Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item Q14
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 20 2008 Division:_ Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department:__ Staff Contact: Lisa Tennyson AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider the transmittal of an amendment to the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan that would allow density calculation on the basis of gross density of the parcel, instead of the net, buildable area as currently calculated. ITEM BACKGROUND: Currently the open space requirement is deducted from the area of the parcel before calculating density. This amendment would use the area of the entire parcel to calculate the number of residential units allowed. The development allowed using this type of calculation would still require applicable buffer, setback, and open space requirements, although variances are allowed to those standards. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Board at a regular meeting held on February 15, 2006, upon motion made by Commissioner Nelson and Seconded by Commissioner Rice, unanimously approved Resolution No. 094-2006, which among other things resolved "that the Monroe County Planning Department present to the Monroe County Planning Commission for public hearing at the soonest opportunity a proposed ordinance amending the County's land development regulations and any necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments authorizing (1) allowable density for affordable housing projects to be calculated on a `gross' acreage or parcel sq. footage basis (versus, for example, calculation on a `net' of "open space" or other similar basis) .. " CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: N/A COST TO COUNTY: BUDGETED: Yes No SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes — No x AMOUNT PER MONTH APPROVED BY: County Atty X OMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: DISPOSITION: Revised 11/06 Included X Not Required AGENDA ITEM # Year RESOLUTION NO. -2008 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES GOVERNING MAXIMUM DENSITIES FOR AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on February 20, 2008, for the purposes of considering the transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8, 2008, and made recommendations to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners regarding the ordinance subject to transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2. The proposed ordinance adopting changes to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan will promote the County's efforts to provide affordable and workforce housing for all residents of the Florida Keys. NOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 163.3184 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given the authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirement of 9J-11.0006 of the Florida Administrative Code. Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning and Environmental Resources. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of February, A.D., 2008. Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Tern Mario Di Gennaro Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Dixie Spehar BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA :/ (SEAL) CHARLES "SONNY" MCCOY, MAYOR ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney WNAOEC COUNTY ATTORNEY / APPRO ED AS FORM 2 ORDINANCE NO. -2008 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS "GROSS ACREAGE DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECTS"; AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW MAXIMUM NET DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR AFFORDABLE, EMPLOYEE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT PARCELS TO BE CALCULATED ON A GROSS ACREAGE BASIS WHILE RETAINING OPEN SPACE, SETBACK AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS BUT EMPHASIZING THE AVAILABILITY OF VARIANCES OR EXCEPTIONS OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR COUNTY CODE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") has considered the comments of the public, recommendations of the Planning Commission, County staff and the Workforce Housing Task Force and its counsel, the Board's direct responsibility to the act diligently to provide affordable housing opportunities pursuant to the authority and power granted to it by the Legislature in s. 125.01055, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the Board makes the following Findings of Fact and cites the following technical data and analysis from the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan ("Comp Plan") as support for proposed amendment to the Comp Plan as proposed herein: 1. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 (p. 7-24) projected the number of housing units needed for resident households of Monroe County by 2002 according to various income groups as 7,093 dwelling units for "Very Low" income households, 5,320 dwelling units for "Low" income households, and an additional 5,528 dwelling units needed for "Moderate" income households; and 2. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 (p. 7-33) also states that the "public sector can provide for a variety of densities which can increase the flexibility of the private sector to provide affordable housing in more situations"; and 3. The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive PIan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 (p. 7-32) also states that "[c)urrent conditions and projected demands in Monroe County make it appropriate to explore innovative means such as planned unit developments and cluster construction configuration to maximize utilization of scarce land resources in Monroe County"; and 4. The Board at a regular meeting held on February 15, 2006, upon motion made by Commissioner Nelson and Seconded by Commissioner Rice, unanimously approved Resolution No. 094-2006, which among other things resolved "that the Monroe County Planning Department present to the Monroe County Planning Commission for public hearing at the soonest opportunity a proposed ordinance amending the County's land development regulations and any necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments authorizing (1) allowable density for affordable housing projects to be calculated on a `gross' acreage or parcel sq. footage basis (versus, for example, calculation on a `net' of "open space" or other similar basis) ...."; and 5. The Monroe County, Florida, Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, authored by The Metropolitan Center at Florida International University (2007), provides additional recent data and analysis corroborating the information set forth in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 and supporting the proposed comprehensive plan amendment (a copy of the Assessment is being provided to the Department of Community Affairs with the submittal of this proposed amendment). WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 confirms that "[1]and prices in Monroe County represent a higher proportion of total development costs than in any other part of Florida" (p. 7-33); and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 also states that "[1]ocal ordinances should be adopted which ease land development requirements and construction regulations to reduce the cost of affordable housing development" and that "[d]ensity relaxation" should be included as an incentive to provide for affordable housing projects (p. 7-29); and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0 directs consideration of housing strategy guidelines, including providing "[a] variety of residential densities" in order "to encourage the private sector to construct a variety of housing unit types" (p. 7-36); and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Policy 601.1.12 directs the County to "adopt Land Development Regulations which may include density bonuses, impact fee waiver programs, and other possible regulations to encourage affordable housing"; and 2 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 601.2 directs the County to "adopt programs and policies to encourage housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the demands of current and future residents"; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 601.6 directs the County to "formulate housing implementation programs corresponding to each of the specific objectives defined within this element, including "incentive programs, to be implemented in conjunction with the Permit Allocation System, to promote the development of affordable and elderly housing"; and fact: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of 1. A lack of sufficient affordable housing opportunities for the local workforce creates serious risks to the local economy. Moreover, increasingly burdensome housing costs and short supply places undue pressure on elderly, working poor and disabled persons. 2. There is limited land area suitable for residential development remaining in the County. 3. There is an ongoing dramatic exodus of working families and other community members from our County with a corresponding decrease in population and the transformation of traditionally available housing stock into seasonal second homes making these dwelling units no longer available for rental by present and future full-time local residents. 4. Permitting the calculation of the maximum number affordable, employee and workforce housing units based upon gross acreage or the total square footage of a given parcel or group of parcels will likely lead to the creation of more affordable housing. 5. This proposed amendment to Policy 101.4.21 will complement the 2010 Comprehensive Plan's existing housing provisions by providing incentives for private and public sector housing creation and/or preservation by maximizing housing uses of appropriate sites. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: [Amendments are presented in 4 ked+F0Hg41_—to indicate deletions and underline to indicate additions to text. All other words, characters, and language of the comprehensive plan remain un- amended.] Section 1. The following language is adopted as an amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to replace in its entirety the current Policy 101.4.21, except that the table labeled "Future Land Use Densities and Intensities" that is now part of Policy 101.4.21 shall not be changed by this amendment: 3 Policy 101.4.21 Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 - 101.4.17. However, the Maximum Net Density for development or redevelopment parcels where the residential component constitutes affordable workforce or employee housing as such housing may be defined by any local state or federal law or regulation, shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage or total square footage.of a(} parcel(s) developed as or redeveloped into such housing uses though applicable open space setback and buffering requirements shall be adhered to, except where a variance exception or conditional use otherwise available under the Comprehensive Plan or Monroe County Code has been granted: [W-5.006(3)(c)7]. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank.) 11 Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not affected by such validity. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State and by the Planning Department to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 201' day of February, A.D., 2008. Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy Mayor Pro Tern Mario Di Gennaro Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner Dixie Spehar BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA al (SEAL) ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: County Attorney CHARLES "SONNY" McCOY, MAYOR MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY AP P OVE $ TO FORM oar Icl-11 CoIcmatl, I:sq. 11`1 MY CO)I,EMAN, P.L. 201 Front Strcct, Suitc 203 i roman .'1nnc� Balton \�'l'. Smith, Esq. (FI. ooh�) 13oiktin�; 21 Second flour jcn}C�jcn}cukmaty,�.uct Kcy Nest, Florida 33010 '1`LL ;30;5-292-3095 ball@JCnl'colctnanpl.nct (ldmiacd ploiida mid NC%N, York) F,AX MJ-296-6200 Luwal.Assistant: Sllannonlu'Jcn-\rolcnruipl.nct MEMORANDUM (CONSULTANT STAFF REPORT) TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners FROM: JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. Counsel to Monroe County Workforce Housing Task Force THROUGH: Townsley Schwab, Acting, Sr., Director of Planning & Environmental Resources and Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator DATE: January 22, 2008 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING DATE: February 20, 2008 I. BACKGROUND This consultant's staff report explains a proposed amendment to Comp Plan Policy 101.4.21 that will simplify density calculations for parcels to be developed or redeveloped as affordable, workforce and/or employee housing. County staff shall calculate maximum allowable density on a `gross acreage' or `total square footage' basis, without first `netting out' (i.e., subtracting) the land area required for open space, setbacks and buffer areas. Under this proposed amendment, open space, setback and buffer area requirements will still apply. However, the amendment emphasizes in clear language that development review and building department staff shall not construe the intended resulting henefrts for a given affordable housing project (e.g., enabling development/redevelopment of some (essentially a few) additional dwelling units) to require any implied `offset' or `balancing out of things' or anything of the kind that might take the form of requiring a denial, the withholding of or refusal to consider any other land use approvals that might otherwise be made available with respect to development not involving affordable housing (e.g., lawful variances, exceptions and/or conditioned uses). On February 15, 2006, the BOCC unanimously adopted Resolution No. 094-2006 directing this change. II. SUMMARY The proposed changes to Policy 101.4.21 are as follows (underlined) --please note that the table labeled "Future Land Use Densities and Intensities" that is now part of Policy 101.4.21 would not be changed by this amendment: Policy 101.4.21 Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 - 101.4.17. _However, the Maximum Net Density for development or redevelopment parcels where the residential component constitutes affordable workforce or employee housing, as such housing may be defined by any local state or federal law or regulation shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage or total square footage of aO parcels developed as or redeveloped into such housing uses, though applicable open space setback and buffering requirements shall be adhered to except where a variance exception or conditional use otherwise available under the Comprehensive Plan or Monroe County Code has been granted: [W-5.006(3)(c)7]. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank.) 2 III. ANALYSIS A. Consistency with the Land Development Regulations County requirements for amendments to the land development regulations: Pursuant to Section 9.5-511(d)(5)b of the Monroe County Code, the Board of County Commissioners may consider the adoption of an ordinance enacting proposed changes to the text or maps based on one (1) or more of the following factors, for which the following justification is provided: (i) Changed projections (e.g., regarding public set -vice needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based; Monroe County has adopted the Tier System which designates as Tier III those areas which are subject to development/redevelopment. Thus, it can now be projected that all affordable housing in the County will be limited to the land designated as Tier III. This refinement of projected locations for affordable housing constitutes a changed projection. (ii) Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); Assumptions regarding stability of rental housing supply, as well as the inventory of rental and other affordable housing itself have been completely dispelled by recent Florida International University data and analysis. This data shows that the viability of the major economic engine in the County, tourism, is critically threatened by a rapid decrease in worker housing availability over the last six years. The County cannot assume that the tourism industry can remain stable and essentially absent attempts to address demonstrated housing and labor market trends. (iii) Data errors, including errors in mapping vegetative types and natural features described in volume I of the plan; None. (iv) New issues; The County's challenges with dealing with market demand and limited supply factors in the housing and labor sectors are not new. The acceleration of the rates of change experienced is. This acceleration necessitates a re -emphasis on doing as much as the County reasonably can to assure a sustainable workforce to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development as required by the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in s. 380.0552, F.S. 3 (v) Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; None. (vi) Data updates; DATA SUMMARY [Rule 9J-5.005, F.A.C.]: The Monroe County, Florida, Affordable Housing Needs Assessment, authored by The Metropolitan Center at Florida International University (2007), contained these relevant findings (emphasis added): "A huge discrepancy exists in all three geographic areas of the Keys, and for both categories of housing - single family and multifamily - between home market prices and current income levels. At these levels, new homeownership remains restricted to very high income earners." [p. 22] "The housing affordability calculations for occupations include certain essential workforce occupations, such as teachers, nurses and police officers." [p. 26] "While much of the focus has been given to Monroe County's loss of affordable housing in terms of cost, loss of renter housing and limited new production, there is also need to address the age and the condition of the existing housing stock. Approximately 60 percent of Monroe County's housing stock is now over 25 years old." [p. 28]. "Given this nexus and the limitations on land development in Monroe County, affordable housing policies and strategies should focus on infill development opportunities within these existing residential and job centers." [p. 30] The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document Housing Element 7.0, and now the new FIU Assessment with very recent data and analysis, have been made available to or been presented to the BOCC in support of the proposed amendment. B. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies of the MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 3. I Future Land Use 4 GOAL 101 Monroe County shall manage./ uture gro",th to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. [9J-5.006(3)a] Chapter 3.6 HOUSING ELEMENT GOAL 601 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by all current and future residents to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound, and that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and individual preferences. [9j- 5.010(3)(a)j Objective 601.2 Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to encourage housing of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet demands of current and future residents. [9J-5.010(3)(b)J IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Staff consultant finds that the proposed changes are consistent with County Code Section 9.5-511(d)(5)b.(i), (ii), (iv) and (vi): "changed assumptions", "changed projections", "new issues" and "data updates". 2. Staff consultant finds the amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 3. Staff consultant finds the amendment consistent with F.A.C. Chapters 9J-5, Florida Statutes, Chapter 163, and The Principles for Guiding Development. 4. Staff consultant finds that the amendment directly furthers the County's responsibilities in the housing area made possible by s. 125.01055, F.S. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may adopt and maintain in effect any law, ordinance, rule, or other measure that is adopted for the purpose of increasing the supply of affordable housing using land use mechanisms such as inclusionary housing ordinances." V. PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE Please see attached or included Draft Proposed Ordinance and supporting materials. 9 VI. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law cited above or in relevant submissions materials, the Division of Housing and Community Development and the Workforce Housing Task Force counsel recommend that the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the proposed ordinance. 0 Jerry Coleman, Esq. Barton W. Smith, Esq. (FL only) JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. Truman Annex jeny@jerrycolemmipl.net Building 21 Second Floor 201 Front Street, Suite 203 TEL 305-292-3095 bart@jenycolemanpl.net Key West, Florida 33040 FAX 305-296-6200 (Admitted Florida and New York) Legal Assistant: $hannon@jenycolemanpl.net MEMORANDUM (CONSULTANT STAFF REPORT) TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jerry Coleman, P.L. Counsel to Monroe County Workforce Housing Task Force THROUGH: Townsley Schwab, Acting, Sr., Director of Planning & Environmental Resources and Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator DATE: January 23, 2008 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MEETING DATE: February 20, 2008 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this supplement to this consultant's January 22, 2008 staff report is to advise the Board of additional public comment received from Naval Air Station Executive Director Ron Demes. Mr. Demes spoke at the January 8, 2008 Planning Commission where he requested that the `gross acreage' affordable comprehensive plan amendment exclude certain AICUZ mapped areas from the ambit of the proposed amendment's effect. At the Planning Commission hearing, I requested that Mr. Demes supply us with a written description of the Air Station's request and I told him that I would ensure that the Navy's objections to aspects of this proposed affordable housing comprehensive plan amendment would be brought to the Board's attention for due consideration. Due to timing, however, the primary staff report on this item did not include the reference to the Navy's comments expressed at the January 8 hearing or information from Mr. Demes e-mail to me of on or about January 18, 2008. Therefore, attached hereto is a copy of that e-mail (and the related e-mail string) which expresses the Navy's position in Mr. Demes' words without interpretation or translation by our office. Also attached is a copy of the map document Mr. Demes references in his January 18, 2008 e-mail with file name "AICUZ Figue 7-2.pdf' [sic]. I have forwarded to the Board a copy of Mr. Demes' actual pdf file for better presentation separate from this report. Page 1 of 4 Reviewed by: II. STAFF/CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION(S): Consider the Navy's comments and balance the various interests and needs as required when applying the statutory Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern [s. 380.0552(7), F.S.I. The statute directs that the Principles are to "be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions" (emphasis added) and the Third District Court of Appeal has held that the Board's and the DCA's job is indeed to review these guidelines as a whole in determining whether a proposed land development regulation or comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the guidelines. See Rathkamp v. Department of Community Affairs, 740 So.2d 1209 (FIa. 3d DCA 1999). For ease of reference, I have set forth the statutory Principles here: Principles for guiding development. --State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 2717-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which chapter is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F- 8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, the following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood Page 2 of 4 Reviewed by: hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9.Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. Page 3 of 4 Reviewed by: Q) To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (k) To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource, Page 4 of 4 Reviewed by: Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 1 of 8 Jerry Coleman From: Demes, Ron A CIV CNRSE, NO2 [ron.demes@navy.mil] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:43 PM To: Jerry Coleman, P.L. Cc: Subject: Tennyson -Lisa; Grimsley-Susan; Trivette-Andrew; Paros-Reggie; Shillinger-Bob; boccdisl@monroecounty-fl.gov; Boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis3@monroecounty- fl.gov; boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Attachments: AICUZ Figue 7-2.pdf Mr. Coleman: The attached AICUZ map is forwarded for your use per my 16 January 2008 email to you and is consistent with your request during the 8 January 2008 Planning Commission meeting. We respectfully request that the County exclude the properties within the NAS Key West Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) from the proposed Comp Plan Amendment that would allow a density increase for residential use (affordable housing). The attached 2007 AICUZ map shows the boundary requested from 60 DNL and greater. This is the area we are requesting be excluded from the proposed COMP Plan Amendment provisions. With regard maintaining balance between competing interests, we want to assure you as I have stated at the recent DRC meeting and the last Planning Commission meeting, that we acknowledge and appreciate the critical need for workforce/affordable housing. We totally support affordable housing in appropriate locations. The AICUZ footprint is not such an area due to the high noise and accident potential zones within the footprint. Your comments were directed to maintaining and preserving the AICUZ Overlay District, which is a part of Monroe County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), Section 9.5-260. As you are aware, the number of parcels available for affordable housing development in the AICUZ overlay district is minor compared to the