criteria that or exceed state standards" and deletes Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 and Executive stRff Kenneth 212.4.6. It replaces these by incorporating the Marina Siting Plan prepared by the Catanese D. Haddad Executive iiirectar Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions at Florida Atlantic university and dated April Victor J. Heiler 2007 (available online at btt :I/s' f .corn:MCWorkwater.litm) into Policy 212.4-4.1. Assistant Executive Director The policies that are removed include requirements that: Karen Ventimiglia Deputy Chief of Staff 1. marina siting criteria must be "approved by DER [Department of Environmental Regtilatl0n], UNR Department of Natural Resources) and ACOE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]" (Policy 212.4.1.2); 2. the County "shall complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial Office of Polity and marinas," with stipulations as to what that survey must include (Policy 212.4.2); Stakeholder 3. marinas are to be located in places where Coordination Mary Ann Foote a. there is "maximum advantages... and where no unreasonable or physical Director excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources'; (850) 410-5272 b. do not destroy "significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds", and (M) 922-5679 FAX c. consider access through existing channels, "benthic vegetation and faunal ` assemblages'; impacts on crocodiles, sea turtles, and manatees; and "minimization of shoreline modification" and areas where prop -dredging has been a problem; (Policy 212.4.3) Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long- 4. prohibit new marinas with three or more slips until existing marinas within five miles are ferm weft-4erngand the frilly utilized (Policy 212.4.5). b?reif of peopfe. The Marina Siting Plan that is to replace this language relies on GIS data, using water depth as 1520 South Meridian street the "critical factor" (see P. 10, first full paragraph), with water quality playing a secondary role in Tallahassee. Flanda 32399-1600 the case of conditional areas, to establish three categories of suitability for siting marinas: vo;ce 18501488-4676 exclusionary, preferred, and conditional. The Marina Siting Plan includes Marina Siting Hearing/speech imps)red: Suitability Maps with polygons showing the locations of preferred and conditional areas. The i800) 955-87TI IT) plan provides other data layers (Figures 1 through 43 and in the Map Atlas for Marine Facilities (800) 955-8770 M tdyFWC.com Mr. Ray Eubanks Pay, 2 No'. ember 20, 2007 Inventory) that meet some of the requirernents of Policy 212.4.4, but it is not clear how they were used to establish the suitability categories_ the Marina Siting Suitability Maps s ,ov; conditional areas scattered throughout nearly all of the Keys, except between Crab Key at Mill e Marker 25 and Key West at Milc Marker 7. The maps indicate preferred areas primarily in Islamorada, Marathon, Big Piste Key, and Key West- There are no exclusionary areas shown on the maps, and we assume that ;his is because any area not indicated as preferred or conditional is exclusionary. Concerns and Recommendations The FWC supports the Working Waterfronts concept, and has no objection to the removal of the Prohibition of new public access marinas as long as the environmentally protective treasures currently in the comprehensive plan are not removed. FWC also supports the inclusion of a marina siting plan into the comprehensive plan; however, we do not recommend incorporation until the current marina siting plan has been revised. We have concerns about issues not addressed by the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan. This review does not go into the Marina Siting Plan in detail, but highlights the main problem points that staff identified. Concern: While water depth may be an adequate criterion for the protection of seagrasses, the Marina Siting Plan does not replace all of the planning guidance provided by the removed Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3. For instance: • The plan does not appear to address protection of significant marine wetlands (Policy 212.4.3) or minimization of shoreline modifications (Policy 212.4.3.3.1). Some of the sites are within the Florida Forever acquisition boundary. • The plan discusses crocodiles, manatees, and sea turtles, but guidance appears to be limited to provisions in Objective 207.8.3 ("developing a boating impacts management program for marine turtles and manatees"}, with reference to Objective 203.6 and associated policies. Objective 203.6 (see ht.._ tn:i%rnanroecofl.victualtownl3a11.netlYa esi �toTtro ol:L Grouqh'Com Plan?010' aiic focuses on guidance to coordinate with other agencies, including the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, DER, DNP, and the U.S. National oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to identify environmental and regulatory issues and to help formulate plans; it does not appear to provide guidance on the same planning issues that would have been addressed by Policy 212.4.3.3. While it discusses crocodiles, the Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning guidance. • The deleted policies require some very specific issues (c.g„ number of wet and dry slips, breakout of slips by boat size, availability for public use, availability of pump -out facilities) be taken into consideration in developing marine siting criteria; however, the Marina Siting Plan does not appear to have taken those issues into account. As a result, the Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning guidance with respect to an acceptable amount of infrastructure for permitting considerations, including