The URL can be used to link to this page

Item I1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: May 15, 2013 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Staff Contact Person/Phone 9: Christine Hurley 289-2517 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction on the results of the "Analysis of Coastal Barrier Resources system Policies and Regulations in Monroe County, Florida," data and analysis, prepared by Keith and Schnars, P.A., regarding the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and the County's CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and Land Development Code (LDC). ITEM BACKGROUND: The County has adopted Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Codes which both discourage and prohibit the extension of utilities to or through areas designated as units of the CBRS. On January 16, 2013, BOCC discussed a contract amendment for professional services with Keith and Schnars (K&S), P.A., for additional services to evaluate the CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies to determine whether they add any additional protection to land over and above Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions that govern the Tier System, including an analysis of the percentage of land and number of parcels within the CBRS units by Tier Designation and whether infrastructure extension to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood of being able to obtain a favorable recommendation, based on Tier criteria to change a tier classification from Tier I to Tier II, III, or III -A. At the January 16, 2013 BOCC meeting, several speakers suggested that additional analysis be conducted, beyond the tier designations policy review. The BOCC requested staff to review the public input provided at the January meeting and requested staff to contact those who commented at the BOCC meeting for a description of the additional analysis they suggest should be added to the scope of services for the proposed K&S contract amendment. On February 26, 2013, BOCC discussed the contract amendment for professional services with K&S, with the additional analysis suggested by the public and approved the Eighth (8th) Amendment to the agreement for professional services with K&S, for additional services to evaluate the Coastal Barrier Resource System Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC. RESULTS: K&S has completed the evaluation of the CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and LDC. The data and recommendations are included in the attached report. In summary, K&S finds "If the CBRS overlay ordinance was eliminated, CBRS System Units would still be protected from development by the County's tier system (virtually all CBRS lands are within Tier I, and ROGO has proved to be effective at minimizing development in Tier I lands)." K&S further states "Based on this review of development activities in the CBRS, it appears that the County's ROGO/Tier System policies have generally been effective in limiting development in the CBRS." K&S recommends the County amend the LDC and Comprehensive Plan to continue to ensure that development in the CBRS is discouraged (maintain comprehensive plan "discourage" policy), through the following phased approach: Phase 1— Amendment to LDC 1) Initial amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC) Section 130-122 to eliminate the "prohibition" regulation regarding extension of public utilities to or through lands designated as a CBRS unit and make consistent with the Comprehensive Plan "discourage." 2) Modify the LDC to eliminate the language relating to infrastructure or utilities passing "through" CBRS Units. 3) Modify the LDC to clarify that extension and expansion of central wastewater lines are allowable through and in CBRS Units where the lines would reach platted lots, as connecting to a central wastewater system is a key component to improving water quality in the Keys. 4) Modify LDC Section 130-122(a) (Purpose) to be consistent with the policy purpose of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). 5) Modify the LDC to state that areas within CBRS Units are ineligible for most new County expenditures and financial assistance for new improvements, except for central wastewater service and exemptions consistent with the federal restrictions under CBRA (such as emergency work). Phase 2 —Amendment to Comprehensive Plan and LDC 1) Maintain the Comprehensive Plan "discourage" policies. 2) Modify ROGO so that negative point(s) are assigned to all parcels in the CBRS — this would be a Comprehensive Plan and LDC amendments. 3) Maintain other point criteria in ROGO/NROGO to ensure that the ROGO/Tier System does not assign positive points or reward parcels based on the addition of other infrastructure (i.e., roads, electric service, and fresh water supply) proposed or added after the date of designation as CBRS land. 4) Maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan policy limiting new access (via new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads, or new commercial marinas) to or on units of the CBRS. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On February 26, 2013, BOCC approved a contract amendment with Keith and Schnars, P.A., for additional services to evaluate the CBRS policies. Additionally, on February 26, 2013, the BOCC discussed the potential timelines and procedures for any amendments based upon the data and analysis to be conducted by Keith and Schnars, P.A. The BOCC approved Option A and Option B (described below) depending on the outcome of the data and analysis. Option A: If K&S data indicates the prohibition of extension of utilities to or through CBRS language further protects the environment, the County staff would recommend no changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Option B: If K&S data indicates the prohibition of extension of utilities to or through CBRS language does not offer the environment any additional protection, the County staff could recommend amendments to the Land Development Code Section 130-122 and Comprehensive Plan. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the K&S recommendations and phased approach provided on page 16 of the attached report TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: BUDGETED: Yes No SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APPROVED BY: County Attyf OMB/Purchasing Risk Management _ DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # Monroe County Land Development Code Proposed Phase 1 Amendments Sec. 101-1. —Definitions Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 (CBRS) s s_y tem units except for Stock Island, in the county designated under the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, comprising undeveloped coastal barriers and all associated aquatic habitats including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore waters. System units are generally comprised of private lands that were relatively undeveloped at the time of their designation within the CBRS. The boundaries of these units are designated by the Department of Interior and the boundaries generally intended to follow eg omorphic, development, or cultural features. Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, are prohibited within system units System units are identified and depicted on the current flood insurance rate maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Only Congress can revise CBRS boundaries. Sec. 130-122. - Coastal barrier resources system overlay district. (a) Federal Purpose. The purpose of the Federal Coastal Barrier Resource Act (CBRA) is to discourage further development in certain un-developed portions of barrier islands and remove the Federal incentive to develop these areas. The Federal law limits Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including the prohibition of Federal flood insurance, which have the effect of encouraging development in areas the Department of Interior designates as coastal barriers within the Coastal Barrier Resources System(CBRS). The CBRS protects coastal areas that serve as barriers against wind and tidal forces caused by coastal storms, and serve as habitat for aquatic species. (b) Counly Purpose. The County has included the 15 Federal CBRS system units, except for Stock Island, on the Land Use District Map as an overlay district. The purpose of the Coun 's coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan by discouraging prohibitingthe extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities to ^r *elands designated as a unit of the coastal barrier resources system. (cchb}Application. The 15 system units included in coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all areas, except for Stock Island, within federally designated boundaries of a coastal barrier resources system unit on current flood insurance rate maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby adopted by reference and declared part of this chapter. Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public utilities shall be discouraged prehibited from extension or expansion: ,.entfa waste- ate,. treatment eelleet �r potable water; electricity, and telephone and cable. This pfehibitien shall not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived_—aHThis discouragement shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems-, or central wastewater treatment collection systems that will serve existing platted lots. (d) County Public Improvements. Within designated CBRS system units, public tax dollars should not be used for new improvements and/or financial assistance, unless those new improvements and/or the financial assistance are consistent with CBRA federal restrictions. ANALYSIS OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IN MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA April 30, 2013 Prepared by Keith and Schnars, P.A. 6500 North Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Prepared for Monroe County Growth Management Division 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon FL 33050 i� KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDXS 5i� LOCAL FIRM 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT The protection and preservation of natural and water resources is a central tenet of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the important linkage between these resources and the economic health of the County — the environment is the economy in the Keys. The County is also sensitive to the need for sustainable development and the protection of the private property rights of landowners. In a coastal environment like Monroe County, good floodplain policy is an integral part of good comprehensive planning and sustainability. This is essential for public safety and the protection of coastal resources. In this regard, the Comprehensive Plan includes policies that restrict development in low lying coastal areas. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan discourages the extension of utilities within Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) System Units, and the Land Development Code (LDC) prohibits extension of utilities in CBRS System Units. A policy debate and litigation over the electrification of No Name Key (most of which is in a CBRS System Unit) and extending wastewater lines in North Key Largo (to and through a CBRS System Unit) have engendered a controversy concerning CBRS policies and regulations for the entire County. In December 2012, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) directed County staff to engage Keith and Schnars, P.A. (as part of an existing Comprehensive Planning contract) to assist in evaluating these policies and regulations. In March 2013, after BOCC and public input, the County Growth Management Division developed a list of questions regarding CBRS policies and regulations. The County contracted with Keith and Schnars to review CBRS policies and regulations and to answer a specific set of questions on this issue (Appendix A). The purpose of this Report is to: provide the results of the Keith and Schnars policy review; answer the above - mentioned questions; and recommend any necessary policy changes. The central policy issue can generally be summarized by the following over -arching question: Do the existing Comprehensive Plan CBRS policies and LDC regulations add any additional protection to land over and above those policies and code provisions that govern Tier I land? In other words, if the CBRS Comprehensive Plan policies and associated land development regulations were deleted, would CBRS System Units be less protected? Keith and Schnars has completed the required analysis and answered the questions provided to the County staff Keith and Schnars has also provided recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan CBRS policies and LDC (see Section 5.0). 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT OF 1982 In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress recognized that certain actions and programs of the federal government have historically subsidized and encouraged development on coastal barriers, resulting in the loss of natural resources; threats to human life, health, and property; and the expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year. To remove the federal incentive to develop these areas, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 which designated relatively undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as part of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, and made these areas ineligible for most new federal expenditures and financial assistance (USFWS 2013). On November I, 1990, the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) reauthorized the CBRA; expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys; and added a new category of coastal barriers to the CBRS called "otherwise protected areas" (OPAs), which are discussed in detail below. Appendix B includes a CBRA fact sheet prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and includes maps of CBRS units. CBRA and its amendments do not directly prevent or regulate development, they only remove the federal incentive for development on designated coastal barriers. Therefore, individuals who choose to live and invest in these hazard -prone areas bear the full cost of development and rebuilding instead of passing it on to American taxpayers (USFWS 2013). The CBRS consists of the undeveloped coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the United States that are identified and depicted on a series of maps entitled "John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System." These maps are controlling and indicate which lands are affected by the CBRA. The maps are maintained by the Department of the Interior through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Aside from three minor exceptions, only Congress has the authority to add or delete land from the CBRS and create new units. These exceptions include: (1) voluntary additions to the CBRS by property owners; (2) additions of excess KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 1 , FLoiuDM5igLocnLFtpm J federal property to the CBRS; and (3) the CBRA 5-year review requirement that solely considers changes that have occurred to System Units by natural forces such as erosion and accretion. CBRA has been amended several times to replace certain maps with new maps containing modified boundaries (USFWS 2013). 2.1 CBRS SYSTEM UNITS AND OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAS) The CBRS contains two types of units, System Units and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs). The County's definition in the LDC applies only to the 15 System Units; the County does not have policies or regulations for OPAs. OPAs are denoted with a "P" at the end of the unit number (e.g., FL- 48P). Table I lists the CBRS System Units and OPAs within Monroe County. System Units are generally comprised of private lands that were relatively undeveloped at the time of their designation within the CBRS. The boundaries of these units are generally intended to follow geomorphic, development, or cultural features. Most new federal expenditures and financial assistance, including federal flood insurance, are prohibited within System Units. Examples of prohibited Federal assistance within System Units include subsidies for road construction, channel dredging, and other coastal engineering projects. Federal monies can be spent within System Units for certain exempted activities, after consultation with the USFWS. Examples of such activities include emergency assistance, military activities essential to national security, exploration and extraction of energy resources, and maintenance of existing Federal navigational channels. Federal flood insurance is available within the CBRS if the subject structure was constructed (or permitted and under construction) before the CBRS unit's prohibition date (which is included in the USFWS' CBRA determination letter and shown on FE1"IA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps). If an existing insured structure within the CBRS is substantially improved or damaged (i.e., over 50 percent of the structure's market value), the Federal flood insurance policy cannot be renewed (USFWS 2013). OPAs are generally comprised of lands held by a qualified organization primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. TABLE 1: CBRS Units in Monroe County System -. CBRS Acres in Unit Number Unit Name Unincorporated Number.- (1) FL-35 North Key Largo 4,621.4 FL-35P North Key Largo FL-36P El Radabob Key (2) FL-37 Rodriguez Key 314.14 (3) FL-39 Tavernier Key 87.49 (4) FL-40 Snake Creek 0 FLA I P Lignumvitae/ ,; Shell Keys FL-42P Long Key (5) FL-43 Channel Key 14.31 (6) FL-44 Toms Harbor Keys 49.4 (7) FL-45 Deer/Long 0 Point Keys (8) FL-46 Boot Key 0 FL-47P Key Deer/ White Heron FL-48P Bahia Honda Key (9) FL-50 No Name Key 533.69 (10) FL-51 Newfound Harbor Keys 303.05 Little (1 1) FL-52 Knockemdown/ Torch Keys 1,469.15 Complex (12) FL-53 Budd Keys 106.96 (13) FL-54 Sugarloaf Sound 1,149.51 (14) FL-55 Saddlebunch 1,151.76 Keys (15) FL-57 Cow Key 1 10.37 FL-59P Fort Taylor FL-60P Key West NWR FL-6 I P Tortugas Total acres in unincorporated 9,91 1.24 Monroe County These OPAs consist of National Wildlife Refuges, State Parks, National Parks and other areas that are preserved. Monroe County LDC does not include OPAs and therefore OPAs are not included in this analysis. KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 2 , FLoiuDM5igLocnLFtpm J The boundaries of these units are generally intended to coincide with the boundaries of conservation or recreation areas such as state parks and national wildlife refuges. The only federal spending prohibition within OPAs is the prohibition on federal flood insurance. For new or substantially improved structures located within an OPA, Federal flood insurance may be available if written documentation is provided certifying that the structure is used in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the area is protected (e.g., a park visitors center) and the USFWS agrees with that assessment (USFWS 2013). 2.2 UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS The CBRA of 1982 defines an"undeveloped coastal barrier" as a depositional geologic feature that is subject to wave, tidal and wind energies; and protects landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack. CBRA further defines a coastal barrier as all associated aquatic habitats, including the adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and nearshore waters, but only if such features and associated habitats contain few man-made structures and these structures, and people's activity associated with them, do not significantly impede geomorphic and ecological processes. Section 2 of the Coastal Barrier Reauthorization Act of 2000 (PL. 106-514) specifies that, at the time of the inclusion of a System Unit within the System, a coastal barrier area is considered undeveloped if (1) the density of development is less than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide; and (2) there is not a full suite of existing infrastructure consisting of a road with a reinforced road bed, wastewater disposal system, electric service, and fresh water supply to each lot or building site in the area. CBRA sought to include relatively undeveloped coastal barriers within the CBRS (i.e., those areas containing few man-made structures). Before CBRA was enacted in 1982, the Secretary of the Interiorwas directed bythe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (PL. 97-35) to map undeveloped coastal barriers for Congressional consideration. The definitions and delineation criteria that guided the Department of the Interior's mapping efforts were published on August 16, 1982, in the Federal Register (Vol. 47, No. 158). The Department of the Interior considered the density of structures and availability of infrastructure on the ground to evaluate development status. To be considered developed, the density of development on each coastal barrier area must have been more than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide prior to its designation within the CBRS. In addition,a coastal barrier area was considered developed, even when there was less than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide, if there was a full complement of infrastructure on the ground before designation. A full complement of infrastructure includes all of the following components for each lot or building site in the area: a road with a reinforced road bed, a wastewater disposal system, electric service, and a fresh water supply. The intent of the infrastructure criterion was to exclude areas where there was intensive private capitalization prior to its inclusion within the CBRS demonstrating a substantial on -the -ground commitment to complete the development. In applying the density criterion, the USFWS generally considers the entire CBRS unit, not individual subdivisions. In cases where there are discrete segments of a coastal barrier unit (i.e., areas separated by inlets or by intervening areas that are otherwise protected or clearly developed), the density criterion is applied to each discrete segment (USFWS 2013). 