number of parcels available county -wide. Upon reviewing the comments concerning 380.0552 Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) principles for guiding development, we understand the County's obligations under the Principles for Guiding Development are: "To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: Naval Air Station KW"; "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys"; "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan"; and "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." It is our stance that the obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed by the obligation to protect of pubic investments or the obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare; hence the properties within the AICUZ footprint should be excluded. If the County continues to allow the encroachment of development, which they regulate, onto an existing "public" investment such as NAS Key West, that development will continue to negatively affect the efficiency of operations which in turn will continue to degrade the operational capability of NAS Key West. Additionally, one could argue that the County would be remiss, in terms of public health, safety and welfare, if they knowingly permitted housing, specifically, affordable housing within the higher noise level areas, contrary to their adopted regulations. It could also be argued that it is discriminatory to relegate 1/23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 2 of 8 affordable housing to those areas which have public health, safety and welfare concerns, such as areas with high noise levels, high volumes of traffic, etc. The term we use regarding this type of development is "Environmental Injustice" which we are particularly sensitive to guard against. The proposed COMP Plan amendment would promote an increase in density, which equates to an increase in population living in the high noise areas or accident potential areas. This is contrary promoting to public health, safety and welfare. The proposed COMP Plan amendments proposes an increase in the overall density county -wide of approximately 20 percent of affordable units. This fact was not specifically addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. It is our contention that the staff report did not provide, as required by state statute, the data and analysis of the impact of the increase in the overall density potential with the amendment, including the estimated increase in numbers of dwellings and population. This analysis/backup information is required to be part of the data, inventory and analysis (DIA) for every comprehensive plan and LDR amendment. Such an analysis might include an inventory of vacant parcels that would be large enough to benefit from an increase in density and in locations where affordable housing would be logical (i.e. dry parcels near employment centers) outside of the AICUZ footprint. Another factor not mentioned or considered in the DIA was the potential impacts on hurricane evacuation. Development in the county has an effect on hurricane evacuation which impacts all of the jurisdictions in Monroe County and could affect the development potential of the other jurisdictions. This hurricane evacuation issue warrants being addressed as part of the required DIA. Again, we are requesting the County use the 2007 AICUZ footprint vice the 1977 CNR2/CNR3 footprint because the 2007 AICUZ footprint is the most current data available. We are requesting that the parcels located in the 60 DNL contour and higher be excluded from the proposed amendment for the protection "public investment" and the protection of public health, safety, and welfare as required by the Principles for Guiding Development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment for the Naval Air Station as well as the ex-officio military representative of the Monroe County Planning Commission. R, Ron Demes Ron Demes Executive Director Naval Air Station P.O. Box 9001 Key West, Florida 33040-9001 305.293.2866 (CO/XO/XD/EA) 305.293.2488 (XD Desk) 305.797.0158 (XD Cell) «AICUZ Figue 7-2.pdf>> -----Original message ----- From: Jerry Coleman, P.L. (mailto:ierry@ierrycolemanpi net] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 19:52 To: Demes, Ron A CIV CNRSE, NO2 Cc: 'Tennyson -Lisa'; 'Grimsley-Susan'; 'Trivette-Andrew'; 'Paros-Reggie'; 'Shillinger-Bob'; boccdisl@monroecounty-fl.gov; Boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov; 1/23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 3 of 8 boccdis3@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis5@monroecounty- fl.gov Subject: RE: AICUZ Thank you Ron. I am finishing my staff reports on some of these ordinances tonight as my client - imposed deadline is tomorrow and I must be in Key Colony for the quarterly affordable housing advisory committee meeting tomorrow. Nonetheless, I will duly note your intention to supply materials/commentary to the BOCC for its consideration with respect to these ordinances. I feel confident that the County very much appreciates, understands and considers the very important role the Navy and all of our Armed Services play for all Americans -- and the need to recognize, protect and support the Navy's mission here. As a former Air Force pilot who has personally landed a B-52 on, I believe, more than one occasion at Boca Chica (albeit not practice carrier landings!), I too appreciate and respect the Navy's mission and its interests in seeing that it is accomplished. It is, of course, the County Commission's views, determinations and balancing with respect to the Commission's consideration of the proposed ordinances, with the guidance of its very dedicated staff, that will be the subject of the hearings scheduled for February. jc The information contained in this communication and attachments is intended only for the individual(s) to whom addressed. Anyone receiving this information other than the intended recipient is hereby notified that unauthorized distributing or copying of this communication and its attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender at sender's e-mail address and delete all copies from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of applicable attorney -client privilege or attorney work -product doctrine protections. Please be advised that e-mail may not be checked by attorneys in this office over prolonged periods. Therefore, urgent matters should be brought to our attorneys' attention through means other than e- mail. Communication by and responses to e-mail consume attorney time and such time is billable. JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. 201 Front Street, Suite 203 1/23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp PIan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 4 of 8 Key West, Florida 33040 (Admitted Florida and New York) TEL 305-292-3095 FAX 305-296-6200 -----Original Message ----- From: Demes, Ron A CIV CNRSE, NO2 [mailto:ron.demes@navy mill Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:00 PM I To: Jerry Coleman, P.L. Cc: Tennyson -Lisa; Grimsley-Susan; Trivette-Andrew; Paros-Reggie; Shillinger-Bob; boccdisl@monroecounty-fl.gov; Boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis3@monroecounty- fl.gov; boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov Subject: RE: AICUZ Mr. Coleman: We thank you for the opportunity to comment and work this issue with you. We are working on the map for you and will hopefully have it to you by close of business Friday. As I stated in the Planning Commission, we appreciate the need for affordable/workforce housing but have serious concerns about placing more and more of these housing areas in areas that were "commercial" or "industrial" areas closer and closer to the airfield. The closer to the airfield the higher the noise. With the map, I will also forward the rationale that takes exception to the "balance competing needs" assessment you made below. V/r, ron Ron Demes Executive Director 1 /23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 5 of 8 Naval Air Station P.O. Box 9001 Key West, Florida 33040-9001 305.293.2866 (CO/XO/XD/EA) 305.293.2488 (XD Desk) 305.797,0158 (XD Cell) -----Original Message ----- From: Jerry Coleman, P.L. [mailto:ferr y@'err--lemanpl.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 14:12 To: Demes, Ron A CIV CNRSE, NO2 Cc: 'Tennyson -Lisa'; 'Grimsley-Susan'; 'Trivette-Andrew'; 'faros -Reggie'; 'Shillinger-Bob'; boccdisl@monroecounty-fl.gov; Boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis3@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis4@monroecounty-fl.gov; boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov Subject: Mr. Demes: Thanks for you public participation in the land use planning process at last week's Planning Commission meeting in Marathon. You and Gail indicated (if I recall correctly) that you would get me (or appropriate County in-house legal counsel) those AICUZ numbered zones that you 1/23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 6 of 8 objected to with respect to the affordable housing ordinances we presented at the hearing. Let me know if you have done this to me or other County in-house legal staff who will almost certainly be handling most all such ordinance matters going forward after this week. Otherwise please forward this information to me as soon as you can so I can indicate it in my revised staff report. Without specifics to note, I'll respectfully at least indicate what I believe I can fairly reflect as your generalized objections. I repeat here what I stated at the Planning Commission on behalf of the County - the County's obligations under s. 380.0552, F.S. are to balance competing needs, including protecting public investments among them NAS and properties and affordable housing investments as well, and adding in our need to provide affordable housing in critical need. jc 1 /23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Comp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 7 of 8 The information contained in this communication and attachments is intended only for the individual(s) to whom addressed. Anyone receiving this information other than the intended recipient is hereby notified that unauthorized distributing or copying of this communication and its attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender at senders e-mail address and delete all copies from your computer. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of applicable attorney -client privilege or attorney work -product doctrine protections. Please be advised that e-mail may not be checked by attorneys in this office over prolonged periods. Therefore, urgent matters should be brought to our attorneys, attention through means other than e-mail. Communication by and responses to e-mail consume attorney time and such time is billable. JERRY COLEMAN, P.L. 201 Front Street, Suite 203 Key West, Florida 33040 1/23/2008 Affordable/workforce Housing density Camp Plan Amendment (AICUZ- related) Page 8 of 8 (Admitted Florida and New York) TEL 305-292-3095 FAX 305-296-6200 1 /23/2008 NOD _g } SH Igo d a AAi ;§ [ 0 { 9 � . $ U u 0 HOUSINGMONROE COUNTYJLORIDA AFFORDABLE NEEDS'ASSESSMENT Prepared for: The Partnership for Community Housing The RodeI Foundation of Key West THE METf=7OPOLITAN CENTER AN URBAN THOUGHT COLLECTIVE 150 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 500 Miami, F133131 te1.305.349.1251 fax. 305.349.1271 ://metropolitan fiu edu The Metropolitan Center at FIU extends our sincere thanks and appreciation to the following individuals and organizations for their technical assistance and support throughout the study process: The Partnership for Community Housing, Ed Block, Chair The Rodel Foundation of Key West, Dr. Ann Henderson, President The Metropolitan Center at Florida International University delivers information and expertise to decision makers, community leaders and citizens as they seek to forge solutions to urban problems. The Center is engaged in the study of the demographics, economics and Politics of South Florida. The overall goal of the Center, as an applied research institute, is to provide decision -makers with the best possible information to forge solutions to the problems confronting South Florida's urban areas. Toward that goal, the Center provides research, training, and technical assistance to governmental and nonprofit organizations in South Florida. The Center provides usable knowledge to inform decision makers on economic development, land use, housing, and public opinion. It also provides organizational management planning and development to strengthen local organizations' ability to serve their client basis. STUDY TEAM Ned Murray, Ph. D., AICP, Associate Director Dario Moreno, Ph. D., Director Maria Ilcheva, Senior Research Associate Dario Gonzalez, Research Associate Vanessa Brito, Director of Marketing and Communications Stephanie Smith, Research Assistant Lina Duran, Research Analyst, Socha Urban Inc. �d«nr<u�C"1111h ;11101'ddhlcIl<nwsm The Monroe County Housing Needs Assessment was prepared by The Metropolitan Center at Florida International University (FIU) on behalf of the Partnership for Community Housing. The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to