those related to natural resources and fisted species. • Policy 212.4.1.2 required approval of marina siting criteria by DER, DNR, and ACOE, and it is reasonable to assume that this requirement would have involved the Marine Patrol and the program that dealt with sea turtles and manatees, both of which were in DNR. Subsequent agency reorganizations have placed both of these programs in the FWC; however, the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan was not coordinated with those components of the FWC. Concern: The Marina Siting plan, also relies on existing county ordinances and agency regulatory programs for setting some of its sideboards, but this approach does not appear to Mr. Ray Eubanks Page 3 November 20, 2007 provide the value that additional planning guidance would provide via a comprehensive glov,th-management plan. It also relies on FWC's management plan for manatees; however, this plan has not yet been approved by the FWC Commissioners. Incorporating it into the comprehensive plan via the Marine Siting Plan before it is approved would be premature. Concern: The application process flowchart in Appendix A-1 indicates that a parcel is considered "conditional" if it is in an area of known American crocodile range. Map 10 (Monroe County American Crocodile Habitats) in Appendix D may inadvertently be confusing because crocodiles .have been documented as far as Key West and, once, even in the Dry Tortugas. Recommendation: We believe that the Marina Siting Plan contains useful information and guidance; however, we recommend that it be revised to address the protective measures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1 through 2I2.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan. We strongly recommend that the Marina Siting Plan include policies for the development of land development regulations that would have been addressed by the deleted policies, We would be willing to help with this revision, and believe that doing so would be consistent with the intent of Policy 212.4.1.1. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan amendments, and hope we can help with addressing issues that we touched in this letter. If you or your staff would like to coordinate further on the recommendations contained in this letter, please contact me at 950-410-5272 or email me at NiarvAnn.poolua=lbi F13'C-cony and I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements. If your staff has any technical questions regarding our comments regarding manatees, please contact Mary Duncan by telephone at 850-922.4330 or by email at Mary. Duncan tc. m fwc.corn. Sincerely, Mary Ann Poole, Director Office of Policy and Stakeholder Coordination map/md Monroe Q7 1067 ENV 1-12-2 cc: Bob Dennis, DCA, Tallahassee Mayte Santamaria, DCA, Tallahassee Rich Jones, Monroe County Kalarti Cairns, USP'WS, Vero Beach 1 SOVTH FLDRIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Ciu' R:ad, Went Palm Beach, Florida 334C,6 (561) 686-€3DO FL WATS 1-SCC 43-.s.-2C-5 i-DD (afi1) 647-2574 %lailir.; A??.-:ss i.0. Eo <YS80, West Palm Fez,x, FL K4?6-16SO ::4 Nsttr _d,rov Gov 08-20 November 21, 2,307 Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator Plan Review and Processing Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments Monroe County, DCA #07»2 Monroe County has proposed text amendments to the Future Land Use Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element in its Comprehensive Plan to address redevelopment of waterfronts. The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package. The District recommends that additional steps be taken to address potential water supply issues. The County's proposed change to Policy 101.4.7 significantly increases the residential and transient density in the Maritime Industry District within the Industrial land use category and provides for affordable housing in any land use district. The Policy increases the "Allocated Density" from 1 to 8-12 residential units and from 0 to 10-15 rooms per acre. Further, the Policy increases the "Maximum Net Density" for affordable housing from 2 to 12-18 residential units and from 0 to 25 rooms per acre. The amendment should be modified to address the potential increased potable water demand that could result from higher densities of both residential units and transient rooms in the Maritime Industry District and affordable housing units in all districts. in coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA), the County should quantify the additional demand that would be generated by the proposed amendment and demonstrate that water supplies and associated public facilities are available to meet those demands. [see ss. 163.3167(13) & 163.3177(6)(a), F.S]. in particular, the County and FKAA should indicate whether the potential change in demand can be accommodated by the FKAA's consumptive use permit. ., If you have any questions or require additional information, please call John Director, bl ter Supply Planning Division, at (561) 682-6649. Water Resources Mulliken, Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator November 20, 2007 Page 2 C art/ice/pv Jerry Buckley, DCA (Keys Office) Carolyn Dekle, SPRPC Bob Dennis, DCA Kate Edgerton, SIVJMD Andrew Trivette, Monroe County FLORIDA DEPARTNI -T OF STATE Kurt S. Browning Secretary of Sate DIViS'ON Or HISTORICAL P-P&OURCES October 30, 2007 fir. Ray Eubanks Department of Community Affairs Bureau of State Planning 2555 Shumard-Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re.