3.0 SUMMARY OF EXISTING MONROE COUNTY CBRS POLICIES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CBRS policies and LDC pertain to the 15 CBRS System Units only; the County does not have policies or regulations for OPAs. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that Monroe County shall discourage private development in CBRS System Units (Objective 102.8); shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the CBRS (Policy 102.8.2); and shall take efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone service to CBRS System Units (Policy 102.8.5). The LDC prohibits the extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a System Unit of the CBRS. Within the CBRS overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public utilities are prohibited from extension or expansion: central wastewater treatment collection systems; potable water; electricity, and telephone and cable. This prohibition does not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the effective date of the ordinance and shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems (LDC Section 130-122). KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page , FLoiuDM5igLocnLFtpm J While the Comprehensive Plan "discourages" development) in CBRS System Units, the LDC prohibits such development — creating a potential internal inconsistency within the County's planning policies and regulations. Section 163.3194(1)(b) F.S. requires that if there is a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the land development regulations,"...the provisions of the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan... shall govern..." Appendix C provides the specific language of salient parts of the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs. 4.0 ANALYSIS OF CBRS LANDS 4.1 AMOUNT, LOCATION, ZONE, AND TIER OF CBRS LANDS Within unincorporated Monroe County, there are 9,91 1.24 acres of land within CBRS System Units. Approximately two- thirds of this acreage is publicly -owned lands, a small fraction is privately -owned land that is already developed, and the remaining one-third is privately -owned vacant lands (Table 2 and Figure 1). The publicly -owned lands include parks, refuges, and other government -owned areas that are protected from development. Privately -owned non -vacant lands include parcels that already have residences or businesses built upon them; the risk of development of these lands has already passed. Privately -owned vacant parcels are the lands that are potentially subject to development, and are the focus of the analyses in this report. TABLE 2: Amount of Land within CBRS System Units in Unincorporated Monroe County Parcels in Acres % of Total CBRS Lands CBRS in CBRS Acres in CBRS Notes Publicly -Owned Lands within CBRS 2,322 5,877.50 59.3% Government -owned lands - not subject to development Privately -Owned Non -Vacant Lands 130 541.31 5.5% Already developed within CBRS Privately -Owned Vacant Lands 1,191 3,492.43 35.2% Potentially subject to development - the within CBRS focus of this report All Lands within CBRS System Units 31643 9,91 1.24 100% (Unincorporated Monroe County) FIGURE 1: Illustration of the Amounts (Acres) of Publicly -Owned, Privately -Owned Non -Vacant, and Privately -Owned Non -Vacant Acreage within CBRS System Units CBRS Acreage within Monroe County Privately -Owned Vacant Lands withir CBRS, 3,492.43 Privately -Owned N Vacant Lands within CBRS, 541.31 Publicly -Owned Lands within CBRS, 5,877.50 1 The definition of "development" in the LDRs (Section 101-1) pertains more to the clearing of and building on a parcel, and does not specifically identify extending infrastructure or utilities (water, sewer, roads, electric, cable, telephone) as development. Although the Comprehensive Plan Objective 102.8 does not explain what is meant by"discourage private development", the underlying Policy 102.8.5 specifically identifies that Monroe County shall take efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone services to CBRS units. Similarly, the LDRs prohibit the extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities. Thus, in the context of CBRS policies and LDRs,"development" does include roads and utilities. KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFT April 30,2013 Page , FLoiuDM5igLocnLFtpm J Some of the privately -owned vacant lands are within defined subdivisions (5%), but the majority is outside subdivisions (95%). Table 3 identifies the amount of CBRS land in each subdivision. TABLE 3: Subdivisions Containing Privately -Owned Vacant Lands within CBRS System Units Subdivision Largo Beach 1.23 11 Key Largo Native Area Atlantic View Estates 0.93 5 Key Largo Native Area Elbow Light Club 0.30 1 Key Largo Native Area Treasure Trove #2 0.02 1 Key Largo Native Area Treasure Trove # 1 0.01 1 Key Largo Native Area Gulfstream Shores 0.61 4 Key Largo Improved Subdivision Ocean Reef Shores 0.55 4 Key Largo Improved Subdivision JHT 1.33 3 Key Largo Improved Subdivision Ocean Heights 1.49 9 No Name Key Native Area Tuxedo Park 0.57 5 No Name Key Native Area Refuge Point 3.20 2 No Name Key Native Area Galleon Bay 7.09 14 No Name Key Commercial Fishing Village Dolphin Estates 2.77 9 No Name Key Commercial Fishing Special and Improved Subdivision Rainbow Beach 16.70 139 Big Torch Key Native Area Dorn's 5.07 4 Big Torch Key Improved Subdivision Buccaneer Beach 94.50 599 Middle Torch Key Offshore Island and Native Area Middle Torch Key Estates 23.72 67 Middle Torch Key Native Area no subdivision - no Tier designation 54.91 51 Ocean Reef Offshore Island no subdivision -Tier 1 3,277.32 261 Various Various no subdivision -Tier 111 0.09 1 Key Largo Urban Residential TOTAL 3,492.43 1,191 1 i IAbLt 4: coning or rrivareiy-uwnea vacanr Land Use District Parcels in Acres in CBRS CBRS Native Area (NA) 384 1,749.80 Lanas wirnin % of Total Acres in CBRS 50.1 % t tsp Offshore Island (OS) 720 1,144.75 32.8% other areas'- 19 329.42 9.4% Sparsely Settled (SS) 9 1 191.63 5.5% 98.2 % Native Area - Offshore Island (NA -OS) 1 8.02 0.2% Native Area - Sparsely Settled (NA -SS) 8 5.09 0.1 % Improved Subdivision (IS) 25 50.52 1.4% Commercial FishingVillage (CFV) 14 7.09 0.2% Commercial Fishing Special (CFS) 9 5.31 0.2% 1.8% Industrial (1) 1 0.70 0.0% Urban Residential (UR) 1 0.09 1 0.0% TOTAL 1,191 1 3,492.43 1 100% 100% iS System Units Most privately -owned vacant lands within CBRS System Units are within land use districts that have relatively high levels of growth restrictions. For privately - owned vacant lands within CBRS System Units, 98.2 percent of the acreage is within Native Area, Offshore Island, Sparsely Settled, or similar land use districts (Table 4). These lands, coded as "Research"; include some offshore islands and areas with a future land use of Residential Conservation. Page 5 KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J Virtually all of the privately -owned vacant lands within CBRS System Units are designated Tier I: 98.4 percent of the acres and 95.6 percent of the parcels (Figure 2). Privately owned vacant land in CBRS (acres) 4000 3437.4 ❑ Undesig. 3000 ■ Tier 1 ■ Tier II 2000 ❑ Tier III ❑ Tier III -A 1000 54.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0 Undesig. Tier 1 Tier II Tier III Tier III -A Privately owned vacant land in CBRS (acres) Tier III Tier III -A 01' 0%0.0%Undesig. TierI 1.6% 0.0%� z Tier 1 98.4% Privately owned vacant land in CBRS (number of parcels) Tier II Tier III -A 0.0% 0.0% Tier III Undesig. 0.1% 4.3% Tier 1 95.6% FIGURE 2: Tier Designation of Lands within CBRS System Units ❑ Undesig. ■ Tier 1 ■ Tier II ® Tier III ❑ Tier III -A Page 6 I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDAS ILOCAL FIRM J The only privately -owned vacant lands within CBRS that are not Tier I are the following: There are 54.9 acres of undesignated lands (no tier designation) in 51 parcels; these parcels are on the offshore islands north of Ocean Reef. These lands do not have a tier designation because Ocean Reef is exempt from the tier overlay ordinance. They are zoned OS (Offshore Island). The purpose of the OS district is to establish areas that are not connected to US- I as protected areas, while permitting low -intensity residential uses and campground spaces in upland areas that can be served by cisterns, generators and other self-contained facilities. The maximum residential density allowed in OS is I dwelling unit per 10 acres, with an open space requirement of at least 95 percent (LDC Sec. 130-157). Offshore islands north of Ocean Reef - no tier designation There is one parcel in Key Largo (total size of 1.35 acres) that has 0.09 acres of Tier III land in a CBRS System Unit. The Tier II I land is the jetty at the Molasses Reef Marina (S Ocean Bay Drive, Key Largo) that extends into the CBRS System Unit; this jetty is not suitable for further development. Jetty at the Molasses Reef Marina - Tier III 4.2 WHERE DOES INFRASTRUCTURE PASS THROUGH CBRS SYSTEM UNITS? There are several communities in the County that are geographically surrounded by a CBRS System Unit or where infrastructure passes through a CBRS System Unit. No Name Key contains one area that is geographically surrounded by a CBRS System Unit. The parcels on Spanish Channel Drive, Bahia Shores Road, and No Name Drive are not within a CBRS System Unit, but are surrounded by CBRS System Unit FL-50 (No Name Key). The rest of No Name Key is within a CBRS System Unit, including the parcels on Bimini Lane and Tortuga Lane. Some infrastructure, including roads and privately -funded powerlines, pass through CBRS System Unit FL-50 (No Name Key). FL - No Name Key: contains a developed area within a CBRS System Unit, and a developed area surrounded by a CBRS System Unit DRAFT April 30, 2013 - KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDAS ILOCAL FIRM J On BigTorch Key,the communities of Dorn's anclTorchwood West are surrounded by FL-52 (Little Knockemdown/Torch Keys Complex System Unit). Infrastructure, including electricity and roads, passes through the CBRS System Unit to reach these communities. Dorn's and Torchwood West: infrastructure passes through a CBRS System Unit to reach these subdivisions On Key Largo, Card Sound Road passes through FL-35 (North Key Largo System Unit). FL-35.->{;:;f FL-35" FL-35 FL-35P y �G Key Largo: Card Sound Road passes through a CBRS System Unit 4.3 ARE THERE ANY POINTS IN THE ROGO SCORING SYSTEM THAT ENCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN CBRS? No. CBRS is not a factor in the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) scoring system. 4.4 IF INFRASTRUCTURE WERE BROUGHT TO AN AREA, WOULD IT INDUCE A HIGHER SCORE IN ROGO? Electricity, roads, or potable water: If commercial electricity, roads, or potable water lines are extended into an area, it would not result in a higher score in ROGO. Central wastewater: If a central wastewater line is extended into an area, it would result in a higher score in ROGO. A ROGO application receives +4 points if the development is required to be connected to a central wastewater treatment system that meets best achievable treatment/advanced wastewater treatment (BAT/AWT) standards established by the state legislature. In North Key Largo, the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District (KLWTD) has recently extended a force main north along CR 905 (Figure 3). The force main extends past the community of Gulfstream Shores and ends at the entrance to Ocean Reef Shores. If service were extended to Gulfstream Shores and Ocean Reef Shores, those communities would be part of the KLWTD centralized system in that the project would take the sewer from those areas and, by use of the force main, send it to the sewer treatment plant at MM 100.3. This would qualify the system for AWT standards established by the state legislature2. Most of Gulfstream Shores is not within a CBRS System Unit (Figure 3). There are some privately -owned vacant lots in Gulfstream Shores. Adding central wastewater service makes these privately -owned vacant lots eligible for +4 points under ROGO, and therefore increases their likelihood of being approved for development. All of the privately -owned vacant lots are Tier I, so the lands are protected as Tier I lands. 2 Personal communication, Suzi Rubio, Construction / Project Administrator, KLWTD,April 23, 2013 Page 8 KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDAS ILOCAL FIRM J All of Ocean Reef Shores is within CBRS System Unit FL-35 (Figure 3). Most of the property in Ocean Reef Shores is government -owned (Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida) for conservation purposes. Of the 156 lots, 135 are government -owned and 21 are privately owned. About 30 of the lots have been developed (some developed lots are now government -owned). There are only 4 privately -owned lots that are vacant. Therefore, additional development is limited to these 4 privately -owned vacant lots (4 lots at 0.14 acre each = 0.55 acres total). Adding central wastewater service makes these 4 privately -owned vacant lots eligible for +4 points under ROGO, and therefore increases their likelihood of development. All of the privately -owned vacant lots are Tier 1, so the lands are protected as Tier I lands. The Comprehensive Plan policiesto discourage extension of utilitieswithin CBRS System Units,and the land development FL-35P regulations that prohibit utilities in CBRS System Units, halted the extension of the central wastewater line into Gulfstream Shores and Ocean Reef Shores. It could be argued that central wastewater lines are distinctively different from other utilities such as powerlines in that central wastewater lines are less likely to promote developmentthan the availability of commercial electricity. In considering whether to build on a vacant lot, a typical owner would generally not care whether their wastewater goes to a septic system or to a central wastewater treatment plant. Other than receiving the +4 points under ROGO, having access to a central wastewater treatment plant would not encourage the typical owner of a vacant lot to develop the land. However, if commercial power was added to a vacant parcel, then some landowners may have a greater desire to develop the land because of the conveniences of living with commercial electricity. Wastewater lines provide a clear benefit to the environment; replacing cesspit and septic systems with connection to .P AI OCEAN REEF SHORES FL-35 REAM SHO / FL{35P a central wastewater system has been a fundamental approach to improving water quality in the Keys and is specifically identified in the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Extending wastewater lines provides a benefit to the natural environment, and therefore is consistent with overall goals of growth management in the County and the State. FIGURE 3: Extension of KLWTD Force Main in North Key Largo The red dashed line running along CR 905 is the approximate placement of the force main. The force main extends approximately 500 feet into CBRS System Unit FL-35. The force main is within the FDOT right-of-way. KLWTD has not extended lines into Ocean Reef Shores. KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFT April 30, 2013 Page 9 , FLoiuDM5igLocnLFtpm J 4.5 HOW PROTECTIVE IS THE TIER SYSTEM? LDC Section 138-24(a)(6) limits the number of allocation awards in Tier 1. The annual number of allocation awards in Tier I is limited to no more than three (3) in the Upper Keys subarea and no more than three (3) in the Lower Keys subarea. The Incidental Take Permit (ITP) limits Big Pine Key / No Name Key subarea to ten (10) allowances over a 20 year period or H=0.022, whichever is lower. During the 5 year period July 14, 2007 to July 13, 2012 (ROGO Years 16 through 20), there were 20 residential dwelling unit allocations in Tier I lands: • I in the Upper Keys subarea, • 8 in the Big Pine / No Name Key subarea, and • I I in the Lower Keys subarea. During the most recent allocation ranking (ROGO Year 21, Quarter 2 [October 13, 2012 to January 14, 2013]), some of the applications were for Tier I lands: • 9 in the Upper Keys subarea, • I I in the Big Pine / No Name Key subarea, and • 6 in the Lower Keys subarea. Applications that have been in the ROGO system for 5 years earn perseverance points at the rate of +2 points per year, up to a maximum cap of +4 points. The cap on perseverance points does not apply to applications that were submitted prior to the effective date of the tier overlay ordinance. Tier I lands that are exempt from the cap on perseverance points will eventually accumulate enough perseverance points to receive ROGO allocations. During the most recent allocation ranking (ROGO Year 21, Quarter 2 [October 13, 2012 to January 14, 2013]), some of the applications were forTier I lands that are exempt from the cap on perseverance points: • 7 in the Upper Keys subarea o None are within a CBRS System Unit • 10 in the Big Pine / No Name Key subarea 0 7 are Galleon Bay parcels (which are within a CBRS System Unit) o The other 3 are not within a CBRS System Unit • 4 in the Lower Keys subarea o None are within a CBRS System Unit 4.6 DOES ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE INCREASE THE POSSIBILITY THAT A TIER I PARCEL MAY BE REDESIGNATED TO TIER II, III -A, OR III? Adding infrastructure to any of the subdivisions in CBRS System Units would not likely change their tier designation. Appendix D contains a list of each subdivision that contains CBRS lands, and how those lands compare to the tier criteria. In general, the subdivisions meet most of the Tier I criteria, and few of the Tier III criteria. No subdivisions meet all Tier III criteria except the infrastructure criteria, therefore, if infrastructure were added, they still wouldn't meet enough Tier III criteria to be redesignated to Tier III. Tier designation criteria are established in the Comprehensive Plan (Policies 105.2.1 and 205.1.1) and in the LDC (Sec 130-130(c)). The County reviews all criteria when designating tiers. Comprehensive Plan Policy 105.2.1 identifies the purposes, general characteristics, and growth management approaches associated with each tier as follows: I. Natural Area (Tier I): Any defined geographic area where all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive by the policies of this Plan and applicable habitat conservation plan, is to be designated as a Natural Area. New development on vacant land is to be severely restricted and privately owned vacant lands are to be acquired or development rights retired for resource conservation and passive recreation purposes. However, this does not preclude provisions of infrastructure for existing development. Within the Natural Area designation are typically found lands within the acquisition boundaries of federal and state resource conservation and park areas, including isolated platted subdivisions; and privately -owned vacant lands with sensitive environmental features outside these acquisition areas. 2. Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II): Any defined geographic area on Big Pine Key and No Name Key, where scattered groups and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands, as defined by this Plan, may be found and where existing platted subdivisions are not predominately developed, not served by complete infrastructure facilities, or not within close proximity to established commercial areas, is to be designated as a Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area. New development is to be discouraged and privately owned vacant lands acquired or development rights retired to reduce sprawl, ensure that the Keys carrying capacity is not exceeded, and prevent further encroachment on sensitive natural resources. Within a Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area are typically found. scattered small non-residential development I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFT April 30,2013 Pa 9 a 10 FLoiuDM LocnL FIRM and platted subdivisions with less than 50 percent of the lots developed, incomplete infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, or electricity, and scattered clusters of environmentally sensitive lands, some of which are within or in close proximity to existing platted subdivisions. 3. In fill Area (Tier III): Any defined geographic area, where a significant portion of land area is not characterized as environmentally sensitive as defined by this Plan, except for dispersed and isolated fragments of environmentally sensitive lands of less than four acres in area, where existing platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure facilities, and within close proximity to established commercial areas, or where a concentration of non-residential uses exists, is to be designated as an In fill Area. New development and redevelopment are to be highly encouraged, except within tropical hardwood hammock or pineland patches of an acre or more in area, where development is to be discouraged. Within an In fill Area are typically found. platted subdivisions with 50 percent or more developed lots situated in areas with few sensitive environmental features; full range of available public infrastructure in terms of paved roads, potable water, and electricity, and concentrations of commercial and other non- residential uses within close proximity. In some Infill Areas, a mix of non-residential and high -density residential uses (generally 8 units or more per acre) may also be found that form a Community Center. Comprehensive Plan Policy 205.1.1 establishes the following criteria to use when designating tiers: I. Land located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key shall be designated as Tier I based on following criteria: • Natural areas including old and new growth upland native vegetated areas, above 4 acres in area. • Vacant land which can be restored to connect upland native habitat patches and reduce further fragmentation of upland native habitat. • Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, up to 500 feet in depth, if indicated by appropriate special species studies, between natural areas and development to reduce secondary impacts; canals or roadways, depending on size may form a boundary that removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth. • Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for conservation and natural resource protection. • Known locations of threatened and endangered species. • Lands designated as Conservation and Residential Conservation on the Future Land Use Map or within a bu fferlrestoration area as appropriate. • Areas with minimal existing development and infrastructure. 