provide a quantitative study that serves as a baseline for understanding and measuring Monroe County's housing supply and demand relationship, its impact on the economic sustainability of the county and its municipalities. and The housing demand and supply assessment examines the existing and future housing needs of Monroe County's resident worker population and provides several Iayers of affordability gap analysis based on prevailing wages, household incomes, and housing values. The study attempts to clearly illustrate the important relationship between housing suppIy and demand, and the significance of creating and maintaining an adequate supply of affordable homeowner and renter housing with respect to Monroe County's future economy and quality of life Monroe County's housing affordability problem has widespread economic impacts, including a growing recognition of the important link between an adequate affordable housing supply and economic growth. Many of Florida's business sectors, including professional services, retail trade, and health care, are finding it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain workers for entry and mid -management positions. There is increasing evidence that working families have begun to move to Iocations which have more affordable housing, both in and outside the State of Florida. As the affordable housing situation worsens, businesses will also close their doors and relocated outside of Florida. Recent data suggests that Monroe County's economy has begun to feel these impacts. The need to protect and preserve an adequate inventory of workforce -accessible housing is a growing economic development challenge in Monroe County and all of South Florida. Rapidly appreciating housing values have diminished the supply of affordable owner and renter units, thus creating a severe mismatch with the housing demand of the local workforce. The economic imbalance is exacerbated by the lack of production of workforce -priced owner and renter housing units. Monroe County has been experiencing significant demographic shifts since 2000 that are affecting housing demand. Since 2000, the County has experienced a 14 percent loss in the 20-54 working age groups and a concomitant 15 percent increase in the 55 and over retirement age group. In total, Monroe County lost 2,024 workers or 5 percent of its labor force since 2000. Incoming retirees are more affluent than the younger population groups that have relocated. However, it will be difficult to replace younger worker households given the combination of low wage employment and high priced real estate. Monroe County's median single-family home value to median household income ratio is an astonishing 12:1. In calculating housing affordability, the standard ratio used by most mortgage Ienders and housing professionals is that housing expenses should not exceed 30 percent of a household's gross monthly income. The study shows that 57 percent of owner households Monroe County earring less than the area median income (AMI) are cost burdened. A striking 85 percent of renter households earning less than the AMI cost burdened. _...... i 'orrrnw CotFiih The housing demand analysis section of the study included affordability calculations based on median household and occupational income using conventional lending terms and underwriting standards. The analysis determined that affordability gaps for all housing types are extreme Monroe County. A further analysis of the Monroe County's sub -markets (Upper/Middle/Lower in Keys) indicates that affordability gaps exist throughout the County. The current median values of single-family homes and condominiums are unaffordable to nearly 95 percent of Monroe County's existing households. Substantial rent affordability gaps also exists throughout the Keys, particularly in the upper and middle Keys. The study determined that the greatest affordable housing need is found in Monroe County's larger cities, e.g. Key West, Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo, where the largest concentrations of the workforce currently reside. Approximately 70 percent of Monroe County's resident workforce lives in these four cities. These cities also function as the employment centers of the Keys. Given this nexus and the limitations on land development in Monroe County, affordable housing policies and strategies should focus on infiH development opportunities within these existing residential and job markets. i���l�,t�t<tir(�nnnE�. �\!!<�r�l��E�(r 1(t�usins; Nrt�c15 �1s�a�,t;si2�ci71�...... 200"! 112 I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ...............................................1 II. HOUSING SUPPLY ANALYSIS ................... 5 Housing Inventory by Type ......... ...................................................... . 5 Vacancy Rates .............................. .... ...................................................... 7 Housing Occupancy................................................................................................................................. 8 Owner and Renter -occupied Units ................... 8 Development Trends ................. ............................ ........10 Housing Permits........................................................10 ................................... Real Estate Market ...................... 11 Aboutthe Market...........................................................................................11 III. HOUISNG DEMAND ANALYSIS...........................................................17 Labor Market and Economic Base ........................................17 .......................... Affordability Gap and Cost Burden ...............................................................22 IV. HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY ASSESSMENT ....................26 Vjmllot. C ounI.N AH-ord,lWo i iuusirts; LIST OF TABLES TABLE1.1........................................... 5 TABLE1.2.............................................:.. TABLE 1.3 ............... jTABLE 3.1............................................ TABLE 3.3 ............... TABLE3.4.................................................................................................24 TABLE3.5.....................................................................................................25 TABLE 3.6 ........................: TABLE3.7................................................. TABLE4.1...................................................30 ...................................................... LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1................................. FIGURE1.2...................................................................... FIGURE1.3............................................. 9 FIGURE1.4................................................ FIGURE 1.5.............. FIGURE1.6..................................................................:. .......................................12 FIGURE 1.7............. FIGURE1.8.......................................................................... FIGURE 1.9...................... FIGURE1.10........................................... FIGURE 1.11 ............................... FIGURE 1.12....................... FIGURE3.1.................................................... C v INTRODUCTION The housing market in Monroe County has experienced unprecedented appreciation in recent years precipitating significant demographic and economic shifts. Rapidly escalating increases in housing values has threatened to make housing unaffordable for low and moderate -income households, as well as the working middle class. At the local level, many in both the public and private sectors have come to recognize the link between an adequate supply of affordable housing and sustainable economic growth. To develop this understanding and to move forward with real policies and Isolutions to address these housing issues, it is important for communities to assess the critical relationship between local housing supply and demand. The growing housing affordability crisis has serious consequences: ► First, we are putting Monroe County's economy at risk. High housing costs make it difficult to fill jobs and discourage businesses from locating to or expanding in the area. If the shortage of affordable housing persists, some businesses will be forced to close or relocate. ► Second, we are threatening the social fabric of our communities and neighborhoods. Due to escalating housing costs, people cannot afford to maintain their existing community ties or live close to their jobs or extended families. Many of us could not even afford to buy our own homes at today prices. Monroe County and its municipalities are each challenged to respond to this affordable housing crisis by recognizing the critical role they play in housing policy and strategy formulation. This point is echoed in the recent "The State of the Nation's Housing 2006" report produced by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. The report states the following: "In today's environment, perhaps the biggest housing challenge of all is to create the political will to make a more concerted assault on the nation's affordability problems. The fact that local business communities are beginning to make workforce housing a priority is a positive sign that this commitment may be developing. In addition, as the impacts of high housing costs and metropolitan sprawl increasingly affect the day-to-day lives of middle- and upper -income households, the voices calling for housing policy reform may become louder." The report goes on to state that "making significant headway will be difficult without the combined efforts of all levels of government to expand housing subsidies, create incentives for the private sector to build affordable housing, institute land use policies that reduce the barriers to development and educate the public about the importance of affordable housing." Given the extreme housing market conditions that currently exists in Monroe County with respect to the mismatch between housing values and household incomes there is a need for bold solutions that will require the formation of working private -public partnerships and new levels of inter -governmental cooperation. �lr�nrc�r C��Ernh� ;1((ctr�faE�lr I (<�irsnt}; �icc tip ;1stir���smrn( C��E,t,ris;h1 _)00 Defining Affordable Housing and Measuring Affordability Housing affordability is generally defined as the capacity of households to consume housing services and, specifically, the relationship between household incomes and prevailing housing prices and rents. The standard most used by various units of government is that households should spend no more than 30 percent of their income on housing. This is also the standard definition for housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and most state programs, including various housing programs administered through the State of Florida's Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) and Department of Community Affairs (DCA). However, this definition of housing affordability has its limitations because of the inability to determine whether households spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing by necessity or choice. Specifically, the definition does not consider that upper income and smaller households can afford to spend much more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing and still have enough income left over to satisfy other basic needs, whereas Iow income households that pay even 10 percent of their incomes on housing costs may be forced to forgo essential medical care and healthy nutrition (The Brookings Institution, 2002). Affordability Indices One measure of housing affordability is the cost of homeownership, commonly conveyed through housing affordability indices. These indices generally indicate that affordability increased substantially toward the end of the last decade, primarily as a result of lower interest rates during that period. A housing affordability index for an area brings together the price and the income elements that contribute to housing affordability. The following describes the most recognized affordability indices: National Association of Realtors (NAR) Index: The most common index is produced by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). The NAR index measures the ability of the median income household in an area to afford a median priced house. In addition to the median income and median house price in an area, the NAR index considers current mortgage interest rates, assumptions about the down payment required to purchase the median price home, and the maximum percentage of household income that can be spent on housing. An index of 100 indicates the typical (median) family in the area has sufficient income to purchase a single-family home selling at the median price (Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, 2004) Housing Opportunity Index: The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has developed a Housing Opportunity Index, defined as the share of homes affordable for median household incomes for each metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The NAHB Index has certain intuitive limitations, however, as housing affordability scores are generally more favorable in metropolitan areas that are also rated as "least desirable places to live" according to Places Rated Almanac (Brookings Institution, 2002). Nlonrdue C d>irnfv hf(ord'IhIc I fmll;iit�;;Ac�rdis mo; 2 The "median house price -income ratio' used by the National Association of Realtors and other housing analysts is a key economic indicator in assessing local market trends and vitality. Nationally, the median house price -to -income ratio has more than tripled in the past five years in many high priced metropolitan markets such as New York City, Boston, Los Angeles and South Florida. While housing affordability indices are useful tools, they typically examine affordability from only an ownership perspective. For households of lower income in a rapidly appreciating housing market, problem. rent price increases have far exceeded growth in incomes, thus worsening the housing affordability Link between Economic Growth and Housing Need Monroe County's housing affordability problem has widespread economic impacts, including a growing recognition of the important link between an adequate affordable housing supply and economic growth. Many of Florida's business sectors, including professional services, retail trade, and health care, are finding it increasingly difficult to attract and maintain workers for entry and mid -management positions. There is increasing evidence that working families have begun to move to locations which have more affordable housing, both in and outside the State of Florida. As the affordable housing situation worsens businesses will also close their doors and relocated outside of Florida. Recent data suggests that Monroe County's economy has begun to feel these impacts. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF STUDY The Monroe County Housing Needs Assessment was prepared by The Metropolitan Center at Florida International University (FIU) on behalf of the Community Housing Partnership. The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to provide a quantitative study that serves as a baseline for understanding and measuring Monroe County's housing supply and demand relationship and its impact on the economic sustainability of the county and its municipalities. To this end, the FIU Metropolitan Center's approach was to: Prepare a comprehensive housing database and analysis designed to assist Monroe County in determining future housing policies and strategies; Combine economic and housing market analyses, utilizing the most current and reliable primary and secondary data sources; and Provide a clear and workable database that can be updated regularly. The methodology used by the FIU Metropolitan Center in the research and preparation of the Monroe County Housing Needs Assessment is to link current and future housing demand and supply factors and conditions with existing and future population and employment characteristics and projections. The housing demand and supply assessment examines the existing and future housing needs of Monroe County's resident worker population and provides several layers of affordability gap analysis based on prevailing wages, household incomes, and housing values. The study attempts to clearly illustrate the important relationship between housing supply and demand, !\�lntir��r (.'�iurrtti�lffisr�di[-�}c� ! fcursini� 1it�c'�{5 ;�5��rsstt�crl[ —_-- and the economic significance of creating and maintaining an adequate supply of affordable homeowner and renter housing. Specifically, the study includes the following elements: ► Housing Supply Analysis: This section provides estimates of the current housing inventory/supply in Monroe County based on housing type, tenure, values and geographic sub -area. ► Housing Demand Analysis: This section examines current and projected workforce demand based on a labor market and economic base analysis, as well as population and household trends. ► Housing Demand and Supply Assessment: This section assesses the relationship between current and projected housing supply and demand and determines the level of impact on housing affordability and economic sustainability. Nlonroc CmIlItAftol-daNe 1Ic>iisrr�f eeiir.;As;c�smcn[ Copyright 2007 4 The Housing Supply Analysis provides an assessment of the existing inventory of housing in Monroe County and its municipalities, including the condition of the housing stock, vacancy and absorption rates, housing values and development trends. For the purposes of this study, housing inventory is defined as the total number of housing units by type in the County, including occupied and unoccupied units. Housing supply, on the on the other hand, refers to the amount of units available for sale or rent at any given time. Housing Inventory by Type Since 2000, the total housing inventory in Monroe County increased by only 3 percent, growing from 51,617 housing units in 2000 to 53,398 units in 2006. In the previous decade (1990-2000), Monroe County's housing inventory grew from 46,215 to 51,617 units or 12 percent. Single- family housing units comprise 49.5 percent of the County's overall housing inventory. Multi -family units comprise 35.7 percent of the housing inventory with mobile homes constituting the remaining 14.7 percent. TABLE 1.1: HOUSING INVENTORY, MONROE COUNTY pk Single F19,967 24,2'12 26,099 2fi�02 amily Multi- Fami1v . 14,527 16,812 18,105 13,935 Figure 1.1 shows that growth in Monroe County's housing inventory is attributed to modest increases in both single-family and multi -family construction. The County added 6,236 singly family homes and 4,408 multi -family units from 2000-2006. At the same time, the number of mobile homes decreased by nearly 2,400 units. \l\f(c�rcfa(>(<� (!011siII 5 FIGURE 1.1 MV, C INVENTORY 15,000 � D,0 uop _ ion, 2000 2005 2006 135in04:Famlly:. El Mufti -Family ©Mobile Homes Housing Inventory by Principal Cities Monroe County's housing inventory is concentrated within its four principal cities - Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon and Key West. Together, the four cities comprise 65 percent of the County's housing stock and, significantly, 77 percent of the County's rental housing supply. TABLE 1.2: HOUSING INVENTORY BY PRINCIPAL CITIES Monroe County 51,617 35,086 Key Largo/Islamorada 13,579 8,479 Marathon 6,786 4,597 Key West 13,307 11,017 Source: US. Departrlrr'rrl of (rrr mr ,rcr, B111' rrt1 of the Ccrrsio, 2000 £rclrrdcs 111o171h, Irorrt��s jolit oe Um111tt : llm-(1,114c l 2f}(1 21,900 13,186 6,033 2,446 2,911 1,686 5,024 5,993 6 The concentration of the housing inventory is an important consideration when considering new development opportunities within a location such as the Keys where there is limited land development capacity and environmental constraints. Cities with existing concentrations of housing often provide infill development opportunities for new affordable housing. Vacancy Rates One of the unique characteristics of the Monroe County housing market is the Iarge number of vacation homes. The prominent role that the second home market plays in the Key's real estate industry creates powerful inflationary pressure on the housing market. Monroe County has exhibited high and increasing vacancy rates for both homeowner and rental units since 1990. In 1990 there were 7,928 vacant units reported representing a 17 percent vacancy rate. By 2006, there were 20,235 vacant units, an increase of 12,307 (155 percent) over sixteen years. The vacancy rate in 2006 was 38 percent. Table 1.2 illustrates the dramatic increase in vacancy rates across Southeastern Florida during the last two decades and clearly shows that the increase in Monroe County has been extraordinary. TABLE 1.3: VACANCY RATES BY COUNTY Broward County Miorhi=Dad@ 1990 11.5%j 5.36/o z 1.1 61" 8 9%` 2005 14.5% to. 2006 14.4% Monroe County 17%Q 32% :� 36% 1 i nuIt, ?+i,i!;r Monroe County's high vacancy rate is attributed to the large number of units that are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. In 1990, 7,928 units (63 percent of the vacant units) were seasonal units. By 2006, the seasonal units numbered 15,262 (75 percent of the vacant units). During the same period, the number of occupied housing units rose only slightly from 33,583 units in 1990 to 35,086 units in 2000. However, since 2000 there has been a significant and steady 6 percent decrease in the number of occupied housing units reducing the total to 33,013 units. The decrease in occupied housing units has particularly impacted the County's renter housing inventory. Specifically, Monroe County's renter housing inventory decreased from 13,186 units in 2000 to 11,128 units in 2006, a 16 percent loss. Figure 1.2 shows vacant units used as vacation homes increasing dramatically with the number of vacant units serving as rental properties declining since 1990. ._-----_._.-------- ------_-_ FIGURE 1.2 HOUSING INVENTORY:VACANT UNITS Housing Occupancy Owner and Renter -occupied Units According to the 2006 American Community Survey, there are 33,013 (62 percent) occupied housing units in Monroe County. Of these, approximately 66.3 percent are owner -occupied. In comparison to what was reported in the 2000 U.S. Census, there has been a 7.3 percent growth in owner occupied housing. The high levels of homeownership can be attributed to several factors, including the increase in the number of single-family homes, especially at the high end of the market, low interest rates, and a greater variety of mortgage options. The increase in homeownership is also Iargely attributed to the decrease in rental units. The replacement of multi -family units and mobile homes with expensive single-family homes has resulted in dramatic reductions in renter -occupied units in Monroe County. Renters occupy only 11,128 units or 34 percent of the occupied housing units in Monroe County. Between 1990 and 200, renter units and owner -occupied units increased, by 5 percent and 4 percent respectively. There has been a significant 16 percent decrease in renter occupied units from 2000 to 2006. Figure 1.3 depicts the recent decline of renter occupied units in the Keys. --�---_- � uF i_11t .100'; 8 FIGURE 1.3 HOUSING INVENTORY: TENURE |vx,ioXN,,,|s/\`x,ynnx v 4 DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Housing Permits Building permit numbers reflect the trend in Monroe County towards the replacement of mobile homes and multi -family units with more expensive single-family homes. Despite the fluctuation of building permits issued from year to year, there is an observable overall decline since 1990. During the 1990's Monroe County averaged 509 building permits per year. Since 2000, the Keys are averaging only 366 permits per year, representing a decline of 28 percent in residential building activity. This downturn is especially acute in the number of building permits for multi -family housing. Monroe County averaged 96 building permits for multi- family units during the 1990's, but decreased to an average of 41 per year since 2000, a decline of 43 percent. The decline in building permits for single-family homes has not been as dramatic. Single-family housing starts declined from 415 per year in the 1990s to 325 per year since 2000, representing a 28 percent decline in building activity. Significantly, in 2005-06 the number of building permits for single-family homes in Monroe County was substantially larger than the average - 506 in 2005 and 430 in 2006. At the same time, the permits for multi -family homes remained low at 32 in 2005 and 27 in 2006. Figure 1.4 illustrates residential building permit trends in Monroe County since 1990. FIGURE 1.4 BUILDING PERMITS BY TYPE OF HOUSING 700 100 sarrra: U.S. Deparhnent of Honsiargand Urlurn Denrh>pnx'n( (IIUD), stets° of the CiaC, Data OU Mc lropoliLua Ci'mier, 2007, 1Icamil,C<�iva(�� :11lc�rc{�if�(c� fc�usir�l; Vr��<I �lssrs�ni��nl 10 Real Estate Market Sales Activity - Monroe County From 1990 until 2004 Monroe County had a vigorous housing market with booming sales and continuously rising housing values. The demand for single-family homes, which in 2005 and 2006 represent almost 50 percent of the housing stock in the county, was especially pronounced. The volume of sales increased by 30 percent from 1990 to 2000, and then by an additional 19 percent from 2000 to 2004. However, in the last three years (2004-2006) the volume of single- family home sales dropped by a dramatic 51 percent. Although the decrease occurred in all housing types, the decrease was most drastic in single-family home sales. Figures 1.5 and 1.6 present the volume of sales in Monroe County since 1990. 