- Historic Preservation Review of the Monroe County (07-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Eubanks: According to this agency's responsibilities under Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida on in the Administrative Code, we reviewed the above document to determine if data regarding historic resources have been given sufE iecIt considerati request to amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. We reviewed one proposed text amendment regarding recreational, commercial and working waterfronts, to consider the potential effects of this action on historic resources. While our cursory review suggests that the proposed changes may have no adverse effects on historic resources, it is the county's responsibility to ensure that the proposed revisions will not have an adverse effect on significant archaeological or historic resources in Monroe County - If you have any questions regarding our comments, please feel free to contact Susan M. Harp of the Division's Compliazice Review staff at (850) 245-6333. Sincerely, t • �+a.� Frederick P. Gaske, Director xc: Mr. Bob Dennis 500 S. Bronough Street . Tallahwsee, FL 32399-0250 . http:/Amw.tlheritage.com © Director's office CI Archaeological Researth (850) 245-S • FAX: 24sb436 (BSo) 243 644# •FAX: 245 6452 ,i N'�Oric Preservation © historical Museums (S50) 2456333 • FAX: 245-6 37 (M) 245- 00 • FAX 245 &M CI so a Repond office 0 Nottheaat Regional office 0 Central Florida Res tonal office Florida Department of Transportation CHARLFE CRIST IIFsttict Six coveRnoR 1000 NW I I I Avenue Miarni FL 33172 MGM 305-470-5464 November 7, 2007 Mr. Ray Eubanks Division of Community Planning Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: STECHANIE C. KOYELOUSOS SECRETARY Subjtct: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (Amendment 07-2) The Florida Department of Transportadon, District 6, has reviewed the Proposed Amendment 07-02 for Monroe County. Based on our review, the Department has drtwained that there are no impacts on State Roads. Threfare, we have no specific objections or recommendations at this time. Please contact Phil Steinmiller, at 305470- 5825, if you have any questions conceming out arespo=. Sincerely, Alice N. Bravo, PE. District Director of Transportation Systems Development 1. Cc: Aileen Boucle, A1CP Phil Steinmiller INTER -LOCAL A REEMENT BETWEEN SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNIN OUN IL AND MONROE COUNTY B ARD OF COUNTY C MMISSIONERS FOR WORKING WATERFRONTS TER PLANMA ALUNA SI TIN PLAN COMFREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION THIS INTER -LOCAL AGREEMENT (RA) is entered into by and between MONROE COUNTY ;BOARD OF COUTNY COMMISSIONERS (COUNTY), a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050, hereafter the COUNTY, and South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), ' whose address is 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021, hereafter SFRPC. WITNESSETIHC: WHEREAS, the SFRPC was created pursuant to Section 186.501, Florida Statutes (1982), as amended and known as the "Florida Regional Planning Council Act" (the "ACT"); and WHEREAS, Section 186.505, Florida Statutes, provides that the SFRPC may enter into contracts to provide, at cost, such services related to its responsibilities as may be requested by local govenunents or organizations within the region and which the SFRPC finds feasible to perform-, and WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires to hire the SFRPC to provide professional services related to developing a Marina Siting Plan and a Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan for Monroe County; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed upon a Scope of Services for work to be performed hereunder by the SFRPC and attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment 1; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, the mutual covenants, conditions, provisions and undertakings herein contained, and for other good and valuable considerations, the parties do mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows: Section 1. Scope and Term. The SFRPC and the COUNTY, for the consideration named agree to perform their respective obligations as provided in this ILA as well as in the detailed scope of services contained in Attachment 1 — Detailed Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The terns of the ILA is September 20, 2006, through April 30, 2007 Section 2. Reporting. In consideration of the services described above, SFRPC agrees to provide quarterly reports of all of its activities documenting survey data acquired, any analyses completed, and any general findings related to the services provided. Reports shall be in writing with supporting documentation and delivered to Director of Department of Marine Resources at the address listed in paragraph 9. BC060930 ILA SFRPC Section 3. Payment, The total funds available to pay the SFRPC for the services provided Pursuant to this Agreement is an amount not to exceed $180,000. Payment to the SFRPC is contingent upon annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. The COUNTY will process invoices from SFRPC pursuant to the "I Government Prompt Payment Act. The Draw Schedule is indicated in Attachment 1. The parties acknowledge that, at the COUNTY'S request, SFRPC began work on the Detailed Scope of Services prior to the execution of the ILA. Work accomplished by SFRPC in furtherance of this Scope prior to the effective date of this ILA shall be considered part of part of the ILA's Scope of Services for the purpose of compensation. Section 4. Termination of Inter -local Agreement. Either party may terminate this ILA because of the failure of the other party to perform its obligations under the ILA, if the COUNTY germinates this ILA because of the SFRPC's failure to perform, then the COUNTY roust pay the SFRPC the amount due for all work satisfactorily completed