2. Lands on Big Pine Key and No Name Key designated as Tier I, II, or III shall be in accordance with the wildlife habitat quality criteria as defined in the Habitat Conservation Plan for those islands. 3. Lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that are not designated Tier I shall be designated Tier III. 4. Designated Tier III lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key with tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands of one acre or greater in area shall be designated as Special Protection Areas. 5. Lands within the Ocean Reef planned development shall be excluded from any Tier designation. LDC Section 130-130(c) identifies the tier boundary criteria (excluding Big Pine Key and No Name Key) as follows: (1) Tier I boundaries shall be delineated to include one or more of the following criteria and shall be designated tier I: a. Vacant lands which can be restored to connect upland native habitat patches and reduce further fragmentation of upland native habitat. b. Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, up to 500 feet in depth, if indicated as appropriate by special species studies, between natural areas and development to reduce secondary impacts. Canals or roadways, depending on width, may form a boundary that removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth. c. Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for conservation and natural resource protection. d. Known locations of threatened and endangered species, as defined in section 101-1, identified on the threatened and endangered plant and animal maps or the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study maps, or identified in on -site surveys. e. Conservation, native area, sparsely settled, and offshore island land use districts. f. Areas with minimal existing development and infrastructure. On Big Pine Key and No Name Key, the tier boundaries are designated using the Big Pine Key and No Name Key Habitat Conservation Plan (2005) and the adopted community master plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key: Tier I: Lands where all or a significant portion of the land area is characterized as environmentally sensitive and important for the continued viability of HCP covered species (mean H per 10x10 meter cell = 0.259 x 10-3).These lands are high quality Key deer habitat generally representing large contiguous patches of native vegetation that provide habitat for other protected species as well. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 11 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J Tier II: Scattered lots and fragments of environmentally sensitive lands that may be found in platted subdivisions (mean H per I 0 x 10 meter cell = 0.183 x 10-3).A large number of these lots are located on canals and are of minimal value to the Key deer and other protected species because the canal presents a barrier to dispersal. Tier III: Scattered lots within already heavily developed areas that provide little habitat value to the Key deer and other protected species (mean H per I Ox I 0 meter cell = 0. 168 x 10-3). Some of the undeveloped lots in this Tier are located between existing developed commercial lots within the US-1 corridor or are located on canals. 4.7 OTHER DISINCENTIVES TO BUILD IN AREAS WITHOUT UTILITIES Other than the Tier Overlay Ordinance, there are other disincentives to build in an area without utilities: Zoning: Many areas without utilities have restrictive land use districts such as Offshore Island, Sparsely Settled, Native, Mainland Native, and Park and Refuge. LDC Sec. 130-157 limits the residential densities and provides open space requirements for various land use districts. For example, Offshore Island is limited to I dwelling unit (du) per 10 acres and has a 95 percent open space requirement. Sparsely Settled is limited to I du per 2 acres and has an 80 percent open space requirement. Native is limited to I du per 4 acres. Mainland Native is limited to I du per 100 acres and has a 99 percent open space requirement. Park and Refuge is limited to I du per 4 acres with a 90 percent open space requirement. Flood Zone: Some areas without utilities haveVE flood zone designation. In ROGO,a property within aV flood zone (this includesVE zones) is assigned negative points (-4 points). AV flood zone is subject to a I -percent - annual -chance flood event and has additional hazards associated with storm -induced waves. V zones are generally limited to shallow submerged lands and the shoreline. • CBRA: Some areas without utilities are in CBRS System Units. Federal flood insurance would not be available to new dwelling units (or substantially improved or rebuilt dwelling units) within a CBRS System Unit. 4.8 DETERMINE WHETHER THE AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE INCREASES POTENTIAL OF DEVELOPMENT DESIRABILITY IN AN AREA THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE No peer -reviewed studies could be found that identified whether the availability of infrastructure increases development desirability. Table 5 is a summary from anecdotal evidence. TABLE 5: Infrastructure and Development Desirability Type of infrastructure added Potential change in development desirability Increases probability of development under Tier System • • Most landowners would not want to build if there was no or very Roads poor access to their property. Adding an access road would increase No development desirability for most landowners. Commercial Many landowners would not want to build unless they had the electricity convenience of commercial power. Adding commercial electricity No would increase development desirability for most landowners. If groundwater is available, most landowners are unlikely to care Potable water whether their potable water is from a municipal source or an onsite No well. If groundwater is unavailable, most landowners would likely prefer the reliability of a municipal source compared to a cistern. Central wastewater Most landowners are unlikely to care whether their wastewater goes Yes to a septic system or a central wastewater treatment facility. Communication With the availability of cellular and satellite communication service, (telephone,TV, adding land communication lines are unlikely to be a deciding factor in No internet) whether to build for most landowners. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 12 FLoiuDM 5i9 LOCAL FIRM J 4.9 HOW ARE THE NUMEROUS CBRS GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COMP PLAN, AND THE LDC, BEING IMPLEMENTED TODAY? The end result of the CBRS policies and LDC can be summarized as follows: North Key Largo: The CBRS regulations in the LDC, which prohibit utilities to or through CBRS System Units, have blocked the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District from extending central wastewater lines into parts of the community of Gulfstream Shores and all of Ocean Reef Shores. No Name Key: The CBRS regulations in the LDC, which prohibit utilities to or through CBRS System Units, have not blocked installation of privately -funded power poles on the island, but have blocked connection of the homes to the grid. 4.10 IS THERE ANY VARIATION OF PROTECTION OF THE CBRS SYSTEM UNITS WITHIN THE TIER SYSTEM WITHOUT THE CBRS OVERLAY ORDINANCE? DOES THE TIER SYSTEM PROVIDE FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PROTECTION FOR LANDS TARGETED FOR ACQUISITION? If the CBRS overlay ordinance was eliminated, CBRS System Units would still be protected from development by the County's tier system (virtually all CBRS lands are within Tier I, and ROGO has proved to be effective at minimizing development in Tier I lands). There is variation of protection within the Tier System. For example, negative points are assigned for parcels that are on No Name Key, in designated Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit habitat, and in aV flood zone. Developments on Big Pine Key and No Name Key receive fewer positive points than developments on other islands. The number of ROGO allocations varies by subarea: the annual number of allocation awards inTier I is limited to no more than three (3) in the Upper Keys subarea and no more than three (3) in the Lower Keys subarea. The Incidental Take Permit (ITP) limits Big Pine Key / No Name Key subarea to ten (10) allowances over a 20 year period or H=0.022, whichever is lower. Zoning also results in variation of protection. Land use districts have varying levels of growth restrictions. For example, the Offshore Island land use district is limited to I dwelling unit (du) per 10 acres with a 95 percent open space requirement. Sparsely Settled is limited to I du per 2 acres and has an 80 percent open space requirement. Native is limited to I du per 4 acres. Mainland Native is limited to I du per 100 acres with a 99 percent open space requirement. Park and Refuge is limited to I du per 4 acres with a 90 percent open space requirement. 4.11 EFFECTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER OF NO NAME KEY Some aspects of community character could change on No Name Key if the island were brought onto the electric grid. Table 6 lists those aspects of community character and qualitatively identifies whether those aspects would likely have a negative, neutral, or positive effect on community character. For those effects that are likely to be negative, non-CBRS policies and land development regulations that might mitigate the negative effects are identified. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Pa a 13 J FLoiuDM LocnL FIRM 9 TABLE 6: Aspects of Community Character on No Name Key AspectsCommunity Negative Neutral •. Character Air emissions from Air Quality -- -- generators would be eliminated. Increased availability of electricity could result in increased noise from music, televisions, power tools, etc. Powerlines could produce an audible hum / buzz under certain conditions3. Noise __ Noise from generators Non-CBRS policies and land development would be eliminated. regulations that could mitigate these effects include Sec 17-130 (Prohibition against unreasonable noise) which includes "no person shall make, continue, or cause to be made any unreasonable noise." The LDC could control, but not fully mitigate, increased noise. Power poles and wires would detract from streetscapes that otherwise have little to no visible Visual effects of infrastructure. Reduced tree canopy along roadsides generators and Visual due to tree trimming for powerlines. tanks wouldn't likely - poles, wires, and Non-CBRS policies and land development change because many -- generators regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. homeowners would likely keep them for Keys Energy Services provides free professional tree trimming to ensure tree trimming around power emergency use. lines is done safely and correctly. Increased availability of electricity could result in more indoor and outdoor light usage, which would increase nighttime light pollution. Residents would have Visual - Non-CBRS policies and land development the option of increased lighting regulations that could mitigate these effects include -- outdoor lighting for Chapter 114 Article VI (Outdoor Lighting) which recreational, decorative, includes restrictions on height and maximum or security use. illumination. The LDC could control, but not fully mitigate, increased nighttime light pollution. Fewer fuel trucks on road Traffic __ __ because the need to refill tanks for generators is reduced. 3 The lines on No Name Key are at a Distribution voltage (8,000 volts) which under most conditions would not produce an audible hum/buzz. An audible noise is typically noticeable at the much higher voltage for Transmission lines. For example, the main power line on US -I is 138,000 volts; it is not uncommon for these lines to create an audible sound, especially during the dry season (rain usually cleans them). Residents on No Name Key may on rare occasions hear a much lower sound, especially if there has been a lot of salt spray and no rain for an extended period of time. Personal Communication, Dale Z. Finigan, Director of Engineering & Control, KEYS Energy,April 13, 2013. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 14 FLoiuDns LocnL FIRM 9 Threat from fuel leaks not diminished Soil / water much because many Less illegal dumping of pollution generators and tanks batteries. would likely be kept for emergency use. Crime -- No substantial effect, but residents would have the option of increased electronic -- security systems and outdoor lighting for security. Employment of local No substantial effect. -- residents Home values Some buyers who are attracted to the experience of Other buyers might pay living off -grid would not be willing to pay as much. more for a home with Non-CBRS policies and land development the conveniences of regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. commercial power. Sense of Some residents may feel a loss of uniqueness as a Other residents may unique place, conservation -aware, off -grid community. feel their identity as a identity, or rural, environmentally - community Non-CBRS policies and land development sensitive island regulations that could mitigate these effects: None. remains intact. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 15 FLoiuDM LocnL FIRM 9 qpr 5.0 CBRS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS It is widely accepted that development in floodplains and coastal areas is not consistent with the goals of good comprehensive planning and sustainability. Based on this review of development activities in the CBRS, it appears that the County's ROGO/Tier System policies have generally been effective in limiting development in the CBRS. It is recommended that the County maintain an effective policy of discouraging development in the CBRS. Further, as a general rule, the County should not invest in and/or authorize new infrastructure projects that facilitate or induce the approval of new developments in the CBRS. The following policy framework is recommended to ensure that development in the CBRS is discouraged. This policy could be implemented in two phases with each becoming effective immediately upon adoption by the BOCC of the required policy/code changes. Phase I I.Modify the LDC to remove CBRS "prohibit" language and add "discourage" language that establishes a presumption against development in CBRS lands. This presumption can be rebutted only by obtaining approval through the ROGO/ Tier System; 2.Modify the LDC to eliminate the language relating to infrastructure or utilities passing "through" CBRS System Units. Given the geometry of the CBRS in the Keys (e.g., some existing communities are surrounded by CBRS System Units), discouragement of infrastructure or utilities "through" CBRS System Units to existing communities is not practical and is not consistent with the intent of CBRA; 3.Modify the LDC to clarify that extension and expansion ofcentral wastewater I ines areal lowable through and in CBRS System Units where the lines would reach platted lots. Connecting to a central wastewater system is a key component to improving water quality in the County; 4.Modify LDC Section 130-122(a) (Purpose) to explain the policy purpose of CBRA. While the Act does not regulate how landowners can develop their property, it explicitly transfers the full cost from Federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose to build in such areas. Therefore, individuals who choose to live and invest in these hazard - prone areas bear the full cost of development and rebuilding.The policy should steer new construction away from risky, environmentally sensitive places while minimizing impacts to communities where substantial commitments of time and money have been made; S.Modify the LDC to state that areas within CBRS System Units are ineligible for most County expenditures and financial assistance for new infrastructure, except for central wastewater service and exemptions consistent with the federal restrictions under CBRA (such as emergency work). Individuals who choose to live and invest in these hazard -prone areas bear the full cost of development and rebuilding instead of passing it on to County taxpayers; Phase II 6.Maintain "discourage" language in CBRS Comprehensive Plan Policy. Consistent with changes to the LDC (recommendation 1),clarifythe policy's intent by establishing a presumption against development in CBRS lands. This presumption can be rebutted only by obtaining approval through the ROGO/Tier System; 7.Modify ROGO Comprehensive Plan and LDC provisions so that negative point(s) are assigned to all parcels in the CBRS; 8.Ensure that the ROGO/Tier System does not assign positive points or reward parcels based on the addition of infrastructure (i.e., roads, electric service,and fresh water supply) proposed or added after the date of designation as CBRS land. This policy would not apply to the addition of central wastewater services; and 9.Maintain the existing Comprehensive Plan policy limiting new access (via new bridges, new causeways, new paved roads, or new commercial marinas) to or on units of the CBRS. 6.0 REFERENCES USFWS 2012. The Coastal Barrier ResourcesAct, Harnessing the Power of Market Forces to Conserve America's Coasts and Save Taxpayers' Money, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Program Activities, August. http://www. fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf USFWS 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Barrier ResourcesAct website, http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/, updated 4/ 1 1 /2013. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 16 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J APPENDIX A The following are questions and tasks that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the public raised, and that Monroe County authorized Keith and Schnars to address. •Response K&S will evaluate the percentage of land and number of parcels within the Coastal Barrier See section 4.1 Resources System (CBRS) units that are designated Tier I or other Tiers such as: II, III, or IIIA; Using existing tier criteria, determine whether extension of infrastructure to outlying neighborhoods or other platted areas increases a parcel's likelihood of obtaining change in tier See section 4.6 classification from Tier Ito Tier 11, III, or IIIA; and Review the existing Comprehensive Plan policies and/or Land Development Code provisions See section 4.0 and related to CBRS units and determine whether the existing CBRS policies add any additional subsections protection to land over and above those policies and code provisions that govern Tier I land. Comprehensive accounting of parcels and acreage located in CBRS units in Monroe County (including areas that would require new infrastructure to pass through a CBRS unit). To include: CBRS Unit #, Parcel RE #, size of parcel, Tier, FLUM, district, location within Monroe County, See section 4.1 publicly or privately owned, vacant or developed, description of existing development (single family, multi -family, commercial, etc), type of infrastructure presently available (electricity, water, sewer, telephone, cable) including date the infrastructure was brought to the area. An analysis of how the establishment of full infrastructure in an area (under current laws) could See section 4.3 affect the assigning of points in the ROGO and NROGO system and how it could affect the Tier and 4.6 designation for properties in Monroe County. How are the numerous CBRS Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comp Plan being implemented See sections 4.4 today? and 4.9 Are there any disincentives to build in an area without utilities beyond the designation/classification See section 4.7 of Tier I lands? Is there any variation of protection of the CBRS units within the Tier System without the CBRS See section 4.10 Overlay ordinance? How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Goals Objectives and Policies in the Year 2010 See section 4.0 Comprehensive Land Use Plan were to be weakened or removed? and subsections How would CBRS lands be protected if the CBRS Overlay Ordinance in the Monroe County See section 4.0 and Code were to be weakened or removed? subsections How can Monroe County remove CBRS Goals Objectives and Policies from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and weaken or remove the prohibition in the Overlay Ordinance, and continue to See section 5.0 provide the same level of protection we have had for CBRS units throughout Monroe County? How are CBRS properties treated differently from other Tier I lands in the County? See sections 4.4 and 4.9 Does the Tier System provide for different levels of protection for lands targeted for See section 4.10 acquisition? Does the Tier System adequately implement the intent of the Comp Plan with regard to lands See section 4.0 within CBRS units? and subsections What protections currently exist for CBRS areas in the Comp Plan and LDRs See section 3.0 and Appendix C How protections for CBRS areas would change if those lands were subject only to the Tier See section 4.0 System I and subsections Review and determine any potential impacts if all CBRS Overlay policies and corresponding LDR See section 4.0 language be stricken entirely. I and subsections I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 17 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J Review and determine any potential impacts of adding the term "undeveloped CBRS areas" to the Comp Plan and Code. Example of suggested change: Add the word UNDEVELOPED as so noted (highlighted) below. In general, future development in the County should be directed to the maximum extent possible away from the UNDEVELOPED Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) units. This should be accomplished through land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and its implementing LDRs. Other actions which the County Based on the should take to discourage further private investment in UNDEVELOPED CBRS units include: recommendations (I) no new bridges, causeways, paved roads or commercial marinas should be permitted to or on in the report, it is unnecessary to make UNDEVELOPED CBRS units, a distinction between (2) shoreline hardening structures should not be permitted along shorelines of UNDEVELOPED CBRS developed and units; (3) public expenditures on UNDEVELOPED CBRS units should be limited to property acquisition, undeveloped parts of a CBRS unit. restoration and passive recreation facilities; (4) privately -owned undeveloped land located within the CBRS units should be considered for acquisition by the County, and (5) the County should coordinate with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) and private providers of electricity and telephone service to assess measures which could be taken to discourage extension of facilities and services to UNDEVELOPED CBRS units. Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:Add the following (below highlighted) CBRS Executive Summary statement, and direction (not to harm existing communities),to all sections of the Comp Plan which reference the CBRSAct so there is no future confusion as to the exact Federal Intent of the Act (undeveloped status was the underpinning of the law), and the Federal direction regarding what actions the County should NOT take (harming of existing communities). SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page I, Introduction See section 5.0 http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf "The undeveloped status of System lands was an important underpinning of the law. The idea was to help steer new construction away from risky, environmentally sensitive places where development was not yet found, not to hurt existing communities where serious commitments of time and money had already been made." Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:Add the following (below highlighted) statement, again from the CBRS executive Summary, Page I, Introduction so as to further clarify the Federal intent of the Act for the reader of the Comp Plan. SEE: The CBRS Executive Summary, Page I, Introduction See section 5.0 http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/TaxpayerSavi ngsfromCBRA.pdf The Act is the essence of free-market natural resource conservation; it in no way regulates how people can develop their land. but transfers the full cost from Federal taxpayers to the individuals who choose to build. The Comp Plan Update references the establishment of the CBRS Act in 1982, and does not to Monroe County reference the Reauthorization of the Act in 2000 which codified the criteria for determining the does not have the developed (or "undeveloped") status of an area for purposes of inclusion under the Act. authority to modify CBRS boundaries; the developed vs undeveloped status of an area is not relevant to the policy issues at hand. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFTPage 18 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J Review and determine any potential impacts associated with the suggestion to:ADD the (following) legal definition of "developed" for purposes of application of the CBRS Act and any local overlay, as is so noted in the CBRS ACT reauthorization of 2000, page 18, reference 6. http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/CBRA Digital_Mapping_Pilot_Project.pdf Monroe County "47 FR 35708: "A density threshold of roughly one structure per five acres of fastland is used for does not have the authority to modify categorizing a coastal barrier as developed... All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered developed, CBRS boundaries; even when there is less than one structure per five acres of fastland, if there is a full complement of the developed vs infrastructure in place ... A full complement of infrastructure requires that there be vehicle access to each undeveloped status lot or building site plus reasonable availability of a water supply, a waste water disposal system, and of an area is not electrical service to each lot or building site." relevant to the policy "50 FR 8700 states `A man-made structure is defined as a walled and roofed building constructed in issues at hand. conformance with Federal, State, or local legal requirements, with a projected ground area exceeding two hundred square feet."This criterion is codified in P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2. where a structure is defined as "a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, which is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent foundation; and covers an area of at least 200 square feet" Precedent: We need to keep in mind that any additional permitted development or intensification of a current Acknowledged use on coastal barrier islands will set a precedent that may prove to be costly and indefensible in court should it appear that there was "spot zoning" or other irregularities. What non-CBRS policies in the Comp Plan will help protect No Name Key's community character See section 4.11 as an off —grid island if the CBRS policies in the Comp Plan are removed? What non-CBRS ordinances in the Monroe County Code will protect No Name Key's community See section 4.11 character as off -grid if the CBRS overlay ordinance is weakened or removed? List the aspects of community character that could change on No Name Key if the island were to be brought onto the electric grid (visual effects, noise, etc). Qualitatively identify whether these See section 4.11 aspects would likely have a positive, negative, or neutral effect on community character. What data and analysis was used to justify the various changes in the ROGO and NROGO, which See Section served to weaken the Code regarding the existing level of protection of Community Character 4.5 includes a and Coastal Barrier Resources System units within the County, with the adoption of the Tier discussion of the System in 2007? protectiveness of the Tier System. No definitive evidence of weakening the protection of community character or CBRS was found. Determine whether the availability of infrastructure increases potential of development desirability See section 4.8 in an area that current does not have infrastructure. Evaluate the definition of "development" and determine whether it includes infrastructure See section 3.0 (water, sewer, roads, electric, cable, telephone), thereby being an improvement requiring County (see footnote) permitting or compliance with County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Policy Comprehensive history of Monroe County legislation pertaining specificallyto CBRS units. Include date of enactment and description of each particular Comp Plan provision and LDR. Include a description and history of how CBRS properties have been treated by the County in the ROGO See Appendix E and point system, NROGO point system and the Tier System, including all pertinent changes to those sections 4.4 and 4.9 laws from the version in place at the time of enactment to the current version and how each of those laws was implemented to have an effect on development of properties within CBRS units. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 19 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J APPENDIX B Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA, Public Law 97-348; 96 Stat. 1653; 16 U.S. C. 3501 et seq. ), which was later amended in 1990 by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA, P.L. 101-591; 104 Stat. 2931). The legislation was implemented as part of a Department of Interior (DOI) initiative to preserve the ecological integrity of areas that serve to buffer the U.S. mainland from storms and provide important habitats for fish and wildlife. In order to discourage further development in certain un- developed portions of barrier islands, the law prohibits the availability of new Federal financial assistance, including Federal flood insurance, in areas DOI desig- nates as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. • The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) protects coastal areas that serve as barriers against wind and tidal forces caused by coastal storms, and serve as habitat for aquatic species. • The CBRA protects coastal areas from development by limiting Federal financial assistance for develop- ment -related activities in designated areas. • To manage development, limit property damage, and preserve wildlife and natural resources, CBRA restricts Federal financial assistance, including disas- ter relief assistance provided by the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Rob- ert T. Stafford Act and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). • Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) bounda- ries and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) are es- tablished and mapped by the U.S. Department of In- terior's Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • Lenders should exercise special care with properties in or near these areas. • Only Congress can revise CBRS boundaries. ZONE VE\ ZONE.AE p�7 ZONEX %--___---L- \ ZONE VE Po % ¶ ZONE X I o ZONE AE \ r_ f a (EL 12) m m \ I 6ALT MARSHLNf C �—A—AY-SEAONT-N \ ATLANTIC OCEAN CBRS boundaries are identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) by patterns of backward slanting diagonal lines, both solid and broken. Responsibilities and Restrictions Various programs within FEMA have different respon- sibilities and restrictions under CBRA: • NFIP • Disaster Relief Assistance provided under the Robert T. Stafford Act, including: — Mitigation Grants — Public Assistance — Individual Assistance The USFWS also has responsibilities under CBRA. "FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and firs( responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and Improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards." Page 20 KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. FLORIDAS ILOCAL FIRM J CBRA and the NFIP • The NFIP cannot provide flood insurance coverage for structures built or substantially improved after the area is designated as a CBRS unit (initial designations went into effect October 1, 1983). • The NFIP may provide flood insurance for units built or substantially improved before the subject property is included in a designated CBRS unit. • If an NFIP-insured building within the CBRS unit is substantially improved or substantially damaged, the NFIP policy will be cancelled. • NFIP flood insurance can be provided within CBRS units for new structures supporting conservation uses. • Minimum NFIP floodplain management standards do not prohibit the rebuilding of substantially damaged buildings in CBRS units. However, such structures must meet the community's floodplain management regulations, and NFIP coverage is not available for such structures. CBRA and FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (H IA) Program • Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre -Disaster Mitigation (PDM), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC), and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) — Acquisition projects in CBRS units and OPAs are eligible only under PDM, FMA, RFC, and SRL, but not under HMGP. Acquisitions are eligible if they are consistent with the purposes of the CBRA, and qualify as projects for the study, management, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats. CBRA and Public Assistance • FEMA may reimburse or conduct emergency work such as debris removal and emergency protective measures to eliminate immediate threats to lives, public health, safety, and property. Advance consultation with USFWS is encouraged, but not required for these activities. A report to USFWS, however, is required. • FEMA may reimburse permanent work on certain types of publicly owned facilities that may be eligible for permanent repair assistance (but not expansion of) such as: — Essential links to larger systems. — Restoration of existing navigable channels. — Repair of energy facilities that are functionally dependent on a coastal location. — Special purpose facilities such as navigational aids and scientific research facilities. — Existing roads, structures, or facilities that are consistent with the purposes of CBRA. FEMA must consult with USFWS to allow comment before funding is approved for these activities. CBRA and Individual Assistance • FEMA may provide Individual Assistance to applicants located in CBRS units for the following: — Financial Temporary Housing Assistance (i.e., Rental Assistance), if they meet the eligibility requirements. — Medical, dental, and funeral expenses related to necessary expenses and serious needs. — Assistance to repair or replace personal property (e.g., furniture, clothing, and other necessities) if applicants prove they have permanently relocated outside the CBRS or OPAs. — Crisis Counseling, Disaster Unemployment Assistance, and Disaster Legal Services. • FEMA cannot provide Individual Assistance to applicants located in CBRS units for the following: — Housing Assistance (i.e., Direct Assistance, Repair, Replacement, or Permanent/Semi- Permanent Construction) for a housing unit located in CBRS units. — Miscellaneous personal property items, such as chainsaws, generators, dehumidifiers, etc. USFWS Responsibilities • Maintaining CBRS maps. • Maintaining the administrative record for each unit. • Consulting with Federal agencies to determine if funds can be spent within CBRS units. • Determining whether properties are within CBRS units. "FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and Improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards." I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFTPage 21 FLotuDM D,kocAL FIRM J FL.-98PP31A FL-98' FL-94 P3 i tom. P:�, FL-9� FL-90P FL•9ir FL-90 JOH N H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM Fal"s ho"o 4 170 Number of CBRS Units: 128 Number of System Units: 67 Number of Otherwise Protected Areas: 61 Total Acres: 677,334 Upland Acres: 118,566 Associated Aquatic Habitat Acres: 558,767 Shoreline Miles: 454 N �, f -01P V102P t17I.-03P ATLANTIC OCEAN ), S •�bAP t ,06P kP07 1108 FL-H' r ' 13P P24A yA P24 'i ri0 P2_1 s P21 A i. 811 a 141 FL-8 I C "' t t FL-80F FL:-721 P2s ktS12P P21A Wit. P21 AP F' r FL-70 P20P P19 P18, P18P FL -64t' I9w V FL-63P i _ IP FL-21P L•-23P �jr• y t L-34 FL-35f' FL:•60 tL=s]s FL-36P FL FL-53 2 i' FL-41 _- FL-39 FL•47P FL-40 FL-61P1/ FLU-54 r "T FL-42P 3 FL-60P� ' % FLF51 �( i� �'FL 44 FL-591p" FL48P FL-46 FL-57 ' 'FL• 46 FL-55 I Boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) shown on this map were transferred from the official CBRS maps for this area and are depicted on this map (in red) for informational purposes only. The official CBRS maps are G enacted by Congress via the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended, and are maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The official CBRS maps are available for download at http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/coastal barrier.html. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFT April 30, 2013Pa 9a 22 FLoRiDns LocnL FtRM Analysis of CBRS Policies and Regulations in Monroe County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Zoom History t. 0 { , 'I^I Barnes n df, Saund Shell Key Y 1 Boggy qwa P Key b 8 a 9 � T K f nm LW n w:• .,s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Zoom History 0 1�ienier F{ Plantation Key h� Islamorada l - Sheets Imagery;%Labeb- �+ Find Location CAS Find CBRS Available Layers e rd CBRS Units a,une� Street; ]mageryjLabek Topo USG"Iop. n LrFmd a Location CMS ■ Find I RRS Available Layers 0 Cj CBRS Units DRAFT April 30, 2013 Analysis of CBRS Policies and Regulations in Monroe County U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Barrier Resources S stem Ma er - Beta L-47P 4' ..�.v, � , z=et irrrageryj Labels iopo Find Location .9 C kRs Find CBRS Available Layers MI rA CBRS Units U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pleasure Streets In a e ,'Labels To °- � � rv: po USGS Topo _ :. 4, Find Location Zoom History MRS Find CBRS Available Layers ` e CBRS Units CBRS Units E] Otherwise Protected Area El System Unit 4.1 0 i3a� 6iy. r of L° a. AR`,C1Sr 9 cB DRAFT April 30, 2013 APPENDIX C Existing Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Objectives and Existing Land Development Code Related to CBRS Comprehensive Plan Objective 102.8 Monroe County shall take actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. [9J-5.006(3)(b)4] Policy 102.8.1 Monroe County shall discourage developments which are proposed in units of Coastal Barrier Resources System CBRS [9J-5.006(3)(c)6] Policy 102.8.2 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, 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). [9J-5.005(3)(c)6] Policy 102.8.3 By January 4, 1997, shoreline hardening structures, including seawalls, bulkheads, groins, rip -rap, etc., shall not be permitted along shorelines of CBRS units. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6] Policy 102.8.4 By January 4, 1998, privately -owned undeveloped land located within the CBRS units shall be considered for acquisition by Monroe County for conservation purposes through the Monroe County Natural Heritage and Park Program. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6] Policy 102.8.5 Monroe County shall take efforts to discourage the extension of facilities and services provided by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of electricity and telephone service to CBRS units. These efforts shall include providing each of the utility providers with: I . a map of the areas of Monroe County which are included in CBRS units; 2. a copy of the Executive Summary in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group, which specifies restrictions to federally subsidized development in CBRS units; 3. Monroe County policies regarding local efforts to discourage both private and public investment in CBRS units [9J-5.006(3)(c)6] Policy 103.2.10 Monroe County shall take immediate actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. (See Objective 102.8 and related policies.) [9J-5.006(3)(b)4] Policy 103.2.4 Upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, Monroe County shall require that the following analyses be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new public facilities or the significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of existing public facilities: I. assessment of needs 2. evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected sites; and 3. assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 25 FLoiuDM LocnL FIRM 9 The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach/berm areas, units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed uplands (particularly high quality hammocks and pinelands), habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, offshore islands, and Conservation Land Protection Areas. Monroe County shall require that public facilities be developed on the least environmentally sensitive lands and shall prohibit the location of public facilities on North Key Largo, unless no feasible alternative exists and such facilities are required to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. GOAL 209 Monroe County shall discourage private land uses on its mainland, offshore islands and undeveloped coastal barriers, and shall protect existing conservation lands from adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands. [9J- 5.012(3)(a); 9J-5.013(2)(a)] Objective 209.3 Monroe County shall take immediate actions to discourage private development in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). (See Future Land Use Objective 102.8 and related policies.) [9J-5.012(3) (b)I] Objective 215.2 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall initiate programs which require exploration of feasible alternatives to funding of public facilities and infrastructure which will result in the loss of or damage to significant coastal or natural resources, including, but not limited to, wilderness areas, wildlife habitats, and natural vegetative communities. [9J-5.012(2)(b) I I ] Policy 215.2.1 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which require consideration of feasible design and siting alternatives for new public facilities and infrastructure proposed within the coastal zone in order to minimize adverse impacts to natural resources. [9J-5.012(3)(c) I] Policy 215.2.3 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. [9J-5.012(3)(c) I] Objective 217.4 With the following exceptions, public expenditures within the CHHA shall be limited to the restoration or enhancement of natural resources and parklands, expenditures required to serve existing development such as the maintenance or repair of existing infrastructure, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety: I . public expenditures within the CHHA may be permitted where required to meet adopted level of service standards or to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times and where no feasible alternatives to siting the required facilities within the CHHA exist. 