2000 1500 1000 500 0 SF FIGURE 1.5 SALES 1990-2007 ALL KEYS �il�nrc�r C�iunly 1(for(Lihic 11u1�,5in4, 11 0 3506 4 `4006 b01L E$ isVA" CAM LAm j' Sales Activity - Monroe County Sub -markets An analysis of Monroe County's residential sub -markets indicates similar patterns of sales activity for each housing type. Single-family sales began to escalate during the 1990s peaking during the building boom of 2002-2004 and then plummeting during 2004-2007 to pre-1990 Ievels of sales activity. This market condition has impacted all of South Florida where unprecedented appreciation levels first stimulated strong investment and sales activity which in turn contributed to inflationary price levels and a sudden drop in residential sales activity. i n�J �'I fS��i t` 7OQj 12 VUL 800 700 600 Soo 400 300 200 100 0 FIGURE 1.7 SALES 1990-2007 UPPER KEYS WVV 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Y.M -*-VACANT , -MOBILE HOMES -A-SF -WMULTIFAMILY Figures 1.7 to 1.9 also show an increase in vacant land sales during the height of the residential boom. It is likely that the significant increase in land sales is related to the loss of mobile home sales during this period. Previous mobile home sites were sold and the land cleared for new residential construction. It is also significant that multi -family home sales do not show as drastic a drop-off in sales activity as single-family homes during the reporting period. A further analysis of new condominium sales prices indicates that the bulk of the sales occurred at the higher end of the market where inflationary prices would have less of an impact on that level of buyer demand. N-10,11-cComitv Aff'oi,dabfe I jollsilisr Nloods 2007 13 FIGURE 1.8 SALES 1990-2007 MIDDLE KEYS sor 50[ 400 300 200 100 0 �vau Taco z00o 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 +VACANT -*-MOBILE HOMES -f-SF -.-MULTIFAMILY FIGURE 1.9 SALES 1990-2007 LOWER KEYS `001 14 Sales Values by Monroe County Sub -Markets As previously noted, the residential building boom that impacted all of South Florida from approximately 2002 to 2005 had a substantial inflationary effect on the real estate market. However, unlike other South Florida markets, Monroe County's decreasing volume of sales since 2004 has had a mixed impact on sales values. In fact, since 2004, when the number of sold properties peaked, the median sales value of single-family homes increased by 57 percent in the Upper Keys. Multi -family housing, mobile homes and vacant land have all shown increase in sales values during this time period. i FIGURE 1.10 MEDIAN SALES VALUES 1990-2007: UPPER KEYS $900,000 1�I��nr<�c> C��nmty AI,Ior(hlble l follshig, \irc,Lis ;15 E_�ssm<>nt Copvris;1112100 j 9 __1____.. ___._.___1 __ __r___.._ t 15 FIGURE 1.11 MEDIAN SALES VALUES 1990-2007: MIDDLE KEYS cwu Awi ZUU2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 YE.x tVACANT ®MOBILE HOMES ■SF 13MULTIFAMILY FIGURE 1.12 MEDIAN SALES VALUES 1990-2007: LOWER KEYS $1,000,000 $900,000 $916,7'0 72,50 $800,00 $700,000 Esoo,000 ---- ---- 5500,000 f 99;0 $400,000 $300,000 — — 0p0 �R7 500 $200,000- f1p0,000 — 0 i i.,,so 1880- 1995, 20" 2001 2002 2003 2W4` 2005 2006 2007 YEAR 0 VACANT :: to MOBLE MOMS$ �'$F, H,WLTIFAMILY ��It)Ilft�c'C.<)t[(�it .<<•, ...=' i ��,17`�;li• ,�� � .�.in�:r( _ ,._. _.._.. 16 Housing demand refers to the amount and type of residential property desired for purchase or rent in a given market at a given time. The elements that affect housing demand include growth and change in the labor market and industrial base, housing values, household income and population and household composition. Each of these key elements will be discussed in this section. The economic analysis begins with a discussion of Monroe County's existing Iabor market and economic base, including its major industries, occupational employment, and wage rates. Subsequent analysis is given to projected industry and employment growth, including the fastest growing occupations in Monroe County, Labor Market and Economic Base Local housing and labor markets are inextricably linked to one another. Essentially, industries are served by local housing markets that provide choices and opportunities for both existing and expanding labor markets. As such, the availability of an existing supply of various housing types and price levels must be maintained to address the housing demand of the variety of occupations that comprise the Iocal industrial base. The need to protect and preserve an adequate inventory of workforce -accessible housing is a growing economic development challenge in Monroe County and all of South Florida. Rapidly appreciating housing values have diminished the supply of affordable owner and renter units, thus creating a severe mismatch with the housing demand of the local workforce. The economic imbalance is exacerbated by the lack of production of workforce -priced owner and renter housing units. Monroe County and its municipalities, in order to effectively develop local policies and strategies that address the demand for workforce housing, must first consider their larger economic development vision and goals, and the relationship between housing supply and demand and the dynamics of the Iocal labor market. Local labor markets are fairly structured and have a certain level of geographic arrangement that relates to housing supply and demand. Housing choice and affordability are key indices in determining the relative strength of this important supply and demand relationship. The total civilian labor force in Monroe County for October 2007 was 42,937 of which 41,646 were employed and 1,291 were unemployed representing an unemployment rate of 3.0 percent. The County's labor market is dominated by the tourist and hospitality industry. Over a quarter of the County's workforce (27 percent) is involved in the Accommodations and Food Service industries followed by the Retail sectors (15.25 percent). The 1,149 tourists and retail firms are generally scattered throughout the county, although there is a large concentration of firms in Key Largo and Key West. Public Administration (8.58 percent), Construction (7.15 percent), and the Health Care sectors (6.23 percent) comprised the remaining major industries in the Keys. The economic base of Monroe County like the rest of South Florida is largely supported by the non -durable service -providing industries. These industries currently comprise 91.3 percent of the Key's employment base. The majority of these jobs are directly related to South Florida tourism. �...__.�- C "'007 17 In fact, one of the key characteristics of the job market in Monroe County is its heavy reliance on tourism and tourism -related industries. The Keys have not experienced the unprecedented population growth that has fueled economic growth in the rest of South Florida. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Monroe County has experienced a net decline of 6.3 percent since 2000, while the rest of the state's population grew 22.2 percent. At the core of the labor market are the primary jobs, those that consist of career professional and technical positions with livable wages and benefits. This level of employment is often associated with "knowledge -intensive" industries that offer significant opportunities for career mobility. The employment base of this sector in the Keys is very small, only 3.3 percent, and is concentrated in the Finance and Insurance sector. Another 3 percent are employed in the Professional Scientific and Technical Services sector. Consequently, the average weekly wage in Monroe County is significantly (about 9 percent) lower than the rest .of Florida. The average weekly wage for the Keys in 2007 was $695. This would be equivalent to $17.13 per hour or $35,620 annually, assuming a 40-hour work week. The state's weekly average is $763 or $39,676 per year. The most recent labor market statistics from the Florida Research and Economic Database (FRED) clearly show that Monroe County's dominant employment industries are found in the tourist - serving sectors of the economy, including Accommodation and Food Services (9,716); Retail Trade (5,495); and Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (1,284). In total, these three industries alone account for 16,495 jobs or 45.8 percent of the 36,015 employable population of Monroe County. Noods Asse,;siiiem V07 18 Table 3.1 Major Industry Employers Monroe County First Quarter 2007 indostry Group Accommodation and Food Services, 509. 9,716 Retail Trade 60 5,495 Public Administration 71 3,091 Construction 495 2;$77 Health Care and Social Assistance 224 2 244 Educational services 28 Administrative Support (Waste Mgnt) 256 1,507 Other Services (except Public administration) 348 1,412 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreatiori' 1 284 Finance and Insurance 12"q 1220 Professional, Scientffic, and Technical '374, 1,1-08 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 351 Transportation and Warehousing 152 k842 Utilities 7 600 Wholesale'Trade 127 673 ., infwmatign- 51 480 ManLd'acteH Agk1Jfiure, Forestry, Fishing. arxt ��.... �..w'...��...-Mom....-- ..: :.I�" ..w� .... �.'.�'��M"• .w�'�'¢"' • . - _. _�...-.. -_. 2007 Florida Rescardr aari F_cojunnic 0r11a1117sc (I RLD) The Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) does not provide data on future job growth for Monroe County. However, recent historical data strongly suggest that the Accommodation and Food Service sector will remain robust while the rest of the jobs market will be static. Table 2.1 shows the job market in Monroe between 2000 and 2005. Significantly, it shows decline in all sectors except Accommodation and Food Service and a small increase in Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. Given the strength of the Keys' tourist industry and historic trends it seems safe to assume that Accommodation and Food Service will continue to be the leading job creating sector of the economy for the foreseeable future. lic�nr<u C r,uniG :'�f(c,rcl�ihl�_ I f�u�sn�}; Nceds Assr.ssnwiit 2007 19 FIGURE 3.1 yet. 0p Seurcr: f loriih, Ageut y %nr 1-bbrbforrr lnnoz aliorr; h9c lrojx lrfau Center, 2007 A more telling picture of the local workforce is depicted by comparing "occupational" employment and wages data for Monroe County. The 2007 Labor Market Statistics report produced by the Florida AWI indicates the specific "occupations" found within the broader industrial classifications shown above. The Labor Market Statistics report provides total employment figures for 2006 and 2007, including hourly wage estimates for all occupations, including mean, median, entry- and experienced- level wage rates. Figure 2.1 indicates that Monroe County's largest occupational employment is found in the Accommodation and Food industry, followed by the Retail and Health Care and Social Assistance sectors. Occupations in these sectors generally have low entry and median hourly wage rates. In fact, many of the occupations that comprise Monroe County's major employment base - retaiI sales persons ($11.17 median hourly wage), cashiers (8.46 median hourly wage), waiters and waitresses ($7.52 median hourly wage) - are also represented at the bottom of the occupation wage scale. Occupational employment and wage statistics indicate that Monroe County's labor market structure is largely skewed toward the secondary labor market (low wage retail and service sector occupations). As previously noted, these low -wage occupations offer little in terms of benefits, job security and career mobility. However, these occupations represent the industries that comprise Monroe County's economic base and, as such, must have access to an adequate supply of housing types at affordable price levels. IIoc Cc,I111 ;11to I-,I'lNo, 1 I()utrr� 20 TABLE 3.2 Major Industry Employers for Monroe County, First Quarter 2007 INCOME BY OCCUPATION ' Cd OOCUPATIONA! tuooltX, <60% <80:11 1C-]-20% -: <i50a/o. 15pt' 8>4,4_ 6; 3�,58. 17 -;583+ 2008-Leading Gmupatlons. Qfflce and Administrative Support x Retail Sales % Food Preparatlan and Service x Mhnepement x "Construction X 2007 MOdian Annual Wage for Essential occupatloms Elemantary School Teachaj r .. SecanddrV.SchoalTooeliora x: - Polite and Shgrifra A,l 01 eeft' 2.i � ,. Registered Irura6lr'. N. .--. •�yE : _.. _ � � �t, fit: �•� XW4I� A comparison of occupational wages with Monroe County's area median household income (AMI) reveals that the leading occupational groups in the County earn less than 80 percent of the AMI. Significantly, Food Preparation and Retail Sales occupations earn less than 50 percent of the AMI. Table 3.2 above also lists certain "essential" occupations such as teachers, nurses and police and sheriff patrol officers. The table shows that the median annual wages of Monroe County's teachers and police and sheriff patrol officers are also less than 80 percent of the AMI. 1 ltru5nig 21 Affordability Gap and Cost Burden The following section provides a Housing Affordability Gap Analysis. The analysis is also performed by target workforce occupations. Housing affordability is defined as housing costs that do not exceed 30 percent of monthly gross income. The computation for the housing affordability was performed using the median sales price for a single-family home and a condominium/town home in relation to the median household income or annual occupational wage. Favorable financing terms are applied (Fixed 30-year mortgage at 6.41 percent interest with a 5 percent down -payment) with taxes and insurance included. Debt ratios are not factored into the housing affordability calculations. In calculating housing affordability, the standard ratio used by most mortgage lenders and housing professionals is that housing expenses should not exceed 30 percent of a household's gross monthly income. According to the U.S. Census, 57 percent (4,383) of owner households in Monroe County earning less than the area median income (AMI) are cost burdened. A striking 85 percent (5,433) of renter households earning less than the AMI are cost burdened. Of this total, 2,324 renters, or 22 percent are "severely" cost burdened paying in excess of 50 percent of their monthly gross income on housing costs. Monroe County's urgent need for solutions to its affordable housing crisis is most evident from the enormous affordability gaps calculated on the basis of sales prices and the area's median wage. From 2000 to 2006 Monroe County's Median Household Income Increased from $42,283 to $52,069, or 23 percent. However, as Table 3.3 below demonstrates, this significant increase has not been sufficient to offset the rapid housing appreciation that occurred in the Keys since 1990. A huge discrepancy exists in all three geographic areas of the Keys, and for both categories of housing - single family and multifamily - between home market prices and current income levels. At these levels, new homeownership remains restricted to very high income earners. t�c>twrighC ?