as determined by the COUNTY up to the date of the SFRPC's failure to perform but minus any damages the COUNTY suffered as a result of the SFRPC's failure to perform. The damage amount must be reduced by the amount saved by the COUNTY as a result of the ILA termination. Section 5. Records. SFRPC shall maintain all books, records, and documents directly pertinent to performance under this Agreement in accordance with the Florida Public Records Law, 219.07, and generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied. Each party to this Agreement or their authorized representatives shall have reasonable and timely access to such records of each other party to this Agreement for public records purposes during the term of the Agreement and for four years following the termination of this Agreement. If an auditor employed by the County or Clerk determines that monies paid to SFRPC pursuant to this Agreement were spent for purposes not authorized by this Agreement, the SFRPC shall repay the monies together with interest calculated pursuant to Sec. 55.03, Florida Statutes, commencing on the date the monies were paid to SFRPC. If the amount owed by the SFRPC to the COUNTY is not enough to compensate the COUNTY, then the SFRPC is liable for any additional amount necessary to adequately compensate the COUNTY up to the amount of the ILA price. Section 6. Employees Subject to County Ordinance Nos. 010 and 020-19". The SFRPC warrants that it has not employed, retained, or otherwise had act on its behalf any former County officer or employee subject to the prohibition of Section 2 of Ordinance No. 010-1990 or any County officer or employee in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 020-1990. For breach or violation of this provision, the County, in its discretion, may terminate this ILA without liability and may also, in its discretion, deduct from the ILA or purchase price, or otherwise recover th officer or employee, e full amount of any fee, commission, percentage gift, or consideration paid to the former County Section 7. Convicted Vendor. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crime may not submit a bid on a iLA to Provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a ILA with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not perform work as a SFRPC, supplier, sub -supplier, or SFRPC under ILA with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section 287.017 of the Florida Statutes, for the Category two for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. Section 8. Insurance. The parties to this ILA stipulate that each is a state governmental agency as defined by Florida Statutes and represents to the other that it has purchased suitable BC-060930 ILA SFRPC public liability, vehicle liability, and Workers' Compensation insurance, or is self -insured, in amounts adequate to respond to any and all claims which are not limited by Florida Statutes Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, arising out of the activities governed by this agreement. Section 9. Communication Between Parties. All communication between the parties should be through the following individuals or their designees: Monroe Count George Garrett, Director Department of Marine Resources 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420 Marathon, FL 33050 SFRPC Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Section 10. Governing Law, Interpretation, Costs, and Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida applicable to Interlocal Agreements made and to be performed entirely in the State. Section 11. Venue. In the event that any cause of action or administrative proceeding is instituted for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the COUNTY and SFRPC agree that venue will Iie in the appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in Monroe County, Florida. Section 12. Mediation. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that, in the event of conflicting interpretations of the terms or a term of this Agreement by or between any of them the issue shall be submitted to mediation prior to the institution of any other administrative or legal proceeding. Section 13. Severability, if any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement (or the application thereof to any circumstance or person) shall be declared invalid or unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement, shall not be affected thereby; and each remaining term, covenant, condition and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless the enforcement of the remaining terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Agreement would prevent the accomplishment of the original intent of this Agreement. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree to reform the Agreement to replace any stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible to the intent of the stricken provision. Section 14. Attorney's Fees and Costs. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that in the event any cause of action or administrative proceeding is initiated or defended by any party relative to the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses, as an award against the non -prevailing party, and shall include attorney's fees, courts costs, investigative, and out-of-pocket expenses in appellate proceedings. Mediation proceedings initiated and conducted pursuant to this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and usual and customary procedures required by the circuit court of Monroe County. Section 15. Binding Effect. The terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the COUNTY and SFRPC and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. BC060930 ILA SFRPC Section 16, Authority. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized by all necessary COUNTY and corporate action, as required by law. Section 17. Claims for Federal or State Aid. The SFRPC and COUNTY agree that each shall be, and is, empowered to apply for, seek, and obtain federal and state funds to further the purpose of this Agreement; provided that all applications, requests, grant proposals, and funding solicitations shall be approved by each party prior to submission. Section 18. Adjudication of Disputes or Disagreements. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that all disputes and disagreements shall be attempted to be resolved by meet and confer sessions between representatives of each of the parties. If no resolution can be agreed upon within 30 days after the first meet and confer session, the issue or issues shall be discussed at a public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. If the issue or issues are still not resolved to the satisfaction of the parties, then any party shall have the right to seek such relief or remedy as may be provided by this Agreement or by Florida law. Section 19. Cooperation. In the event any administrative or legal proceeding is instituted against either party relating to the formation, execution, performance, or breach of this Agreement, COUNTY and SFRPC agree to participate, to the extent required by the other party, in all proceedings, hearings, processes, meetings, and other activities related to the substance of this Agreement or provision of the services under this Agreement. COUNTY and SFRPC specifically agree that no party to this Agreement shall be required to enter into any arbitration proceedings related to this Agreement. Section 20. Nondiscrimination.. COUNTY and SFRPC agree that there will be no discrimination against any person, and it is expressly understood that upon a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that discrimination has occurred, this Agreement automatically terminates without any further action on the part of any party, effective the date of the court order. COUNTY or SFRPC agree to comply with all Federal and Florida statutes, and all local ordinances, as applicable, relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: 1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin; 2) Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, as amended. (20 USC ss. 1681-1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; 3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (20 USC s. 794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of handicaps; 4) The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 USC ss. 6101- 6107) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; 5) The Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (PL 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; 6) The Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (PL 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; 7) The Public Health Service Act of 1912, ss. 523 and 527 (42 USC ss. 690dd-3 and 290ee-3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patent records; 8) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 USC s. et seq.), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; 9) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC s. 1201 Note), as maybe amended from time to time, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability; 10) Monroe County Code prohibition against discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender, identity or expression, familial BC060930 ILA sFRPC status or age; and 11) Any other nondiscrimination provisions in any Federal or state statutes which may apply to the parties to, or the subject matter of, this Agreement. Section 21. . Covenant of No Interest. COUNTY and SFRPC covenant that neither presently has any interest, and shall not acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner or degree with its performance under this Agreement, and that only interest of each is to perform and receive benefits as recited in this Agreement. Section 22. Code of Ethics. COUNTY and SFRPC agrees that officers and employees of the COUNTY and SFRPC recognize and will be required to comply with the standards of conduct for public officers and employees as delineated in Section 112.313, Florida Statutes, regarding, but not limited to, solicitation or acceptance of gifts; doing business with one's agency; unauthorized compensation; misuse of public position, conflicting employment or contractual relationship; and disclosure or use of certain information. Section 23. No Solicitation/Payment. The COUNTY and SFRPC warrant that, in respect to itself, it has neither employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach or violation of the provision, the SFRPC agrees that the COUNTY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from monies owed, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, gift, or consideration. Section 24. Public Access. The COUNTY and SFRPC shall allow and permit reasonable access to, and inspection of, all documents, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or under its control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received by the COUNTY and SFRPC in conjunction with, this Agreement; and the COUNTY shall have the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of this provision by SFRPC. Section 25. Non -Waiver of Immunity. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 786.28, Florida Statutes, the participation of the COUNTY and the SFRPC in this Agreement and the acquisition of any commercial liability insurance coverage, self-insurance coverage, or local government liability insurance pool coverage shall not be deemed a waiver of immunity to the extent of liability coverage, nor shall any 11A entered into by the COUNTY be required to contain any provision for waiver. Section 26. Privileges and .Immunities. All of the privileges and immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances, and rules and pensions and relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits which apply to the activity of officers, agents, or employees of any public agents or employees of the COUNTY, when performing their respective functions under this Agreement within the territorial limits of the COUNTY shall apply to the same degree and extent to the performance of such functions and duties of such officers, agents, volunteers, or employees outside the territorial limits of the COUNTY. Section 27. Legal Obligations and Responsibilities. Non -Delegation of Constitutional or Statutory Duties. This Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, relieving any participating entity from any obligation or responsibility imposed upon the entity by law except to the extent of actual and timely performance thereof by any participating entity, in which case BC060930 ILA SFRPC the performance may be offered in satisfaction of the obligation or responsibility. Further, this Agreement is not intended to, nor shall it be construed as, authorizing the delegation of the constitutional or statutory duties of the COUNTY, except to the extent permitted by the Florida constitution, state statute, and case law. Section 28. Non -Reliance by Non -Parties. No person or entity shall be entitled to rely upon the terms, or any of them, of this Agreement to enforce or attempt to enforce any third -party claim or entitlement to or benefit of any service or program contemplated hereunder, and the COUNTY and the SFRPC agree that neither the COUNTY nor the SFRPC or any agent, officer, or employee of either shall have the authority to inform, counsel, or otherwise indicate that any particular individual or group of individuals, entity or entities, have entitlements or benefits under this Agreement separate and apart, inferior to, or superior to the community in general or for the purposes contemplated in this Agreement. Section 29. Attestations. SFRPC agrees to execute such documents as the COUNTY may require, to include a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug -Free Workplace Statement. Section 30. No Personal Liability. No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be deemed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County in his or her individual capacity, and no member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe County shall be liable personally on this Agreement or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the execution of this Agreement. Section 31. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be regarded as an original, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by singing any such counterpart. Section 32. Section Headings. Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part of this Agreement and will not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement. Section 33. Indemnify/Hold Harmless. SFRPC is a state agency as defined in Chapter 768.28, Florida Statutes, and COUNTY is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Each agrees to be fully responsible for acts and omissions of their agents or employees to the extent permitted by law. Nothing herein is intended to serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity by any party to which sovereign immunity may be applicable. Nothing herein shall be construed as consent by a state agency or political subdivision of the State of Florida to be sued by third parties in any matter arising out of this Agreement or any other contract. BC060930 ILA SFRPC The effective date of this ILA is September 20, 2006 and ends April 30, 2007. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by its dorized representative. Ate L. KOLHAGE, CLERK Xt,' f +emu F � � y Clerk Iq - r,3 - (SEAL) NOTARY PLiBUC-5TgE OF F'LOWDA Isabel Moreno Attest: COMInission #DD543719 moires: APR. 24, 2010 Bonded Thru At:antic Bonding Co., Inc. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By Mayor/Chai a_ r South Florida Regional Planning Council CAROLYN A. DEKLE By By Title ��`� „�., '�'' Title Executive Director SFRPC APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPAS TO FORM SZtEL, GO N, ESQ,Gral Counsel SFRPC BC060930 ILA SFRPC MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY AOROVED AS TZIRORM- N'ATILEENE W. CASSEL ASSISTANT COU TY ATTORNEY Qat®..�-.— / V X � -n r c--) Lj ra rq N Attachment 1 Detailed Scope of Services & Draw Schedule Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan Marina Siting Plan Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and band Development Regulations September 20, 2006 -- April 30, 2007 Monroe County wishes to move ahead with the development of a Marina Siting Plan and implementation of strategies recommended in the recently developed Marine Management Strategic Plan. Staff recognizes that these two objectives will have some overlapping elements, such as data collected from the surveys that may be used towards the planning of strategies [and ultimately the development of Land Development Regulations (LDRs)] that will be site specific. Therefore, it will be necessary to conduct specific parts of the studies sequentially, while others will be done concurrently. Scone of Services• Task 1- Develop a Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan - 9 months. 