2. public expenditures within the CHHA may be permitted for improvements and expansions to existing public facilities, which improvements or expansions are designed to minimize risk of damage from flooding. [9J-5.012(3) (b)5] Policy 217.4.2 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. [9J-5.012(3)(c) I ] I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFTPage 26 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J Policy 1301.7.12 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall initiate discussions with the FKAA and providers of electricity and telephone service to assess the measures which could be taken to discourage or prohibit extension of facilities and services to Coastal Barrier Resource Systems (CBRS) units. Policy 1401.2.2 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. Land Development Code Sec. 101-1. - Definitions Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) means those 15 (CBRS) units in the county designated under the Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, comprising undeveloped coastal barriers and all associated aquatic habitats including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets and near shore waters. Sec. 130-122. - Coastal barrier resources system overlay district (a) Purpose. The purpose of the coastal barrier resources system overlay district is to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan by prohibiting the extension and expansion of specific types of public utilities to or through lands designated as a unit of the coastal barrier resources system. (b) Application. The coastal barrier resources system overlay district shall be overlaid on all areas, except for Stock Island, within federally designated boundaries of a coastal barrier resources system unit on current flood insurance rate maps approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which are hereby adopted by reference and declared part of this chapter.Within this overlay district, the transmission and/or collection lines of the following types of public utilities shall be prohibited from extension or expansion: central wastewater treatment collection systems; potable water; electricity, and telephone and cable. This prohibition shall not preclude the maintenance and upgrading of existing public utilities in place on the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived and shall not apply to wastewater nutrient reduction cluster systems. (Code 1979, § 9.5-258; Ord. No. 43-2001, § 1) I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 27 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J APPENDIX D Comparison of Subdivisions within CBRS Units to Tier Criteria Tier Subdivision Environmentally Sensitive Within Conservation& Minimal infrastructure. CBRS Percent Current Tier Paved Potable Electricity Upland Habitat StatelFederal Known locations of threatened & Residential Minimal (paved roads, Draft unit (mm&key) developed Designation roads water (Habitat GIS Layer data) Acquisition endangered species Conservation FLUM development potable water;. boundary electricity) Treasure Trove 1 &2 1- Yes 1- Yes 1-Yes Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 6 of 6 FL-35 (SR 905, North Key Largo) 0.00 % 2-No 2-No 2-No Yes (Hammock) North Key Largo Hammocks FF Area (penall(potenty Drlly tectedsuitable habifor 9 federally rotecfed species) Yes (RC) Yes Yes criteria of Tier l Lig Elbow Light Club Yes (Hammock, Developed & Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 5 of 6 FL-35 (SR 905, North Key Largo) 5.90% Yes Yes Yes Mangroves) North Key Largo Area (potentially suitable habitat for 9 Yes (RC) Yes No criteriaofTierl Hammocks FF federallyprotected species) J.H.T Yes (Hammock, Mangroves, Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 4 of 6 FL-35 (SR 905, North Key Largo) 4.80% Yes Yes Yes Developed &Undeveloped Land North Key Largo Hammocks FF Area (potentially suitable habitat for 9 federall rofected s ties No (RM) Yes No criteria of Tier I Atlantic View Estates Yes (Hammock, Bufbnwood & Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets all 6 FL-35 (SR 905, North Key Largo) 0% partial partial partial Mangroves) North Key Largo Area (potentially suitable habitat for 9 Y.(RC) Yes Yes criteriaofTierl Hammocks FF federally rofected species) Largo Edmar partial partial Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets all6 FL-35 (SR 905, North Key Largo) 0 % (no) partial (no) Yes (Hammock) North Key Largo Area (potentiallysudable habitat for 9 Yes (RC) Yes Yes criteria of Tier Hammocks FF federall rotected s ties Ocean Reef Shores Yes (Hammock & Developed Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 4 of 6 FL-35 (SR 905, Nodh Key Largo) 15.40 % Yes Yes Yes Land) North Key Largo Area (potentially suitable habitat for No (RM) Yes No criteria of Tier I Hammocks FF federall rotected s cies am Shores Go,, Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 3 of 6 FL-35 N (SR 905, North Key Largo) 34.4. % I Yes Yes Yes Yes? (Undeveoped Land) North Key Largo Hammocks FF Area (potentially suitable habitat for 9 federally protected species) No (RM) Yes No criteria of Tier I Yes? appears to be mainly Yes Partial Largo Beach Developed Land & Florida Keys Identified in USFWS Species Focus (Developed & Meets 4 of 6 FL-39 (includes Tierl and lll) 42.60% I&III partial partial partial Mangroves with some Ecosystem FF Area (potentially habitat for Hammock-RM) Yes Yes criteria oiTier l (MM 91, Tavernier) Hammock, Salt Marsh & Scrub Project federally protected species) (We6ands with some Dophin Estates No (Exotic, Developed & Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 4 of 6 FL-50 (No Name Key) 1620 % Yes No No Undeveloped Land) Coupon Bight/Key suitabltectede habitat for 9 Area (potent(penally llyprotected No (MCF) Yes Yes criteria of Tier I Project Deer FF Project federally protected species) Galleon Bay Revised Yes (Hammock & Undeveloped Yes Idenfifed in USFWS Species Focus 5 of 6 FL-50 (No Name Key) 0% partial No No Land) CouponMeets Areaederallyprteally cted habies)tat ior9 No (MCF) Yes Yes criteria ofTier l Deer Pmjet Deer FF Project federally protected species) Tuxedo Park Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets all 6 FL-50 (No Name Key) 0% 1 No No No Yes (Pineland & Hammock) Coupon Bight/Key Area (potentially suitable habitatfor 9 Yes (RC) Yes Yes criteria of Tier Deer FF Pro ect federall rotected species) Ocean Heights Yes Idenfifed in USFWS Species Focus Meets all FL-50 (No Name Key) 0% 1 No No No Yes (Pineland) Coupon Bight/Key Area (potenfiallysutable habitat for 9 Yes (RC) Yes Yes criteria of Tier Deer FF Pro ect federally protected species) Refuge Point Yes (Hammock, Freeshwater Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets all FL-50 (No Name Key) 0% 1 No No No wetland, Butonwood, Scrub Coupon Bight/Key Area (potentially suitable habitatfor9 Yes (RC & C) Yes Yes criteria of Tier Mangrove & Mangroves) Deer FF Project federally protected species) No (Buttonwood, Scrub Yes Identified in USFWS Species Focus FL-52 Buccaneer Beach Estates 0% No No No Mangrove, Mangroves, Salt Florda Keys Area (potentially suitable habitat for Yes (RC) Yes Yes Meets 5 of 6 (Middle Torch Key) Marsh, Water - withsmall Ecosystem FF federally protected species) criteria ofTier l patch of Hammack proect Yes (Mangroves, Scrub Yes Idenfifed in USFWS Species Focus FL-52 Middle Torch Key Estate 2 % 1 partial No Yes Mangrove, Salt Marsh, Florida Keys Area (potentiallysudablo habitat for 9 Yes (RC, C & RM) Yes Yes Meets all (Middle Torch Key) (no) Hammock, Buttonwood, & Ecosystem FF {(potentiederally protected species) criteria of Tier Freshwatsrwetland Pro ect Yes (Hammock, Butonwood, Yes Florida Keys Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets 4 of 6 FL-52 Tor h (Big oroKey) 20% 1 Yes No Yes Mangroves, Scmb Mangrove & Ecosystem FF Area (potentially suitable habitat for No (RL) Yes Yes? criteria of Tier I Devevloped Lands) Pro federally protected species) Rainbow Beach Yes (Hammack, Freshwater Yes Florida Keys Identified in USFWS Species Focus Meets all 6 FL-52 (Big Torch Key) 0.2% 1 partial No No wetland, Scrubmangrove Ecosystem FF Area (potentially suitable habitat for 9 Yes (RC & C) Yes Yes criteria of Tier Mangroves, and Water) Proem federally protected species) I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFTPage 28 FLoRiDM LocnL FIRM 9 APPENDIX D Comparison of Subdivisions within CBRS Units to Tier Criteria - continued Tier III -A Tier III Environmentally NOT Environmentally Complete CBRS Subdivision Sensitive Upland Sensitive Upland Existing Substantially infrastructure and Habitat Habitat (dispersed 8 platted Developed (50 % or (paved roads, Draft (mm&key) isolated fragments) subdivision more development) potable water,; (1 acres) electricity) FL-35 Treasure Trove 1 &2 Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (SR 905, North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 Elbow Light Club Yes No Yes No Yes Meets 2of4 (SR 905, Nodh Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 J_H.T Yes No Yes No Yes Meets 2of4 (SR 905, North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 Atlantic View Estates Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (SR 905, North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 rgo LaEdmar Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (SR 905, Nodh Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 Ocean Reef Shores Yes No Yes No yam. Meets 2 of 4 (SR 905, North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III FL-35 Gulfsheam Shores Yes No Yes No Yes Meets 2 of (SR 905, North Key Largo) criteria of Tier III Largo Beach Meets 1-2 of 4 FL-39 (includes Tier and III) Yes Yes No No criteria oilier III (MM 91, Tavernier) FL-50 Dolphin Estates No No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (No Name Key) criteria of Tier III FL-50 Galleon Bay Revised Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (No Name Key) criteria of Tier III FL-50 Tuxedo Park Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (No Name Key) criteria of Tier III FL-50 Ocean Height Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (No Name Key) criteria of Tier III FL-50 Refuge Point Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (No Name Key) criteria of Tier III FL-52 Buccaneer Beach Estates No No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (Middle Torch Key) criteria of Tier III FL-52 Middle Torch Key Estate Yes No Yes No No Meet 1 of 4 (Middle Torch Key) criteria of Tier III FL-52 Dom's Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (Big Torch Key) criteria of Tier III FL-52 Rainbow Beach Yes No Yes No No Meets 1 of 4 (Big Torch Key) criteria of Tier III I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. DRAFT Page 29 � FLo iDM LocAL Ftpm J APPENDIX E History of Monroe County CBRS Legislation July I, 1985: Florida's State Comprehensive Plan became effective. 1986: The County adopted the State Comprehensive Plan as an interim land use control. November I, 1990: The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) Act of 1982; expanded the CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys and other areas; and added a new category of coastal barriers:" otherwise protected areas" (OPAs). April 15, 1993: The County adopted the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"), pursuant to Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S., which included the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies identified in Appendix C. However, subsequent legal proceedings prompted a Final Order and Recommendations by the Administration Commission. The effect of the Final Order was that 90 percent of the Plan became effective but the disputed provisions required further action. Because of this Final Order, it was necessary to amend the Plan in order to bring it into compliance and to make it consistent with the "Principles for Guiding Development" as required by Chapter 380, F.S. January 4, 1996: The Plan was amended pursuant to Rule 9J-14.022, F.A.C. January 2, 1996: The Plan was adopted by Rule 28-20.100, Part I. July 14, 1997: The remainder of the Plan was adopted by Rule 28-20.100, Part 11, resulting in the "Work Program"; December 18, 2001: Ordinance 043-2001 was adopted creating MCC Section 9.5-258,"Coastal Barrier Resources System Overlay District", which included a prohibition of the extension and expansion of utilities to or through lands designated as CBRS unit. September 17, 2008: Subsequent to a Court Order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants: Taxpayers for the Electrification of No Name Key, Inc, et. al. v Monroe County (Case No. 99-819-CA-19), Ordinance 020-2008 was adopted by the County which amended MCC Section 9.5-258 to allow for the provision of utilities to develop properties located within the CBRS Overlay District. December 12, 2008: Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) rejected Ordinance 020-2008 for inconsistency with the Rule 28-29 F.A.C.: Land Planning - Part Vill Boundary And Principles For Guiding Development For The Florida Keys Area Of Critical State Concern. At that time, DCA determined an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was required in order to resolve the conflict between it and MCC Section 9.5-258. February 08, 2009: Ordinance 003-2009 was adopted rescinding Ordinance 0202-2008. Thus the original language of MCC Section 935-258, which prohibits extension and expansion of utilities within the CBRS units, is currently in effect. I, KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A. Page 30 FLoiuDM Sig LOCAL FIRM J 11011111111 11011111111 11011111111 11011111111 11011111111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 1111101111110111 �■m��m �■m��m non non non II�II non non II�II non non non non non ■■�■�1■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1■■�I1��■111■11 ■ ■■�■�I■■�I 1��■111■11 ' ■■�■�1■■ I ��■111■11 ■■�■�1 ■�I1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1 ■�I1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�I ■�I1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�I■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�I■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ■■�■�1■■�I 1��■111■11■■ ,�I�II■�111��111�11�� Br- /rn'nnD OOV/Oc oz w� � � d D?mac o _�ZCn^rODD ft,VA �� I (D? DO>F �. ram �r s wyD rnz:j c/)nD<n n0Drn�O OZZD ZZ q --� - RI 0 3 b 9 rl n � O � O A' I,< n' O — r N a a 0 m. a 3 0 (D v' -1 m (D P Pi N o O n a � rt wE— F— O O . a rt rt n fD o O 0 n 3 n o n (D a -a (i (D P' (D N ct m O 0 N a (D 00 p' O < d O OIQ A) (D � p' � P.)S n a O 70.0 aa N O (D < (D Ln a -v _ (D Q) a 0 to as (D N .. � n X z o v ° 3 z c O n X mL _ fD' Z < N m m � O ? n rt o -0 ° N o s � n i (D' N n• N O. � � n (D � O O � � n � � O PA O m O 0. m or 3 C. � O =3 c • • m • • cn c7q �, � a < N 0 �D =3 O p O N (� �• C-+ 3 A• p Q -1 _ Z Q aC: O fD (D �' X O N• n -0 p C �' W �' 0 A O 0 N e+ o LA < 3 O n 3 m 3 r° a �- m (D [D (D n m p 0 �D mFD70 N• c)A a a (D �- 3 N N o (D 3 Q o m n w O fD a O [D O 3 m (A 0 3 x 3 F) (D 3 -0 w M rD cl 3 C Ln C) Vl CP (A z cn -n - () Z 0 cn 0 e-t 0 z 0 3 (D m 0 n 0 0 0 13 -1 we rot 0 rt D (D N 3 <. ° � v rt O C-t (D S , (D O N N � a N � N (D a� O (D a o c-�:� 0 � w � n rt O a O a (D � O (D ((DD N = a O Ort a �� (D O (D N C: (D (D rt 0_ tt II w II u N- w 0 �o 00 — O n (D rt fD Z oa oa p w a rt D (D N (D r't rt fD [D fD PJ fD � O 1 fD N (A C3- N N fD v M z7�f o� m w a O m m O 3 a o rt :- m 0 3�'�� n O< TI d�_ C � <' - � N O (D � (ND m :D O < r n � N � Lq �o r ACRES �sffl O^Oo M J � � s O O� M-,I% N. M m x a ju M y 3 O w w V r-N -v rt n rl a E cn Pr f+ f+ m m 3 C� -. O f+ —ft w f+ s m MO f+ m O n f+ MO lu n m ca-~ L° = co Ln (D ` (D c a -� -� =' ova m (D m °_ rD < (DD u� A' r+ n � n O .-� �� (Dch (D rt o�o� C-t N C-r r n�� 3 X O V m 3 C 2 a I oa r N c o rn 3 (D o � o vo (D n o O rD -o (D X (D 3 N o n (D O O N 3 (D � (D n No (D . (D lw RA O vvv�. 0 0 0 0 O 3 3 N (D N r _v (MD ((D v, CD• 00 O � C o (D m v �. N N vo��rD oa (D �< o Z O O Z r' w m O L C: o- r m (D . .q -0 _ (D r O 2. r m :3:' (D rta (D 0*0 m 3 m 3' �� Vf O m a � F n m o � -0 3 0 o � n oa (D � w a � z 0 O w (D o M, O 71�r M -s 3 M + �• m r1 M ; o m _ O r+ —3�� m� a as � -„ -„ -n -„ -n -n '-1 -Ti -Ti 71 71 cn cn ul cn 61 U, . r cn r ul r ul r w 7 co r Cl) 7 w 7 w 7 w r w 7 w ch N N N N O O O O O CO U, (T cn Cn cn CT cn C 3 r w Y —{ c� W c a m m CD ri ^. pcn QcOi � a CD � p < <- m CD CD 0 3 CD m r c" -1 OCD CD x 0 a �' cD o ar p Oo c W m _�_ 0 cn 3 0 0 � m cn Q- m o c � mmi Cn C) < CD cv, CD CD o m CD 0 o a' w m c W l< o m 0 cn CD CD Q (n m N O N �, W FD � _ Cn cD 17 Q �' (O .--. CD O Z z CD ca.Z CC) < O m (n O Z O O CD c0 O O N c0 aZ O O :ru 3 Q (n O 51 Z O - O O 0 Z — O (n Z CJl Q Q a' 3 W3 _ o z m m m z oz z o � m m w 3 T. r s 3 w o oCD CDCD CD to CD r CD aD < m < co cn 0 < CD o o co co 0 0 m' m m m m m m m m m m m m CD CD m m m CD m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m v - a ul w w Ln 4 w 41 ¢, ¢, a cn ¢, — o = o = _ = o 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 — rn rn rn rn rn � � � � � rn rn rn rn rn rn rn � Cp °' v' w' w' w' w' m' v' v' v' a,' FD v' m- 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 c� m cCR CR '-R cam° c� CD m co m m m m M m CD CD m m m _. m m .) m m cn m m m m m m cn m m c m a m N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n C/> CO (A (n (n N N (n (n N 0 (n N Cn (n N -� -+ -+ N N N N O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O A A A A A ? A ? A A A Q Q Q Q n n q q q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m — O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O 9 m m m m m m m m � m m m m co m m m so ell, C /�. o v, m �� x // lV f+ m m m f+ FD f+ /�� • o V rl O N •v (/ rI f+ m 3 r C°o� 0 � r+ (D m ((D D n:(D 0 n ;)D mA) a Z O► c 1% m WwWz �z (�osz �M a- (D a a o v m `� _�-� Z� �- A -�� (� av'i N N N 3 O 6QQ 0 w 3 n n (D r, O 00 Ur 3 n - O r' p c (D (� < < s sv a r, 3 v `D o �• fD Vf fl. _ — rt m fD (o ani Pi � a S Q c. r+' O O r; 0 c a a 3 C(D c C: r) O� a ((D � f p� lD S p� O l< � S S r-t0 a = rt O (D O.4 m Q O O m (D m (D 0--1-0 z z z z m 3 N O -v O O O '% (D O (A 0rt S• 3 ft IN O 0 �D �• o I ' Z n CD n O n 3 0 � � n � � a M m m O m 3 m C � a o a 33�< < m a o=c�_. < -• a a as � 3' o m M (D' ° ° m c c^ s � o MN0m m n n m X m m s O m Be O s m r 0 G) SIrZD rD O (D o° Z rD ° as w O (D N n (D (DZ d ((DD O p, rD m Z (D (Drt X O 7� c a N O O O O � o .� o O c L-t O n o `D n ri O O `< O O N rD (D ° N rD O — n -17 II O 60 � N Ln N N � O D n a � m Z ° m N O a o i n a (D (D Z O (D 0 rD � � N (D A Z O m 3 x O .. C) O m n = n o D o y 3 3 n < Z 3 C. fD v, I E O �O 3 0 y 3 y N n O .� O ~' M O• n .� O fn < (D,rt O SD N p 0 3 O ON (D 07Q• � N 0 : orcl7� � (AO ffDD o u 3 i 3 Z a z -" vd _' m O (Dc fD n O < W, C fD � � � � __ � � Z N n Ort `" C w 3 0 a m< m fD < < Pr1 N '�-,'• �. (D (D N O r7 O N < rt Z o (D O 0 3 m m N `° N U- Z r, a (DEL r cD C EL LA fD 3 (D C '-h (D T m D r- LA `" O ^ lD N lD OrQ (D D m (D fD iD ppj r7 O n w rY N O 7 �r 3 -1 °p N CD = y CD. n w rr aQ O O p O O �. N M n 0 3 a3 . m _ am s n I BOA fD fD O w 0 O cr 0 'C p0 m M Vf p -- _d 0 N' < < A �. X n c CD = `�=3 C. � S C3rl � �N�•��Q� (D Pi (D � .s _. o. ^ D � < M -h — n w „ A� m < N m rr' ACRES n O n W A. W V r� A . o St., 3 `•" O a =3 m � r 0 O � n LnW :1. 3 C � n m N � (D (D N m rt O (ND a � n � � m (D a O a N N � o�Q � n rt (D 3. 3. n� �C-t N � m (D O'Q = 3 C ((DD rt O N e" r C n c (D O . a D < m 3 O O a C r s (D p N n O (D (D rt o rt � C: m O v N C-t 0 fD 3 R m N (D 3 o O -p N C rt orq O' L. O O"Q Gi E' � 0 EA rmt a -q M s m � O 3 _ as �• O s n' n� vo � N3 a o O in' m A� n O fl. 3 .. 3 m a f °. rt O L•J m �_ m� �, o. = w o �. r D 0 ,-t 0 r-t (D m f" r O ( S -0r't N Vf rp X cwn w _ w rD -v 0 p O n O 0 0 5 O N N+ �. OIQ Ocn O w m = ri = CD rD O q n < aq a O N � �_ N < n- -1 n C-+ r+ O `•�' in' n O d a m O w a v —• w w a "' O H n O n '-'• m O 3 N Vi (U 0 rT O < O• n OQ Q" 0 rt 00rt (o 0 N . V) LA< O I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU INTEND TO TELL YOUR GRANDCHILDREN! Say 10,15, 20 years from now, when sustainable, renewable energy has rightly taken its place as the preferred (smart) energy source not only for the Florida Keys, but nation- wide... and your grandchild comes to you and says, "Grandpa, we're doing a class report on that old-fashioned, fossil -fuel energy source and the kids in class were making fun of me because they said you voted to put it on an island that was off -grid and totally capable of living entirely on sustainable solar energy. Why did you do that? Well, they said the "super -majority" of residents there wanted the commercial grid. But Grandpa, there were only 22 signed up for the grid, that's only one more than half of the 43 homes. Did you know only 7 of them actually lived on the island and only 3 before the restrictive laws were in place? And besides, whenever I say I want something, mom always asks me if I really need it Well, they said they needed it to run their coffee pots and A/C, so they could get rid of their generators. And, Beth Vickrey said she spent over $500 a month on fuel for her generator and that most of her neighbors spent as much as $1000 a month. But Grandpa, there were homes there that had every major appliance and even A/C and they didn't need to run generators and some didn't even own generators. And besides, why would they choose to waste that much money on running generators, instead of upgrading their solar systems so they could quit running or better yet, get rid of their generators like their pro -solar neighbors? Technologies have made solar a viable, stand-alone energy source. That doesn't sound like they really cared about being "green." Well, Beth also said that she had 20 of those "dirty" lead -acid batteries under her house and when the sun wasn't shinning at night, she didn't have any electric. But Grandpa, I read that Beth only had golf -cart batteries, no wonder she ran out of electric. Besides, the proper deep -cycle batteries could easily power her home overnight, since the same batteries are used to keep critical operations like air traffic control towers and hospitals running during commercial power outages. Well, they said if they grid -tied, they could sell their "extra, clean solar energy" back to the grid and that would be greener than storing it in those dirty batteries. But Grandpa, why did they call them "dirty" when lead -acid batteries (just like they have in their cars and boats) are considered an environmental success story, because in the US, over 96% are recycled. When compared to aluminum cans at only 64% and glass bottles at only 38%, they are the clear leaders in the field and have been at the top of the list for over a decade. Besides, grid -tying an existin solar system to the dirty, regressive, 20th century grid can't be greener, but an outrageous, absurd backward step. Well, I guess we felt sorry for them. They spent all that money to put the poles up. But Grandpa, that is exactly what they said they planned you would do. They should have waited like they were advised, but instead insisted they wanted it put up immediately, even though it was against County Code. Didn't you find that was completely disrespectful to Monroe County? Besides, KEYS Energy said that part of that money was set aside for removal and they would only be out the labor, because the poles, wires and hardware could be re -used. Well, the bottom line was, they said "it was their right" and we'd already protected NNK for decades. But Grandpa, after years of careful study, Monroe County adopted — and the State Planning Agency approved — local laws to protect the Keys' few remaining off -grid Coastal Barriers. Those protective laws were in place for decades before 19 of those 22 chose