(i(�i 22 Table 3.3 Affordability Levels by Sub -Markets Monwe( lmrini,, N(vd,,, nx The affordability gaps in the new homeownership sectors have created a spillover effect on the rental market. Monroe County's high rent values can be attributed to the loss of inventory, including mobile homes, which has created a supply and demand imbalance. Interestingly, it is the Lower Keys where the rent affordability values are less severe. In the Middle Keys the affordability gap is almost 50 percent of the median rent of properties currently on the market. Table 3.4 kh'111-ocUmink, Al lon(A)IO1 Iml,iiii,f, Necds (11wi-i"'111 2OW 24 e ALE FORt$397576 k2CURRENTLY GLE FAMILY ,116 9,000 MULTIFAMILY**** # OF RECORDS E522 22 193 MSP $644.000 $877,300 $700,000 MOBILE HOMES # OF RECORDS 141 5 56 MSP $300,000 275000`— $247,500 VACANT LAND # OF RECORDS �$224,00�0 17 93 MSP $176,900 $259,300 Table 3.6 le The housing market in the Florida Keys shows Tab3 signs of significant slow down At th e current CURRENTLY sales volume it will take up to four years for the FOR SALE * biW7�K properties on the market to be absorbed. SINGLE FAMILY Moreover, the cooling off has affected sales values # OF RECORDS 929 40 306 in all three sub -geographies. Tables 3.5-7 show MSP $935,000 $432,000 $850,000 MULTIFAMILY**** that in the Iast quarter of 2007 the median sales # OF RECORDS 339 1 20 164 price of properties in the Lower and Upper Keys MSP $639,000 $590,000 $666,250 is significantly lower when compared to 2007 as a MOBILE HOMES # OF RECORDS 165 11 70 whole. The Middle Keys is an exception but it is MSP S329,000 $280,000 $250,000 important to note that the figure is based on a VACANTLAND smaller number of sales. # OF RECORDS 295 9 55 MSP $299,non $173,300*** $206,600 *Nalion al Association of Realtors **Monroe Couatr/'s Propertil Appraiser Office '"'I inritcrf recorris of units soli; ilay affn I aCYnraz fl of mediall calm, ""Multi- filmily 1110S indmic l+(Unis allached and tondo llilits Iousinp N(vd,, ,1ssc.sn�rnt Cu�wr is;hf 1007, 25 HOUSING DEMAND Housing demand is largely driven by several key factor conditions - local employment patterns, shifts in population and household growth, and household income. Employment is the principal driver of population and household growth. Moreover, job availability and the opportunity for career advancement are the magnets for sustained population and household growth, including growth in personal and household income. Conversely, economic decline and associated job loss has the opposite effect, typically resulting in decreases in population, households and household income with a profound effect on residential markets. Therefore, a clear understanding of the relationship between current and projected employment and wages, population and households and household income is fundamental to a housing demand analysis. ANALYSIS: Key Findings The industry and employment analysis performed in Chapter III shows that Monroe County's economic base is principally comprised of service -providing industries, most notably, Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade and Health Care and Social Assistance. In total, service -providing industries account for 91.3 percent of all jobs in Monroe County. While service - providing industries are essential to Monroe County's economy, the vast preponderance of employment is found in low -wage earning occupations. In fact, Monroe County's 2006 median annual wage for all occupations was only $31,155. Monroe County's economic and employment profile is reflected in the median household incomes of both owner and renter -occupied housing units. The study's income analysis shows that approximately 29 percent of the County's owner -occupied housing units earn 80 percent or less than the area median income (AMI). For renter -occupied units, 46 percent of households earn less than 80 percent of the AMI. With the exception of a few affluent communities, the employment and income profiles of Monroe County's municipalities are quite similar. This is due to the fact that the resident workforce of Monroe County is concentrated in the larger municipalities of Key West, Marathon, Key Largo and Islamorada. These cities are also where the largest concentrations of the service -providing industries, e.g. Accommodation and Food Services, Retail, etc. are located. In calculating housing affordability, the standard ratio used by most mortgage lenders and housing professionals is that housing expenses should not exceed 30 percent of a household's gross monthly income. According to the U.S. Census, 57 percent (4,383) of owner households in Monroe County earning less than the area median income (AMI) are cost burdened. A striking 85 percent (5,433) of renter households earning less than the AMI cost burdened. Of this total, 2,324 renters, or 22 percent are "severely" cost burdened paying in excess of 50 percent of their monthly gross income on housing costs. The housing affordability calculations for occupations include certain essential workforce occupations, such as teachers, nurses and police officers. The study showed that teachers and police/sheriff patrol officers have annual salaries of Iess than 80 percent of the area median mfIIf� /�f(i�r�iahk�Ilc�ir�ins ��c<9.� Ati_��ss�fu�nl 1007 26 income (AMI). Based on the current annual salaries of these workforce occupations, the affordable purchase price of a single-family home or condominium would also need to be less than $200,000. Impact of Current and Future Demand Unlike the counties to the north of the Keys, specifically Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach where significant in -migration and economic growth continues, Monroe County's current and future affordable housing demand will largely emanate from the existing resident workforce. The land use capacity of the Keys, coupled with environmental constraints limits future economic and population growth. Therefore, the demand will be greatest in existing population centers where the vast majority of Monroe County's resident workforce currently lives and where there is the greatest potential for infill development activity to occur. Current and future demand will require an adequate supply of owner and rental housing units priced at levels consistent with the household incomes and occupational wages of the local labor market, including various targeted workforce occupations. The ability of Monroe County and its municipalities to adequately address this demand will ultimately determine the County's capacity for housing its current and future workforce. The recent demographic shifts occurred since 2000 are significant with respect to future housing demand. The 14 percent loss in the 20-54 working age group and concomitant 15 percent increase in the 55 and over retirement age group is indicative of a changing residential market. Incoming retirees are more affluent than the younger population groups that have relocated. This is substantiated by U.S. Census data that shows a 23 percent increase in Monroe County's median household income since 2000 and a 6 percent increase in per capita income. The increase in per capita income is twice that of the Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. HOUSING SUPPLY Housing supply factors include the total number of units by type, price range, tenure and absorption. Housing supply analysis must also consider development trends and projections based on building permit data and planned development activity. Furthermore, it is essential that a housing supply analysis capture the dynamics of a housing market, particularly in locations undergoing inflationary housing booms such as South Florida where property appreciation rates have skyrocketed and where investors have significantly altered the housing supply. When combined with housing demand, these supply factors enable analysts to extrapolate data about employment, population and household incomes to determine the relative balance between local supply and demand. ANALYSIS: Key Findings As indicated in the preceding Housing Supply Analysis, in Chapter II, Monroe County's housing supply/inventory has increased by only 3 percent since 2000 growing from 51,617 housing units in 2000 to 53,398 units in 2006. Monroe County's housing inventory is concentrated within its four principal cities - Key Largo, Islamorada, Marathon and Key West. Together, the four cities comprise 65 percent of the County's housing stock and, significantly, 77 percent of the County's Mom-ot, C "(111tV ;1ltirecitl?f�> 11uEi.�if��; Vr< ci ns;i smrnE I_1W ?007 27 rental housing supply. Significantly, Monroe County lost 2,058 renter units since 2000 or 16 percent of its total rental inventory. One of the critical findings of the study is the prominent role that the second home market plays in the Monroe County's real estate industry. The second home market has placed powerful inflationary pressure on the local housing market and has substantially contributed to Monroe County's increasingly high vacancy rates for both homeowner and rental units which is currently 38 percent. Monroe County's high vacancy rate is attributed to the large number of units that are held for seasonal, recreational or occasional use. According to the Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources, there are currently 1,075 existing affordable housing units in "unincorporated" areas of the County with an additional 557 proposed or under construction. The majority (65 percent) of the existing units are Iow income rental units. Municipalities with existing or planned affordable housing units include Key West (1,726 units), Marathon (233 units) and Islamorada (129 units). While much focus has been given to Monroe County's loss of affordable housing in terms of cost, loss of renter housing and Iimited new production, there is also the need to address the age and condition of the existing housing stock. Approximately 60 percent of Monroe County's housing stock is now over 25 years old. Older housing typically comprises a significantly Iarge inventory of relatively affordable housing in a housing market. However, evidence clearly shows that as the housing stock ages, code and deferred maintenance issues increase substantially. In most of the higher priced areas in the country, workers can usually locate relatively affordable housing in certain geographical sub -markets or pockets that have not undergone rapid appreciation. IMPACT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSING SUPPLY Monroe County's current supply of owner and renter housing underwent an unprecedented increase in value over the past two years that has created a severe demand/supply imbalance relative to the resident workforce. Monroe County's current median single-family sale price ($700,000) and average rent ($1,800) far exceed the affordability Ievel of most households, regardless of occupation and income category, thus creating severe cost burdens for owner and renter households alike. The severity of Monroe County's housing supply and demand imbalance is perhaps best quantified by the median house price -to -income ratio, a key economic indicator in assessing local market trends and vitality. Nationally, the median house price -to -income ratio has more than tripled in the past five years in many areas of the country, including Miami -Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties where the median house price -to -income ratio currently stands at 7:1. By comparison, Monroe County's median house price -to -income ratio is now 12:1. The housing demand analysis included affordability calculations based on median household and occupational income using conventional lending terms and underwriting standards. The analysis determined that affordability gaps for all housing types are extreme in Monroe County. A further analysis of the Monroe County's sub -markets (Upper/Middle/Lower Keys) indicates that affordability gaps exist throughout the county. The current median values of single-family homes ... ....._. �1�>itr<7c C niinf.