1) Conduct two public workshops to solicit public input from residents, marine industry business owners, and other stakeholders. The first of these meetings will be held at the beginning of the study to help establish the objectives of the project; the other will be held after preliminary findings become available, and will include on -site specific goals and recommendations that are developed in the Siting Plan in Task 2. 2) Conduct a workshop with officials from local municipalities at the beginning of the project to discuss the overall objectives of the project and to explore opportunities for coordinated actions among all jurisdictions in support of those objectives. 3) Use the Marine Port Advisory Committee as a technical advisory group for the project, with a maximum of 3 meetings to solicit input from this group. 4) Develop a survey (based on past surveys) to gather additional information on each marine facility identified in Appendix 3 of the Marine Management Strategic Plan. Surveys will collect the best available data on: a) number of wet and dry slips, with a breakout by boat size; b) usage rates of wet and dry slips; c) on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces; d) surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems; e) availability for public use; f) number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp; g) condition of facilities; h) existing water quality trends; i) availability of pump -out facilities; and j) liveaboards BC060930 ILA SFRPC 5) Conduct surveys at all marine facilities and compile the data acquired. Perform necessary analyses using the survey data to illustrate facilities distribution, boating service infrastructure, potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria, etc. 6) Develop site -specific strategies based on general recommendations of the Marine Management Strategic Plan, using the data and conclusions generated from the Marina Siting Plan (see Task 2). The Master Plan has a broader focus and will include all working waterfront facilities, including boatyards, fish houses, etc., while the Marina Siting Plan will primarily cover marinas. Task 2 - Develop a Marina Siting Plan as required in Objective 212.4 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan - 9 months. 1) Coordinate with DCA in the development of the Marina Siting Plan to ensure the appropriate direction of the project and ultimately approval by DCA. 2) Complete the Marina Siting Plan, following the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 212.4.3 requirements. a) Develop and adopt marina Ritinor criteria. In general, marinas will be located in areas . where maximum physical advantages exist and where no unreasonable or excessive impacts are foreseen on marine resources. Marina construction will not involve destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagrass beds. Specific criteria for marina siting will reflect consideration of the following: i. benthic vegetation and faunal assemblages; ii. adequacy of circulation and tidal flushing; iii. access to deep water through existing channels of adequate depth; iv. minimal shoreline modification necessary; V. quality and size of upland areas and degree of alteration necessary; vi. ability to restore and enhance marina resource values at sites subject to past alteration; vii. location of propeller dredging problem areas; and viii. impact of boats on crocodiles, manatees" and turtles. * See p. 14 of DCA's Best Management Practices Guide for comparison of siting criteria that could also be factors to consider, such as Proximity to Inlets and Popular (Boating) Destinations. *' Monroe County does have documented watercraft -related manatee deaths, so FWC does maintain review authority over docking facilities. b) Prepare GIs maps of all existing recreational and commercial marinas surveyed. c) Identify sites on GIs maps with the potential for marina siting or expansion. d) Prepare GIs maps with siting suitability areas/zones indicated countywide, based on criteria and analysis. Such areas would be designated, e.g. Preferred, Conditional, BC060930 ILA ST'RPC Non -preferred, or Exclusionary, as a result of the site -suitability methodology and outcomes. e) Identify losses and turnovers of marine properties over the past 5 years to determine the impact of redevelopment, e.g, condo conversions or other non -water dependent uses. Task 3 - Develop Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Land Development Regulations - S months 1) Review/identify/compile existing Comprehensive Plan objectives, LDRs and other policies that address preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts, per Chapter 342.07, Florida Statutes. 2) Draft new Comprehensive Plan objectives and LDRs to implement the recommendations identified in the Working Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan. 3) Draft new Comprehensive Plan objectives, as necessary, to comply with the 2005 legislation (Chapter 342.07, Florida Statutes) regarding Comprehensive Plan elements, which address working waterfronts. 4) Draft an ordinance with proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs. 5) Identify land use plan changes to prevent inappropriate development of the working waterfront. Draw Schedule At COUNTY'S request, SFRPC agreed to begin work on this Scope of Services prior to the execution of the ILA. Work accomplished by SFRPC in furtherance of this Scope prior to the effective date of this ILA shall be considered part of ILA,'s Scope of Services for the purpose of compensation. The compensation associated with this Scope of Services is $180,000 and shall be distributed as follows: Upon contract approval by BOCC Upon completion and delivery of the facilities inventor (December 1$80,000 Upon completion of all final deliverables April 30, 200 , 2006) $Q 000 $50,000 BC060930 ILA SFRPC