to buy homes there. And,15 of them did not even live on No Name Key. How could it be their "right" if they knowingly chose to buy their vacation home in an already lawfully restricted area? More importantly, what justification validated changing those laws? It's embarassing that you took away one of the few areas where people who wanted to live off -grid could be proud of living in a sustainable community. I really want to know why? From: Kandy Kimble <keyfortwo@gmail.com> Subject: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE COMP PLAN Date: May 15, 2013 11:06:02 AM EDT To: Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov, Rice-David@monroecounty-fl.gov, Carruthers-Heather@monroecounty-fl.gov, Kolhage-Danny@monroecounty-fl.gov, Murphy-Sylvia@monroecounty-fl.gov Bcc: Alicia Putney <micalnnk@aol.com> Esteemed Mayor and Commissioners of Monroe County, My husband and I are asking that you consider the content of this email BEFORE making a decision regarding the current Comp Plan at the BOCC Hearing today: -The Board of County Commissioners has been given misinformation regarding No Name Key. Almost all of the generators in use on NNK are owned and used by those demanding commercial power. The SOLAR COMMUNITY is much greener than the commercial power people would have you believe. Sustainable energy MUST prevail! -We believe (as do many, many others) that those demanding commercial power, do so for their personal monetary gain. -The off -grid island of No Name Key is a unique green community, the likes of which is found nowhere else in the Country. NNK should be used, by The State of Florida, as a role model for alternative energy source. -All property owners bought or built on No Name with full knowledge that the island was not served by commercial utilities. -Infrastructure increases development expectations and ultimately leads to increased development. -No Name Key provides habitat for the Key deer and five other federally listed species that need protection from the secondary impacts of development. -No Name Key is a federally designated Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) unit. We close with a request that the Monroe County Board of Commissioners uphold, rather than change, their current Comp Plan. Please do not make this about egos, personal power or monetary gain. This is about the land and the lives it protects. Respectfully, Harold and Kandy Kimble Full -Time Residents 1909 Bahia Shores Rd. No Name Key, FL 33043 The Solar Community of No Name Key 1934 No Name Drive No Name Key, Florida 33043 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Monroe County Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting May 15, 2013, Key Largo, Florida Agenda Item I-i Mayor Neugent and Fellow Monroe County Commissioners: On February 26, 2013, the BOCC approved Option A, which states, "If K&S data indicates the prohibition of extension of utilities to or through CBRS language further protects the environment, the County staff would recommend no changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code." In fact, this is what happened. K&S found that an amendment to the CBRS Overlay ordinance to lift the prohibition of utilities to or through a CBRS unit would weaken the existing level of environmental protection. This is precisely why K&S is recommending a Comprehensive Plan amendment to create negative ROGO points for development proposed in CBRS areas. Clearly, your decision today should be to recommend no changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Land Development Code. To decide otherwise is a bad idea for three compelling reasons. 1.) By State Statute amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must not only be consistent with individual Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan, they need to be consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a whole Quoting from a 1999 letter regarding a comprehensive plan amendment to allow electricity to be extended to No Name Key, Planning Director Marlene Conaway states "there are simply too many policies in the Comprehensive Plan which would be in conflict with an amendment of this nature. Allowing the proposed amendment would require those other policies to be amended to a point that could be in conflict with state statutes." (See the attached Conaway letter.) As a matter of law, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that allowing new infrastructure in CBRS areas is consistent with the overall intent of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 2.) As stated in the Year 2010 Technical Document when defining Future Land Use Concept one of the three basic land use determinants of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is "enhancement of community character." As conceded in Section 4.11 the Report by K&S, aspects of No Name Key's unique community character would be changed if the island were connected to commercial power. As a matter of law, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that allowing new infrastructure on No Name Key would be consistent with the basic land use determinant, the enhancement fI of community character. (See Table 6, pages 14-16, K&S Report to the BOCC.) 3.) Changing the Comprehensive Plan and the Code in response to being pressured sets a dangerous precedent It sends a damaging message that Monroe County will yield to pressure and change its laws. The electric poles on No Name Key were constructed illegally and in direct conflict with the decisions of this Board. The removal of them will not cost Monroe County a penny. The existence of these illegal poles should not influence the direction of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. As a matter of law, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the body of policies and regulations consistently enforced over the last eighteen years by the BOCC is now irrelevant. In closing, we ask that you please show the citizens of Monroe County you will not be pressured to take actions that in the long run will hurt the environment. Please show the citizens of Monroe County that you will follow the existing Comprehensive Plan's policies to protect and enhance the unique community character of No Name Key as an off -grid island. Please choose Option A. Sincerely, Alicia Putney, President The Solar Community of No Name Key County of Monroe 299i Owssea Hishw&Y Mayor skirky FrommN Disc. 3 Strst 400 Mates' I m Tan Gemp NmVK Dist. 2 MwvA" F'W" 33030 COMMO W Wilhdnift Hrrny, Disk. t V oica (303) 229.2500 Coaatt WOW Nat WitUM% Disk. 4 FAX: (305) 2W2536 ip Cammmiaur MWy XU' Rdck Dist. 5 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # Z 200 004171 December 21,1999 Mr. Frank Grecurnan, Esq. Greenman and Manz 5900 Overseas Highway Suite 40 Marathon, FL 33050 RE. Text Amendment to allow electrykatWx of No Name Key Dear Mr. Greenman: This letter is in response to our meeting with you and Mr. Ealm on December 7, 1999. As you will recall, this meeting was held to discuss the Planning Department's position on a possible Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow for the extension of electrical service to No Name Key. The idea of a comprehensive plan amendment was proposed by your clients as a possible way to settle the suit your clients have brought against Monroe County and City Electric System. We appreciate the list of Comprehensive Plan policies you submitted at this meeting as justification for your client's position. The staff and I have had a chance to review the Comprehensive Plan policies related to this matter, and we find that we would not be able to support a comprehensive plan amendment which would allow electricity to be extended to No Name Key. Part of our rationale for this decision is that there are simply too rnarty policies in the Comprehensive Plan which would be in conflict with an amendment of this nature. Allowing the proposed amendment would require these other policies to be amended to a point that could be in conflict with state statutes. Mr. Fr ok l9r mutt l:eq• December 2l, 19S 4 hot Consequently, the Planning Deperauent would respectfully decline to rocoauuatd a text amendamt. to the Year 2010 ComeMhg ive Plan which would alter existing policies so as to &How for the extension of electrical service to No Natne Key. Should you have any additional Questions, Please feel fife to contact the Planning Staff or myself at (305) 299 2500. Thank You. Sincerely, K Marlene Conaway7 Pluming Director CC: Timothy J. McGarry, AiCP; Director of Growth Management Kam Cabanas, Esq.; Morgan and Hendrick Kimberly Opm, Comprehensive Planning Manager Chad Meadows, AICP; Senior Comprehensive Plana File Outlook- annempress@hotmail.com https://blu154.mail.live.com/default.aspx?id=64855 Search email Folders Inbox 70 Junk 5 Drafts 40 Sent Deleted 66 Anne memos 17 Crew pictures p Resident of No Name Key against commercial power no name house insur... no name key informati.. Real Estate mail 13 solar information 172 New folder Quick views Michael Press 5/13/13 Actions To: Commissioner.Balbis@psc.state.fl.us, Commissioner.Edc Dear Commissioners, As a resident on No Name Key of over 13 years as well as an electronic engineer and Solar business owner, I would like to inform you that bringing commercial power to No Name Key is a giant step in the wrong direction. The argument of net metering is not valid as it is now cost effective for homes to produce more power than they consume every month of the year, and battery technology has made giant steps forward. Most homes on No Name have very small arrays with old technology making grid connection unfeasible without a large expense for the small return. Please don't base your opinion on real estate developers or companies which make a living tying miniscule solar arrays to the grid, the only smart grid is the grid you do not have to connect toH Please read the attached link before making this monumental mistake. htip://www.heraldextra.com/news/new-batteDL-gould-change world-one-house-at-a-timelarticlebo372fd8-3f3c- iide-ac77-ooicc4coo2eo.html Michael Press © 2013 Microsoft Terms Privacy Developers L� Anne Press R Michael E Michz © Ad( Already friends Facebook? Content from 1 Leam more ' I of 1 5/15/2013 6:52 AM I J Commissioners have a decision to make today > Do you really believe that you should amend this plan? I provide for your review today a mandate established by a city in California requiring Solar Development. This Legislation is approved for not only residential homes but Commercial Business as well. This decision by city council was offically unaninously passed on May 07, 2013 The city takes good practices and made them into law. Quote" We're moving into a new era, addressing our greenhouse -gas problems and strenghening the economics of our communities". Acceptance: According to the councilman and a Solar Company, the provision received no opposition from the local community. At a previous city meeting, a person expressed concern that solar might be too expensive and some people are not up to date where things are in the solar sector. It is highly economical for most people. If any protest were to arise, Slayer would be ready with a counter -argument: "We already have a building code mandating that buildings must be constructed to withstand earthquakes and natural forces; the state is already telling us how we need to build, so really, this is just one more requirement." This article was written by : Joseph Bebon in the news department: Solar Industry Magazine Today you can look at the website for the Florida Municiple Power agency: To verify that in 2010 Keys Energy installed 2 MW of diesel power to add to the completely oil based turbines used to product Electric energy to their customers in the Florida Keys. Now we are going to add to this fossil fuel pollution??? Why not take the lead as the Sunshine State to Mandate this Island to be a off -grid Solar Community??? What is the compromise here? Who is really gaining from this? Certainly not my adult children or anyone's Grandchildren of the Future. Do you want to leave a legacy of harming our environment by not improving the carbon footprint when you have the chance to do so?? I believe that monies and developers should not win this is a big issue: When you bring infrastructure everything changes: Someone somewhere's always wants more. Do you need power or do you want it? I have a petition with over 206 names that has been up on the Community Power Network for only two weeks: This has already been provided for your review. This support is from people all over the United States Please take a careful look at the direction that the County Commission goes in regards to sustainable environmental energy. This is the future of our Country. Your legacy is a reflection on the chooses you make today. I live life and have a business in Green Energy. Education is the key to becoming part of the future of renewable changes that are yet to come. Thank -you Anne M. Press/ Co-owner Solar's Smart Sol arindustryMag. com: City Requires Solar On All New Homes And B... http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plu_Ons/content/content.php?co... Headlines Newsletter Opt -In Industry- SNECiVN' Solar PY POKIER EXPO •IY¢f •i�lYLtifINMIM News Events Subscribe Advertise Editorial Archives Search RSS City Requires Solar On All New Homes And Businesses in News Departments New & Noteworthy by Joseph Bebon on Tuesday 14 May 2013 44 0 comments: 0 The small city of Sebastopol, Calif., which is home to approximately 7,200 residents and 1.2 MW of installed capacity, has become the second community in the stE require that all new residential buildings include a solar On May 7, the Sebastopol City Council unanimously pa provision, less than two months after Lancaster, Calif., established a similar requirement. However, Sebastopc legislation also applies to new commercial buildings. Sebastopol Councilman Patrick Slayter, co-author of th the city has been pursuing solar for years. He notes th city facility has a PV array on it, and solar retrofits are commonplace in the region. community representatives and local businesses came together in 2002 to establisl- group Solar Sebastopol, which later became a countywide nonprofit program knowr Sonoma County. This new mandate, Slayter says, is a way to ensure local solar development continu "It just seems like the right thing to do," he explains. "Having rooftop space availab unencumbered solar access essentially from sunrise to sunset, but not considering I array on it - that just seems unconscionable to me." John Parry, owner of local installer Solar Works, welcomes the city council's decisior "The city has basically taken good practices and made them into law," he says. "WE solar industry are pleased that our legislators are finally understanding the benefits and that we're moving into a new era, addressing our greenhouse -gas problems an strengthening the economics of our communities." of 4 5/ 15/2013 7:04 AM Sol arIndustryMag.com: City Requires Solar On All New Homes And B... http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?co... i . The rules Sebastopol's provision will require any new commercial or residential building to hay array and will also apply to new major additions or remodels. Regarding existing commercial buildings, additions that increase the square footage square feet or more, or remodels to 50% or more of a facility, will fall under the ne\ Meanwhile, 75% of a residential building must be remodeled in order to be included 'You pretty much need to be rebuilding your entire house in order for this to kick in notes, adding that current construction projects are exempt from the rule. There will be two methods to determine how much solar must be built. The prescrip method requires 2 watts per square foot of conditioned building area - i.e., non -war space that is heated or cooled. The performance method requires that the PV systel offset 75% of the building's electrical load on an annual basis. "The difference between the two methods is that the system may only need to be h if it will offset 75 percent of the building's electricity use," explains Slayter. Building owners will be responsible for the cost of the solar systems, but he maintai investment is small and well worth it. "Yes, there is an upfront cost, but the payback time is short," he says. "Once you rf day the system is paid for, it's free energy. The benefit to yourself from a financial is positive in the long term, and the benefit to the environment is overwhelmingly p the long term." And Slayter has first-hand knowledge of the benefits of solar. As an architect, he sa worked on a local restaurant whose solar installation led to an electricity bill of only month. As a councilman, his office building is powered using solar energy and he ca array from his window. Builders who choose not to follow the new solar ordinance - or those for whom a so installation is not feasible, due to such factors as shading - will be required to pay a fee, which has yet to be determined. Acceptance "I'm a little surprised by how much attention this is getting from the media, becaus( easily and readily accepted by the folks in town," Slayter says. According to the councilman and Solar Works' Parry, the provision received no oppc the local community. At a previous city meeting, Parry notes, someone expressed c solar might be too expensive, but he says the key to easing worries was education. "Solar has proven an economic benefit, and those who still believe it is too expensk not up to date on where things are at for the solar sector," he remarks. "It's reachE 2 of4 5/15/2013 7:07 AM Sol arindustryMag.com: City Requires Solar On All New Homes And B... http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e]07_plugins/content/content.php?co... point where it is highly economical for most people." If any protest were to arise, Slayter would be ready with a counter -argument: "We have a building code mandating that buildings must be constructed to withstand eat and natural forces; the state is already telling us how we need to build, so really, th one more requirement." Possibilities Two hardly constitutes a trend, but now that Sebastopol and Lancaster both requirE installations on new buildings, similar provisions may be on their way. "It's likely more jurisdictions will require that buildings are designed solar -ready - of necessarily requiring people to put solar in, but making it feasible for when they do, Parry. "However, it's pretty typical that once an idea is out there, others will pick it up and I wouldn't be surprised if other communities followed suit, especially in California's I: Don't miss the latest solar energy news headlines. Latest Top Stories 51 Related Stories - register to receive Solar Industry's ni 0 India Works To Protect Domestic -Content Solar Requirements India's government is closing a regulatory loophole through which federallN funded solar projects were still using foreign -made thin-film panels. • Trade War Update: China Wants Dialogue With EU • ViSole Changes Name To Reflect Focus Beyond Solar • EU ProSun Refutes Claims That Chinese Solar Tariffs Would Mean Fewer Jobs 3 of 4 5/ 15/2013 7:07 AM Sol arindustryMag.com: City Requires Solar On All New Homes And B http : //www. sol ari ndustrymag. come ] 07_p1 ugi ns/content/conte nt. php?co.. . Submit comment Subject City Requires SolarCin All New Homes And Businesses Username: Comment: News Departments New & Noteworthy Projects & Contracts Policy Watch Products & Tech. FYI People aXMU112-11*nFAUnlla Submit comment From SI Buver's Guide Solar Careers Issue Archive Viewpoint E-Features OILnSolar Search I Sustain+Ability I A Related Publications Wl!' DPOWER renew*GRID NGTNews i Ttintyertetlen 8 Copyright © 2000-2013 Zackin Publications Inc. All rights reserved. I Privi 4 of 5/15/2013 7:07 AM I The Solar Community of No Name Key I Community Power Network http://commtu itypowernetwork-conVnode/9068 HOME I JOIN I CONNECT I PLAN A PROJECT I ISSUES W View Edit Like The Solar Community of No Name Key The Solar Community of No Name Key seeks to protect and defend the right of No Name Key to live off -grid as a self-sufficient solar community. No Name Key is an island located in the tower Florida Keys that exists as a modet for off -grid living. The Solar Community on the island has taken pride in off -grid living and wishes to continue educating and promoting sustainable living. Click here to sign a petition to protect No Contact Name Key's Solar Community! The Solar Community of No Our Fight to Protect Our Solar Community Name Key n/a The Solar Community of No Name Key is currently engaged in a No Name Key, FL 33043 death struggle with the Monroe County Board of County Map Commissioners, Keys Energy Services and the Public Service Commission. We are fighting to uphold our community's right to anne@solars-smart.com remain off -grid. Additional Information Over the past 25 years policies and laws have been adopted, both Nationally and locally that have protected our desire to remain independent from the traditional electric grid. In 1990, No Name Key (NNK) was designated as a Federal Coastal Barrier Resource System Unit (CBRS) and in 2003, a court ruling declared residents there had no statutory or constitutional right to commercial power. Monroe County, where NNK is located, also adopted policies to their CBRS Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Comp Plan) in l of 3 5/14/2013 7:49 PM The Solar Community of No Name Key I Community Power Network http : //commur itypowernetwork.com/node/9068 1996 to discourage the extension of commercial utilities to or through environmentally sensitive areas like NNK. In addition, the County's Comprehensive Land Use Development Regulations (LDR) created in 2001, prohibits the extension of comme-rciat utilities to these protected areas. Although there has long been clear policies in place that protected the right of the community to remain off -grid, unbelievably, in January 2013, two NNK homeowners (and non-residents) filed a $10 million lawsuit against Monroe County claiming "discrimination" because their vacation homes were not grid -tied. The obvious intent of the mad push to get the grid installed, before obtaining proper legal authority, as they rightly strategized, was that once in place, would take considerable effort to force its removal and most importantly, that the County would weaken its protective stance in light of on -going legal expenses and lawsuits. Although the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted not to change the Code (4-1) which would have allowed permits to hook to KEYS grid, they have already begun making concessions and started maneuvers to change their Comp Plan. Additionally, in early February 2013, the 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the State's Public Service Commission (PSC) has jurisdiction and should rule on whether bringing commercial power to No Name Key violates the County's Comp Plan. The PSC begins proceedings in May 2013 and we are urging the PSC to not support a ruling to bring commercial power to NNK. Why we wish to remain off -grid We are in opposition to grid power because to allow utility development would threaten the unique nature of our sustainable community and grid power is contrary to our progressive environmental protection and renewable energy goats. No Name Key also lies within the boundaries of the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge; home of several protected and endangered species, most notably, the diminutive Key Deer. We are greatly concerned that the addition of utility power will lead to further development on our island, further threatening these key species. Need? No Name Key homes already have electricity. There is 2 of 3 5/14/2013 7:49 PM The Solar Community of No Name Key I Community Power Network http: //communi typowernetworiccom/node/9068 absolutely no justifiable reason for needlessly installing commercially -provided grid electric. Homes on No Name Key enjoy all the modern conveniences of any other home, including air conditioning if desired. To even consider such a significant change to accommodate the unjust desires of so few is unbelievable. An unjustifiable change is not justified by want. Advocate for No Name Key and respected environmentalist, actress Daryl Hannah, in a letter to the BOCC said, " To mandate a dirty, regressive, 20th century energy source would be an outrageous, absurd backward step." Hannah goes on to say that, "This Solar Community is a living example of a community that is free from our retiance on dirty and increasingly dangerous energy sources." You can find more information about No Name Key in the document available on our wiki. Home Join Connect Plan A Project Issues Blog 3 of) 5/14/2013 7:49 PNI Community Power Network http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50105/p/dia/acbon3/common/pub]ic/?act... SIGN U email a HOME I JOIN I CONNECT I GET STARTED I ISSUES I EVENTS Help us Save our Solar Community! We are fighting to uphold our community's right to remain an off -grid solar community and we need your help! No Name Key is an island located in the Florida Keys. We are a model for off -grid, sustainable living. The 43 homes on the island are powered by solar panels, some with generator back-up. Over the past 25 years environmentally protective Federal and County -wide laws have been implemented that allow us to remain an off -grid, solar community. Click here to learn more about the Solar Community of No Name Key. But now the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, Keys Energy Services and the Public Service Commission are taking aggressive steps to bring the commercial grid to our community. These powerlines threaten our island's fragile eco-system and go against the long-standing laws put in place to protect this environmentally sensitive area and our solar lifestyle. Please help us defend our right to remain an off -grid solar community! Sign the petition below. Tell the County and Pt Commission you stand with No Name Key's Solz First Name* Last Name* Email* Street 1 of 3 5/14/2013 7:49 PM Community Power Network http: //sal sa3. sal sal ab s. com/o/50105/p/di a/acfi on3/conunon/publ i c/?act... City* State/Province* Select a state Zip/Postal Code* Tell the Public Service Commission why you support No Name Key's Solar Community Submit 1-25 of 205 signatures Number Date Name Location Tell the Public Service ... 205 99ghoours alyssa cerkleski Key West, FL They are setting a solar powered example that other communites in the US c 204 15 ours Dave White Heathcote, of Because i have lived off grid for over 25 years it never had a power bill of bl ago 203 1 day ago Jutia Chatteris, of Everyone has a right to choose the way they live and no one has the right to Tyrer-Cutts not want. I am not including paying into the community pot for local servi... 202 1 day ago R Lower Port Colborne, ON 201 1 day ago Jamie Frye Mays Landing, NJ We need to start realizing as a society that sustainable energy is the future. responsible path that will benefit humanity and our future generations. 200 1 day ago Nancy Valdes Cutler Bay, FL This is the only place in Florida that is a solar community". Let it be an examl 199 3 days Alexandra Miami FL ago Nikiforou ' 198 3 days Lauretta Bailin Amesbury, MA ago 197 3 days A Budder Key Largo, FL This must be a joke. The "off grid" community whoever they may be is "off' i ago diesel and gas driven generators charging large commercial batteries under. 196 3 days iset infante west palm beach , i wish the whole world had solar energy, and no one had to depend on a mul ago FL their rules and ridiculous high prices. quit telling people how they should or 195 3 days Kevin vieiro melbourne FL i have been there lived there for a week or so and loved it , its a great mod( ago off grid 194 ago ys Brenda Aston Portsmouth, VA Why do u think people should live as you wish. stop it's none of your busines 193 3 days Tom Witter No Name Key, FL If you visit our simple home you will see we have all the comforts. This is po ago public electricity and the water which would have to piped from the ... 192 3 days Dae Geiver Seattle, WA To protect the ecosystem and its established balance ! This system has been ago Community , has NOT ruined it ! This system must be allowed to stay . Pleas( 191 3 days Hendersonville, Sherry Kobilis I have 2 sets of relatives who have been in NoName since 1991, and live ther ago g NC trying to change this should o live in NYC where the belong!!!!' Y g g g Y. 190 3 days Brad Smith Redland, FL No Name Key has always been a solar community. I applaud them for making ago when our country is searching for tower energy use and renewable resource Dear Commissioners, 189 4 days Colin Casey Big Pine, FL ago It has been stated that providing commercial power to No Name Key would r take into consideration the fact that providin... 188 days Richard Williams Charleston, SC ago 2 of 3 5/14/2013 7:49 PM Community Power Network http: //sal sa3 . sal sal ab s . com/o/50105/p/di a/acti on3/common/publ i c/i nde... altering Comp Plan to suit development is travesty 162 1 week Joan Mowery Bowdon GA The No Name Key solor community should stay "off the grid". The owners knee ago Barrow power when they purchased the lots. 161 agoeek Sher Phillips Big Pine Key, Sherry P g y, FL With the dangers of EMF from the g power lines this community should stay as i 160 1 week Ellen Pfeiffr Shingtetown, CA We are killingt his planet. We need more, not less, communities like No Name ago Name Key that want it to stay as it is. 159 1 week Christine Russell key west , FL We should be ENCOURAGING and CREATING SOLAR COMMUNITIES .... NOT dest ago USA always at the end of the line in forward thinking and environmental issue 158 1 week Amy Lynch Key West, FL m The solar community of No Nae Key is before its time: progressive and respc ago knew what they were getting. 157 1 week Little Torch Sloan Bashinsky Everyone who bought/built a home on NNK did so knowing the island was off ago Key, FL public water, no public sewerage collection/treatment. They wanted to live c 156 agoeek Nathan Waychoff Atlantic City, NJ Next -> Home Join Connect Get Started Issues Events 3 of 3 5/14/2013 7:52 PM Community Power Network http: //sal sa3 . sal sal abs. com/o/50105/p/di a/acti on3/common/publ i c/?act... 187 4 days ago 186 4 days ago 185 4 days ago 184 4 days ago 183 4 days ago 182 4 days ago 181 4 days ago Next -> Bruce Long San Jose, CA This is the community of the future! We should support it, not sabotage it. Jason Williams Lakewood, CO I've loved the concept of solar energy since I was a kid in the mid 80's. I'm so that have embraced this direction. They deserve to be able to continue i... Daryl Hannah santa monica , CA With population growth, climate crisis, and pollution from dirty energy extr+ example of NO NAME KEY is the direction the whole Country, In fact the w.. William Fickas Lakewood, CO Why send No Name Key back to the past. Let them remain off -grid Draza Jansky San Diego, CA San Diego had a black out last year. It was the most peaceful time I've ever I neighbors connecting. I could actually PHYSICALLY FEEL how still the ... Kelsey Deaton Bakersfield, CA isabel sheridan teramo, of Protect nature is the only way forward!! Home Join Connect Get Started Issues Events 3 of 3 5/14/2013 7:49 PM "., L y State/ Prov i n ce* Select a state Zip/Postal Code* i Tell the Public Service Commission why you support No Name Key's Solar Community I i Submit 26-50 of 205 signatures Number Date Name Location Tell the Public Service ... 180 179 178 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 163 4 days ago 4 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 5 days ago 6 days ago 6 days ago 6 days ago 7 days ago 7 days ago 7 days ago 7 days ago 1 week ago Jennifer Manti, UT Mc Kendrick Jeannette Gato Surfside, FL I lived on No Name Key for 20 years in a solar home, no generator, enjoying tl paradise. Solar provided me with lights, tv, computer, printer etc, refrigerat. Beverly Welber Marathon, FL No Name Key points the way to the future. They are a model for the directior of this solar community, not trying to destroy it. Josh Jacques EasNH t Kingston, KEEP NATURE BEAUTIFUL!!'. PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT! LEAVE IT ALONE! !! Ken Youngblood Taos, NM Let the community be what it set out to be without being imposed upon. The not sabotaging them. Sheila Mullins Key West, FL There is no logical reason to force the solar community of No Name Key to go polluting carbon producing fossil fuels. We will suffer the consequences... Leon Elder Big Pine Key, FL The solar community on No Name Key should be supported and kept as a solar David Bailin Salem, MA I have Family in the Keys and visit quite frequently. I wish to live there myself Keys become more and more devolved and commerciatized. It is refreshing t. Mark Peterson Big Pine Key, FL harry appel big pine key, FL Lets not forget besides all the other comments power tines are ugly ,cause bii friendly power, if the proponents of power put the money they have spent tc Carlene Edwards Big Pine Key, FL In a time when the world is moving forward to clean, efficient ways to protec energy and other Eco-friendly methods, allowing electricity to be run to a so. albeit sullivan key west, FL it is a demonstration of a conservative view of saving the Earth johannes Big pine, FL We have to go forward, not back in time wernsen John The only way to protect fragile Coastal Barrier Resource ecosystems such as IN Hammerstrom Tavernier, FL development rights of property owners is to continue to support P g p P y the off -grid Deborah Curtee Cudjoe Key, FL The solar community on No Name Key is anvexampte of sustainable green livin Jerry Dykhuisen Big Pine Key, FL Matthew Lynch Key West, FL 1 week Capt Ed Davidson Marathon, FL ago The off grid community has been visionary since its humble beginnings. This i! people in search of profit, that is potentially changing what is the most prop.. coastal barrier island no residents ever had legitimate expectation of line power amount of money spent clearly favors more development . 2 of 5/14/2013 7:52 PM Community Power Network http: //sal sa3 . sal sal ab s. com/o/50105/p/di a/acti on3 /common/publ i c/i nde... altering Comp Plan to suit development is travesty 162 1 week Joan Mowery Bowdon, GA The No Name Key color community should stay "off the grid". The owners kneN ago Barrow power when they purchased the tots. 161 1 woeek Sherry Phillips Big Pine Key, .. FL With the dangers of EMF from the power lines this community should stay as i.ag 160 1 week Ellen Pfeiffr Shingtetown, CA We are kiltingt his planet. We need more, not less, communities like No Name ago Name Key that want it to stay as it is. 159 1 week Christine Russell key west , FL We should be ENCOURAGING and CREATING SOLAR COMMUNITIES .... NOT dest ago USA always at the end of the line in forward thinking and environmental issue 158 1 week Amy Lynch Key West, FL The solar community of No Name Key is before its time: progressive and respc ago knew what they were getting. 157 1 week Little Torch Sloan Bashinsky Everyone who bought/built a home on NNK did so knowing the island was off ago Key, FL public water, no public sewerage collection/treatment. They wanted to live c 156 1 woeek Nathan Waychoff Atlantic City, NJ ag Next -> Home Join Connect Get Started Issues Events 3 of 3 5/ 14/2013 7: 51 PM IRichard Gross,: PSC doublespeak threatens local land use planning - S. http: //www. sun-senfi nel . com/new s/opi ni on/fl -readers-view-1 and-use-2... 8o° F, Mostly clear Home i New,-.; I Broward i Palm i Sports I A&E Life u l-1, "asiiiess 1 0 -- ------------- WEEKLYADS ' HOT TOPICS I O.J. Simpson I Joyce Brothers Dies I Daily Deal. Frm Haagen-Dazs Ice w�rr r anrr 6 urD- Home > News > Opinion Richard Grosso: PSC doublespeak threatens local land use planning A Corrmnts Ads by Google SIEMENS Email Share 7 Tweet 2 Like 5 Building sustainable cities - Worth building a future in. usa.sien-ens.com/sustainable-cities By Richard Grosso May 14, 2013 Will Florida's precious coastal treasures — undeveloped coastal areas — be lost by an anti -solar stroke of the Florida Public Service Commission's pen? It doesn't look good. Anyone who believes in more, not fewer, energy choices or local governments' right to protect their unique areas and lifestyle choices should watch the PSC today. Asserting the Commission's "exclusive jurisdiction" over Florida's electric grid, PSC staff urge a Commission vote favoring connecting one of the Keys' few remaining off -grid coastal islands, No Name Key, to the central power grid. But any such grid connection would,..violate Monroe County laws prohibiting new extensions of utility lines to federally -designated undeveloped coastal barriers. No Name Key is a federally designated unit of the Coastal Barrier Resource System established by Congress and President Reagan to save taxpayer dollars, protect public safety, buffer build up areas, and protect coastal fish and wildlife. Monroe County- adopted — and the state planning agency approved — local laws to support Cor M of 6 5/14/2013 3:47 PM Richard Grosso: PSC doublespeak threatens local land use planning - S... http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-readers-view-land-use-2... greener, off -grid, less dense development of the Keys' few remaining less -developed coastal barriers. Adopted after years of careful study, these local laws discourage dense Dou development in the CBRS; facilitating hurricane evacuation, preserving endangered species Sun and the opportunity to choose an off -grid green lifestyle, and lowering utility costs. Relying on local laws prohibiting utility line expansion, people moved to No Name Key, building an off -grid solar community that demonstrates how we can live comfortably without fossil/nuclear energy. This pioneering solar community, with its post -hurricane electric/water self-sufficiency, should be encouraged throughout Florida, but is endangered by a PSC vote. This vote could authorize central -power -grid connection not just to No Name Key, but to all grid -free parts of the the CBRS in Monroe County. Florida's job -producing solar industry, hurricane evacuation and land use planners, and clean energy or environmental proponents, should be horrified at the prospects for any such PSC override of state - approved locally -adopted growth management laws. Local governments statewide should be even more concerned since a PSC vote circumventing Monroe County's laws simultaneously threatens to limit local power to manage growth by restricting new extensions of density -inducing central utilities to less developed areas. Ads by Google No Closing Cost Refinance No (ZERO) Closing Cost Refinancing. LowAPR Mortgage Available! CashCallMortoaoe.com Nowadays progress is measured not by connecting undeveloped areas to a central power grid, but by how rapidly clean renewable energy meets our energy needs. We call upon Florida's PSC to cast a vote supporting — not overriding — Monroe County's leadership in this area. Richard Grosso is director of the Nova Southeastern University Law Clinic and Manley Fuller. He is executive director of the Florida Wildlife Federation. Copyright © 2013, South Florida Sun -Sentinel Pictures: Child stars then and now P4 Comments 1 Email Share 7 Tweet 2 Like 5 0 Ads by Google 2 of 6 Wei Sig] Nei en' I i i Sut i Yo ani 5/14/2013 3:47 PM New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www. heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-coul d-change-world-on... Mobile Contact Us Advertise e-Edition Email Updates Subscriber Services 6l° Kr, Clear Weekly Forecast sponsored by PIANO Hot Topics Provo missionary dies Student vs. teacher Swift water JesslKate Riley Eric Mika Utah fed restrictions New battery could change world, one house at a time POWER SHIFT Recommend 172 53 4 April 04, 2009 2:30 pm • Randy Wright - Daily Herald In a modest building on the west side of Salt Lake City; a team of specialists in advanced materials and electrochemistry has produced what could be the single most important breakthrough for clean, alternative energy since Socrates first noted solar heating 2,400 years ago. The prize is the culmination of 10 years of research and testing -- a new generation of deep -storage battery that's small enough, and safe enough, to sit in your basement and power your home. It promises to nudge the world to a paradigm shift as big as the switch from centralized mainframe computers in the 1980s to personal laptops. But this time the mainframe is America's antiquated electrical grid; and the switch is to personal power stations in millions of individual homes. 6 10 Print Email (0) Comments ASHLEY FRANSCELUDaily Herald Ceramatec President Ashok V. Joshi and his team John Gordon (from left to right), John Watkins, Grover Coors and Anthony Nickens at Ceramatec in Salt Lake City. The team has been working on developing a storage battery for homes and businesses Photo taken at Ceramatec in Salt Lake City. (5) More Photos Joir WE C;1ie a Follow Tod; go Real BBO t} 1 Ali 10 V1-5/201-3 6,49 AM New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www. heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-cool d-change-world-on.. . iec,ener ecreta Bill Rich rdson one t araged News gy aittes ports pinion Pbgt.TgiarHome 8EVstiWerift6Mnilt iit Best of Clas: 1.S. electrical grid as "third world," and he was painfully t it put housa and car could IN clos Mgl T 11a get 311 Me power Tney needed fron,. century -old approach to energy and a weak link in national water and sunlight; so you didn't security in an age of terrorism. need to be connected to the local power Read more Taking a load off the grid through electricity production and storage at home would extend the life of the system and avoid the expenditure of tens, or even hundreds, of billions to make it "smart." The battery breakthrough comes from a Salt Lake company called Ceran-atec, the R&D arm of CoorsTek, a world leader in advanced materials and electrochemical devices. It promises to reduce dependence on the dinosaur by hooking up with the latest generation of personalized power plants that draw from the sun. Solar energy has been around. of course, but it's been prohibitively expensive. Now the cost is tumbling, driven by new thin-film chemistry and manufacturing techniques. Amount of electricity consumed by common small appliances Amount of electricity consumed by common small appliances. Read more Provo power customers may soon have solar option PROVO -- The power of the sun can kill ants through a magnifying glass and give skiers second-degree sunburns in the dead of winter Read more Leaders in the field include companies like Arizona -based First Solar, which can paint solar cells onto glass; and Konarka, an upstart that purchased a defunct Polaroid film factory in New Bedford, Mass., and now plans to print cells onto rolls of flexible plastic. The convergence of these two key technologies -- solar power and deep -storage batteries -- has profound implications for oil -strapped America. "These batteries switch the whole dialogue to renewables," said Daniel Nocera, a noted chemist and professor of energy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sits on Ceramatec's science advisory board. 'They will tum us away from dumb technology, circa 1900 -- a 110-year-old approach -- and turn us forward." Why not just upgrade to a so-called "smart grid" as President Obama has proposed in his economic stimulus package? There are complications, Nocera said. "First you have to rebuild the grid because the one we have now is a creaky machine from the 1920s, and we keep trying to retrofit it;" he said. "Then you're going to have computers trying to manage the energy, which brings up issues like security. You have to make it really secure so you don't have people hacking into things. And then politics. Just wait until you try to run power lines through someone's backyard. "I can't imagine anything more secure than generating my own energy with the sun at my house, and now I'll have a way to store it. It's the ultimate in security, and the ultimate in control." Fror New h revive V etna EU ex Quota IndonE suspe Late! Orem year o 2of10 5/ 15/2013 6:49 AM New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www.herai dextra.com/news/new-battery-coul d-change-world-on... small-scal� iectricgl Genera on taking pdacr at milliorg of in vOua�hom�s -- s.o osed t$ ews i ies p its , pinion i canes ome ami y me air ent est of Clas: is large-scale power Qeneration from a handful of giant power plants -- there would be less _Afth&'t out and shuts off power to a whole region, California -style rolling blackouts would be history. The threat of terrorism has heightened the worry. But wide distribution of batteries in homes would virtually eliminate it. Inside Ceramatec's wonder battery is a chunk of solid sodium metal mated to a sulphur compound by an extraordinary, paper -thin ceramic membrane. The membrane conducts ions -- electrically charged particles -- back and forth to generate a current. The company calculates that the battery will cram 20 to 40 kilowatt hours of energy into a package about the size of a refrigerator, and operate below 90 degrees C. This may not startle you, but it should. It's amazing. The most energy -dense batteries available today are huge bottles of super -hot molten sodium, swirling around at 600 degrees or so. At that temperature the material is highly conductive of electricity but it's both toxic and corrosive. You wouldn't want your kids around one of these. The essence of Ceramatec's breakthrough is that high energy density (a lot of juice) can be achieved safely at normal temperatures and with solid components, not hot liquid. Ceramatec says its new generation of battery would deliver a continuous flow of 5 kilowatts of electricity over four hours, with 3,650 daily discharge/recharge cycles over 10 years. With the batteries expected to sell in the neighborhood of $2,000, that translates to less than 3 cents per kilowatt hour over the battery's life. Conventional power from the grid typically costs in the neighborhood of 8 cents per kilowatt hour. Re -read that last paragraph and let the information really sink in. Five kilowatts over four hours -- how much is that? Imagine your trash compactor, food processor, vacuum cleaner, stereo, sewing machine, one surface unit of an electric range and thirty-three 60-watt light bulbs all running nonstop for four hours each day before the house battery runs out. That's a pretty exciting place to live. And then you recharge. With a projected 3,650 discharge/recharge cycles -- one per day for a decade -- you leave the next -best battery in the dust. Deep -cycling lead/acid batteries like the ones used in RVs are only good for a few hundred cycles, so they're kaput in a year or so. How do you recharge? By tapping your solar panels or windmills. It's just like plugging in your cell phone or iPod, only you plug in your house. A small three -bedroom home in Provo might average, say, 18 kWh of electric consumption per day in the summer -- that's 1,000 watts for 18 hours. A much larger home, say five bedrooms in the Grandview area, might average 80 kWh, according to Provo Power.;Either way, a supplement of 20 3 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www. heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-coul d-change-world-on... 1�1 Uh Fer --lu is sistarMial. l� ou could8toduce that puch p&v r iQ a da�t -- for example ew t ies po s mion ituartes ome amt y ntertainme t Best of Clas: gh solar cells on the roof -- your power bills would plummet. Ceramatec's battery breakthrough now makes that possible. Clyde Shepherd of Alpine is floored by the prospect. He recently installed the second of two windmills on his property that are each rated at 2.4 kilowatts continuous output. He's searching for a battery system that can capture and store some of that for later use when it's calm outside, but he hasn't found a good solution. "This changes the whole scope of things and would have a major impact on what we're trying to do," Shepherd said. "Something that would provide 20 kilowatts would put us near 100 percent of what we would need to be completely independent. It would save literally thousands of dollars a year." Shepherd is connected to the grid through Rocky Mountain Power, which charges a variable rate for power depending on demand during a given 24-hour period. With his windmill setup, Shepherd has what's called "net metering" -- an electric meter that spins both ways. He pays for electricity coming in, but gets a credit from Rocky Mountain for any excess power generated by his windmills that flows back onto the grid. Already, he's cut his power bills in half, and with good storage batteries he thinks he could reduce the bill to zero. While Shepherd opted for windmills over solar at the time he was planning his alternative energy installation, he said he would reconsider that decision today as the bottom continues to fall out of the cost of solar cells. "Batteries and PV are about to merge," said MIT's Nocera, using the shorthand for "photovoltaics" or solar power. "First Solar is now saying that it takes $1 a peak watt to manufacture, and another 80 cents for installation. So they're saying that you can get PV for under $2 a watt. That's a reduction of cost by a factor of four. Only a few years ago, it was $8. If CoorsTek and Ceramatec come up with a good battery, the market will develop quickly." The long-term impact of home electric generation for a power company's business model could be huge. After all, you can't stay in business if nobody's paying for power. Exactly how that will play out remains to be seen. Fifty miles south of Ceramatec's laboratories, Chris Cannon, the former congressman from Utah County, is on a crusade to transform the world through technology. He currently sits on Ceramatec's advisory board with Nocera. No longer burdened by the pressures of Washington, he's using his experience in energy, manufacturing and government to carry the message of innovation and help move research to reality. "What I choose to concentrate on now are things that will make the world a better place," Cannon said, "and Utah is an incredibly good place to do that." 4 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM , New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www. heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-coul d-change-world-on... ocqr,hed by ramat c after h Ieft.Congr s Cannon {ills a c le nta role in a roup News &INs S9ports Opinion �sbifuanes Home ��an y Wntertainmint lest of Clas: t engineers and academic types. With extensive Washington contacts and an understanding of the inner workings of power generation, he hopes to be abTe tt make connections that WH push the new battery technology forward for the benefit of the country. "I have an energy and manufacturing background, so I understand the process," he said. "Ceramatec had a gap in their experience which I think I filled pretty well." On top of that, there was "good chemistry" from the start. While Cannon's six terms in Congress representing what is arguably the most conservative district in America means keeping a somewhat jaundiced eye on the Obama administration, he's far from negative. He thinks of himself as a "post -partisan Republican" willing to run with good ideas regardless of their source. And when it comes to energy policy, he's anything but discouraged. "If you look at the president, he inherited some really difficult things," Cannon said. "But he hired a guy to be the secretary of energy who is a scientist. And we are on the verge of so many scientific breakthroughs that no matter what the president's ideology is, if we do the right thing scientifically, America is going to do well. Many of the innovations that are coming out of Utah that I'm involved with are likely to be really important, regardless of the leadership." Last month, Obama introduced a raft of broad energy proposals that were sharply criticized by conservatives as economic back -breakers. Proponents hailed the plans as progressive. Either way the administration appears to be on a path that could soon drive the cost of conventional energy higher -- some say as much as double. Electrical generation at home using solar panels, coupled with storage in effective batteries, could soften the financial impact on many homeowners' utility costs. The new Ceramatec battery could also change the way private enterprises invest in energy, Cannon said. Instead of building another power plant, for example, maybe they buy 100,000 or a million batteries and distribute those around the service area of a utility to reduce loads and eliminate expensive "spinning reserve," the supplementary power generation that's fired up in response to daily spikes in electric demand. "The technology could mean a lot of things," Cannon said, "but it certainly means that we change the way we invest. It also means that we shift our expenditures on terrorism, because our infrastructure for power transmission is probably the weakest link in America today. If you have local batteries with local control, that gives terrorists a more difficult target. And local control systems are much simpler than a vast national transmission grid." CoorsTek's manufacturing roots go back to the early 20th century, when Adolph Coors diversified his beer brewing empire based in Golden, Colo. He set up a ceramic manufacturing business called the Herold China and Pottery Company, whose early product line included dinnerware and utensils 5 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM I New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www. heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-coin d-change-worl d-on.. . it movedC$ h�gh-t ch Indus al�roduct�b uanescer oine & th V r1d En ertatnmeiit he Best of Clas: ews tie ports WOO )any stepped up to provide needed ceramics for industry and the military, including materials used in the production of the atom bomb. "To most Americans, the word'Coors' means beer," wrote Business Wire on the ceramic maker's 75th birthday. "But to scientists and industrialists throughout the world, the word'Coors' means technical ceramics of extraordinary quality." That hasn't changed. Cellular telephones, car engines, computer chips, soda dispensers, semiconductor casings, blood processing pumps, bulletproof vests and armor for military vehicles, to name just a few items in a dizzying high-tech product array, all use ceramic components produced by Coors enterprises. And so it was natural in 2008 for CoorsTek to purchase the hottest ceramics R&D firm going -- Ceramatec, with its 165 employees in Salt Lake City. Ceramatec was founded in 1976 by a group of University of Utah professors who made important contributions to the sodium -sulphur battery technology being pursued by Ford Motor Company for vehicles at the time. Those early liquid -core batteries didn't pan out well for transportation, though, because of their size and weight, and because of the extremely harsh internal chemical conditions required for them to work. In the years since, electric cars have remained on the sexy -tech list, with substantial industry efforts aimed at developing various flavors of zippy batteries to power them. Ceramatec had other ideas.. recognizing a vast potential market for a different sort of power -- for homes. NVith a house, you don't need to get energy in and out instantaneously. You need huge amounts of storage capacity," says MIT's Nocera. "That suggests a different commercial market and different technical restraints and opportunities." In 2000 Ashok Joshi, a native of India, took the helm at Ceramatec. His international reputation in ion technology and fuel cells kept the company among the first rank of innovators. Joshi (he prefers A.J.) looked to the potent combination of sodium and sulphur for the basic components of a new battery. That was known chemistry. But while he wanted to achieve a high energy density offered by those elements, he also wanted to get rid of the extreme heat; corrosion and toxicity of liquid sodium batteries. The key would be found in a paper -thin, yet strong and highly conductive, electrolyte material -- an advanced ceramic -- to serve as the barrier between the battery's sodium and sulphur. The thinner the barrier, the cooler the battery can operate. If you can get below the melting point of 98 C, sodium stays in its solid state, and you've got enough energy to run a house with safety. Charged particles of sodium and sulphur -- ions -- now scoot so effortlessly through the new ceramic wafer that the sodium doesn't even approach 98 C, let alone 350. 6 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM I New battery could change world, one house at a time http://www.heraldextra.com/news/new-battery-could-change-world-on... � Wmic th&mde t�is Wossib�nwas dubl d NaSICON � the n Sts., That t rids for "so iiur est of Clas; ews t les o s anion rtuanes me amtl Enter ammen r ion conductor" -- "Ka" being the code name for sodium in chemistry's periodic table. Ceramatec's formulation is a trade secret. With trademark modesty, A.J. observes, "We feel confident it's a good material." "It's a miracle material," corrects Grover Coors. He's the great-grandson of Adolph Coors, the brewmaster-industrialist who started all this. Grover has a Ph.D and specializes in solid-state ionics and advanced materials. He's working with Ceramatec as a sort of research fellow to evaluate technologies and advise senior management. A.J. stayed on as president after the sale to CoorsTek. "There are two classes of ceramic materials that are good conductors," Coors explained. "One is what developed here in the early days -- beta -alumina solid electrolyte, or BASE. It's temperamental, brittle. A.J. thought of a better material. It's a better conductor, easier to manipulate and process, and lower cost." This is where the earth moves for renewable energy. The new electrolyte enables the development of an energy -dense, inexpensive and safe storage battery for use at home. Combined with the rapidly emerging thin-film solar cells, it presents an unparalleled business opportunity. Grover's brother, John K. Coors, is CEO of CoorsTek, the manufacturing company that applies what the scientists at Ceramatec dream up. Their nephew, Doug Coors, oversees R&D. With some 21 plants producing advanced ceramic products worldwide, the expectation is that full-scale production of ceramic sheets for the new batteries could be tooled up in short order. In fact, only a handful of CoorsTek facilities would likely be employed. The order of magnitude pencils out along these lines: a target of 20 gigawatt hours of storage in 20 kilowatt-hour battery increments equals 1 million batteries. Or using a different metric, 1 million square meters of thin ceramic electrolyte would yield 20 gigawatt hours of batteries, equal to California's entire spinning reserve. Nobody at CoorsTek even blinks at such figures. The company already produces 3 million pounds of ceramic material per month. "Once we have a working prototype battery with all the standards and cost requirements met, it will come up quickly," said Grover Coors. "It would scare people to know how quickly we can bring this up." They're about about six months away from initial scale -up toward a commercial product, he said. Lots of sodium will be needed to make the new batteries. and Ceramatec proposes a symbiotic relationship with the federal government to get it. Enormous quantities of sodium metals, the byproducts of nuclear weapons manufacturing, just happen be available for cleanup at Hanford 7 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM I New battery could change world, one house at a time http://www.heral dextra.com/news/new-battery-could-change-world-on... :a resew 17n near Richland Wash. It's&re�ad�r-made sourc �f malterialEthat CoorsTe�C ca ews i ies Sports Opinion i ua ies ome amt y ntertainmen est of Clas; ,le. In a laboratory at Ceramatec, a small battery -- a NaSICON sandwich in silver foil -- has been cycling up and down since October to prove out the electrochemistry. Engineers are confident the tests will support a projected useful life of 3,650 cycles, which meet the standard of one discharge/recharge cycle per day for 10 years. It's a tall challenge, according to Coors, but doable. "It's very efficient in terms of watt-hours per kilogram." he said. "We're now in excess of 200, which puts us in the sweet spot for all the applications we've been talking about." There are a handful of small hurdles yet to cross in the science, but nobody seems terribly concerned. One is the fact that when two solids are joined along flat surfaces, there will always be at least a 1-micron gap between them. That needs to be closed somehow. Nocera is making some suggestions for suitable fillers, but neither he nor Ceramatec developmental scientist John Watkins feel that the problem will be a difficult one. "I want to say, this is no big deal," Nocera said. "But sometimes little things can bite you in the butt. So we'll just work it out." Meanwhile, heavyweight liquid sodium -sulphur batteries from Japan are making an inroad into the United States at Luverne, Minn. They're part of a demonstration project by Xcel Energy, an eight -state power utility. In February, Xcel began testing a 1-megawatt battery installation intended to capture power from a giant 11-megawatt wind farm owned by Minwind Energy, LLC. It's said to be the first attempt to store wind -generated power at a large-scale. Contrasting with Ceramatec's vision of many small home -based power centers with refrigerator -size batteries, this project is another mainframe -- albeit fueled by wind. Hot liquid sodium -sulphur batteries from NGK are intended to move a lot of energy to the grid. The 50-kilowatt battery modules -- 20 cylindrical cells -- are roughly the size of two semi -trailers and weigh 80 tons. They'll store about 7.2 megawatt hours of electricity, enough to power 500 homes for seven hours, according to company data. The test is intended to validate greater penetration of wind energy on the Xcel Energy system. It's one of many efforts by industry to cut down carbon dioxide emissions and move to a more sustainable energy model, but it's not without hurdles. "One of the big problems with the NGK system is that it's megawatt -scale storage," said Ceramatec's Coors. "It has to be on top of the 10 kilowatt side of the utility transformer, meaning that there's a lot of step-down transformers and whatnot involved in hooking those things up -- a lot more system complication. 8 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM New battery could change world, one house at a time http: //www.heral dextra. com/news/new-battery-coul d-change-world-on... u o with smaller st m li the 5 kilo t s for four }ours is�ttem hat e're canteen lati Rews �ittes S or s pinion ��1 uaries Home t�'amtlty ntertainme�t est of Clas; all done on the 110-volt side of the transformer, and so all the switching can be done with solid-state relays very inexpensively. Such comparisons are batted around frequently by Ceramatec insiders as they seek to optimize the science and develop business models. A recent Sunday dinner with several board members was a popcorn machine of problem solving and technical musings. Over dessert, Cannon suggested a new angle: Was it possible to use the thin ceramic membrane developed at Ceramatec to reduce the production costs and improve efficiency of NGK's existing hot liquid batteries -- replacing the old beta -alumina electrolyte currently used in those devices? After all, the new ceramic membrane is cheaper and a better conductor. That got Nocera's attention, and the idea then bounced to A.J., whose mental wheels were rolling. The exchange was typical of the collegial atmosphere and dynamic thinking processes that characterize Ceramatec. Joe Hunter envisions applications for a new generation of batteries in his specialty of hydroelectric power -- not massive banks of batteries at dam sites, but maybe something along the lines of the 1 megawatt battery array at Minwind's Minnesota wind farm. Alternatively, many small batteries could be distributed throughout a community. Hunter is a former deputy assistant secretary in the Department of the Interior and was Cannon's chief of staff. In Hunter's world, large dams typically don't employ batteries on -site because the torrent of juice a hydroelectric plant generates is overwhelming. Glen Canyon Dam, for example, produces close to 1,000 megawatts; which is comparable to a big coal-fired power plant. In eastern Utah, Flaming Gorge churns out 150 megawatts. The advantage of a dam over a wind farm, however, is predictability. Water must be released continuously to support fisheries and other environmental systems downstream. That's essentially wasted power. If small energy generation and battery storage could piggyback on such flows, the community could benefit at low cost. Inexpensive batteries could be used economically in areas serviced by many dams, Hunter suggested. Take Deer Creek at the head of Provo Canyon, for instance. Generators at the dam can produce up to 5 megawatts, but they run mainly in the irrigation season. But water to sustain the Provo River has to be released all the time, and local residences, with batteries trickle -charging continuously, could benefit. It's another value proposition added to others, like the net metering enjoyed by the Shepherds in Alpine. The idea in all this is to ease pressure on the grid while moving people toward greater 9 of 10 5/15/2013 6:49 AM I New battery could change world, one house at a time http://www.heraldextra.com/news/new-battery-could-change-world-on... gy�ewspen�eties Sports Opinion Obituaries Home & Family Entertainment Best of Clas: "What we're talking about is the ability to take the edges off," Hunter said. 'We're at a tipping point - for alternative energy." In Salt Lake City, Grover Coors agrees: "This will be the largest industry of all time," he said. "But it's all about cost and reliability." Tags Powershiit Related Stories • Alpine reopens windrriall discussion More News Stories Leaders remember the 'Iron Lady' View (0) Comments Some lawmakers pay out of pocket for extra help Recommendations Chinese Girl Subjected To Horrific Abuse (sky News) Nevada wind farm could face fine over golden eagle death Former Nev. lawmaker arrested after freeway chase Sponsored Links Sponsored Result New Rule in FLARTDee (MAY 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... www.ConsumerFinanceDaity.com Mnr nape Ratee Nit 2.5A0% If you owe under $729k you may qualify for 2.90% APR Govt Refi Plans. www.Refinance.LowerMyBills.com M t gal F undo Find the best mutual funds for investing your savings! AIIInvestme ntAdvice. net Copyright 2013 Daily Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 10 of 10 5/ 15/2013 6:49 AM I