�;off<�rcfahk: ((�nr,�ntsy Nr e&� 2O0", 28 and condominiums are unaffordable to nearly 95 percent of Monroe County's existing households. Substantial rent affordability gap also exit throughout the Keys, particularly in the upper and middle Keys. Monroe County's affordable housing supply imbalance has been exacerbated by three important market conditions: 1) the continuing trend toward upscale single and multi -family development that is incompatible with the housing demand of the majority of Monroe County's working residents, 2) the substantial loss of the County's rental housing supply including mobile homes, and 3) a severely limited affordable housing inventory. ASSESSMENT OF HOUSING SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONDITIONS ON FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC GROVVTH As previously discussed, there exists a direct correlation between employment growth and future housing demand. However, in Monroe County rapid appreciation in the housing market had less to do with population and economic growth and more to do with a heightened level of seasonal home investment. This has exacerbated an already inflationary housing market to the point where housing values far exceed the income of County residents; the substantial loss of multi- family rental housing through condominium conversions; and the overall decline in new housing construction. As previously noted, Monroe County's population has decreased by 6 percent since 2000, while the State's population grew by 13 percent. Moreover, the workforce age population groups 20-54 haves decreased 14 percent during this same time period. Statistics show that the Monroe County School District has a 25 percent teacher turnover rate, the highest in the state despite having the highest starting salaries in the state. The Ioss of essential workers and worker age groups in general will have a profound effect of Monroe County's economic and overall quality of life. The loss of the County's affordable housing supply through rapid inflation and loss of rental units, particularly mobile homes is not recoverable. The strong demand for second "resort" homes will continue to drive the market for single-family homes and condominiums. Rent prices will also remain high due to the loss of available rental units and very low inventory. The high median home value to median household income ratio is not likely to lower despite a recent decrease in median sales values and a projected return to modest appreciation levels. The current ratio of greater than 12:1 is extreme and creates affordability gaps that cannot be addressed without deep subsidies and/or a heightened level of new affordable housing production. This market condition should persist due to the continuation of an economic growth pattern in Monroe County that is tourism -based with new employment occurring largely in low -wage service and retail occupations. Furthermore, substantial evidence now exists that Monroe County's employees are moving to other counties and out-of-state in search of affordable housing opportunities. Commercial development in the City of Homestead and South Miami- Dade will provide increased competition for service workers who currently are bused to employment centers in the Keys. i��irxir«c C��irn(v �1Ct�7e�f��bk, l (cnt� ins; �<<.cfs ils.�c_ssn�ritt '1(H);' 29 A significant finding of the study is the concentration of housing inventory and workforce populations in Monroe County's four principal cities - Key West, Marathon, Islamorada and Key Largo (Tables 4.1). The four cities comprise 65 percent of the County's housing inventory and approximately 70% of the County's resident workforce. The cities also function as Monroe County's major employment centers. Relationship of Monroe County � 51,617 TABLE 4.1 nth to Resident Worker Concentrations 35,086 121,900 j 13,186 Key 13,579 8,479 6,033 Largo/Islamorada Marathon 6,786 4,597 2,911 Key West 13,307 11,017 5,024 Source: U.S. Delrurtureuto(Conunmrce, B reau Of the Ceusus, 2000 E.rchrdes mobile {tonnes Lrclrrdes urorA-er_S 167teelrs of rrge and Older hlrhrdes teat hers, nurses and healthcare teclunicat Occuprrtious 41,181 1 20,057 1 2,939 2,446 9,542 4,531 748 1,686 1 5,334 1 2,529 1 390 5,993 13,004 7,285 857 Significantly, the four cities house 72 percent of Monroe County's Service, Sales and Office workers and 68 percent of the County's Education and Health Care practitioners. Given this nexus and the limitations on land development in Monroe County, affordable housing policies and strategies should focus on infill development opportunities within these existing residential and job centers. NI(mrtuc Ci711IM 'Nil , ord,lblo l lmusms7 Needs ;Asses>mrrnl C r,l'y'I,wIlit, '?007 30 co a Q X 0 z w IL a� Q .:}•SF ter,, 0pp 0 • •' `CTwY .�wvN m2- In g y.l. uj !� .- • -'.•�, y,►i�- (.icy .`� .".u^ 'Fir a• r �.: O O t0 N 613 U) C d .� N Cl) ca w M W O N ". o E _o CL U w C ca w c mg N D m c xrn• J C � W ui c N 0 < o Q � o U� N (o ti w- O 0 ® . N c m Ln 0 0 UD c • 0 0 d 0 N C N 0 O L .J 4) Y L 3 0 c J E � L G) a Z Q. Q Q. X_ = q.. am 0 uj N ¢Q 0 0 3 U 0 0 (L o� --0 a CL U) C .N ME w �. i• Y Y C � ev 0 >�` Y Y Y Y x L to K fq N QU 0 CtF X 00 N 0 (V 0 L NO e �co 0 a d 0 Q s .� 9 o C QG N V-. O Q 'Q � N Qq N (yJ W O c o • • a 0 N 64 U) rn C' E •L E N co `� w N Q CU .,[ C 69 LLJ L O Co r_ Z to o Q c i 'O X 2 p u, C ,.` U W Z tP (tt)j A fQ Q '.,'!a U �� o a � o a � cu a a� u��i o I�ne 5 S= a� Q .� N W YIw �m LU ,a 0 O e to '" O 0 z. J O Eg d O O d v z O a. A z .T tCQ CL = O .S C& 0 i U o W '+— O 00 Q � E O W a- N H � C C E j j C C C II uc °' a► 0 y 11 to 6 to 0 LE Q co .L _M /cu v/ 06 o� N N CU 6q� cm C N A coo E W E O Q c: m W E C cy W � A a) C U o L) (U U cu CD m m �+ a) O C `� o �U _Q � �Y U �c Y m `c° o CU m J O ccucu G • � Q � • � H C y C W W c � a a � N N • G R = 'a d � •oo Ne e ti a s • • coIW �g , - 1 q' 7-3m 0 o Q V/ C O -g cU 0O a C jp _C Q 'Q W � d O G E W O .a+ 4C y i J 4 w1 � O i r � N I (D �M a o l E� r- CI) LD A P Q c o c Ie� V r 9 Y M m �i Y p o► i l = Y Y E o co LZ67 .� y Y Y Go o O Y Y 00 O q % •, � Y v 'n c o � ti4 m E m Q uy m CL Z rn •0 0 L _X 2 Z m .o 0 a 4' A QQ �+Y C L "�3 m 0 0 C J ca = m Q> CL .Q CL O c Q .O 4 a 0 `1 1 �� t A 1 Q v I 0) O .0 cu cu m C O U N W C 4-4 fu cu Naval Air Station Key West Comments Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 20 February 2008 Meeting Agenda Item Q-14 Presented by Ron Demes Executive Director, NAS Key West Item Q-14 is an amendment to Policy 101.42.1 of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Policy 101.4.21 Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described 8in Policies 101.41.1 — 101.4.7. However. the Maximum Net Density for development or redevelopment parcels where the residential component constitutes affordable workforce or =Iovee housing. as such housing may be defined by any local state or federal law or rei;trlations, shall calculated based upon the gross acreage or total square footage of all parcels) developed as or redeveloped into such housing uses though applicable open space, setback and buffering requirements shall be adhered to except where a variance exception or conditional use otherwise available under the Comprehensive Plan or Monroe County Code has been granted: r9J-5 006(3)(c)(7)1 Agenda Item 0-14 Comments I am Ron Denies, Executive Director of NAS Key West and am also the military ex- oflicio member of the Monroe County Planning Commission representing the military's interests in Monroe County. At the January 5, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting, we requested that all areas located within the 2007 Air Installations Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) tootprint be excluded from the provisions of this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Our comments have been included as part the consultant's staff report tot this item. In the interest of time, I will briefly outline the Navy's concerns with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The handout provided to you will more fully descnbc our position. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment could adversely affect the operations and mission capability of NAS Key West's Boca Chica Air Field due to the increased residential densities within the 1977 and 2007 AICUZ footprints. in addition to AICUZ- related incompatibility issues, urban development creates other encroachment issues that may, tier example, intertere with radio frequencies or impact non -aviation training missions. If the encroachment creates a severe enough impact on the operations of the military installation, it may be required to change or significantly limit its operations and mission capability. A synopsis of "Encroachment Challenges" has been provided as an attachment to the handout. We believe the proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with various sections of Chapter 163, Chapter 380.0552, 9J-5 FAC, and the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Again, I am highlighting the issues, the specific citations referenced and detailed comments are included in the handout. In recent years, the Florida Legislature adopted statutes with the intent: • to protect the military installations in the State from incompatible development: • to) protect the public investment in military installations; • to ensure the military installations are able to carry out their operations and missions. and 2 • to ensure the economic vitality of the community is not adversely affected by a reduction in a military installation's operations and sustainability due to encroachment of incompatible development. The statute also requires local governments with military installations to update or amend their comprehensive plan to include cntena and address compatibility of adjacent or closely proximate lands with existing military installations in their future land use element by June 30, 2006. The County has not adopted the required plan amendments. The military makes a substantial contribution to Monroe County's economy. Any significant encroachment onto military operations may have the impact of reducing mission capability and sustainability, therefore negatively impacting the local economy. The Data and Analysis (DA) for the proposed amendment does not adequately address the anticipated population growth, hurricane evacuation, and most importantly the compatibility of uses in close proximity to NAS Key West or other military installations. The DA lacks analysis of potential economic impacts to the community (loss of jobs, revenue, etc.) if the County continues to permit the encroachment of incompatible uses that negatively impact the ability of NAS Key West to continue its current operations. Chapter 9J-5.003(90) FAC defines a comprehensive plan policy as the way programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Goal 101of the Monroe County '010 Comprehenswe Plan is the goal which this proposed amendment implements. Goal 101 specifically states the County shall manage growth to "to enhance the quality of life. ensure the safety of County residents and visitors...... The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would promote an increase in density, which equates to an increase in population living in the high noise areas or accident potential areas, as well as creating other types of encroachment concern. This is contrary to promoting public health, safety and welfare. We believe that the County's obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed by its obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare; to enhance the quality of liter to protect the County s economic well being; or protect public investments; hence the properties within the AICUZ footprint should be excluded. The Navy is not opposed to the development of affordable housing or providing incentives to increase development of affordable housing in Monroe County. It is estimated that 75 percent of the 3,300 (active duty military personnel and civilians) employed by the military rent or own in the local markets. The goal of the Navy and other military organizations is to work cooperatively with Monroe County to protect military installations from the encroachment of incompatible uses and ensure affordable housing is located in such areas that protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This concludes my presentation. As I stated previously. we are providing the Commission with our detailed comments in the form of a handout. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. 111 Thank you for the opportunity to comment for the Naval Air Station as well as the ex- otticio military representative of the Monroe County Planning Commission. R, Ron Demes. LI Detailed Navy Comments — 20 February 2008 We question why this proposed amendment is required recognizing that Monroe County has already adopted a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies as well as Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that provide significant incentives for the preservation and development of affordable housing. These provisions include, but are not limited to, density bonuses, the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), the transfer of ROGO allocations from one parcel to another, and the increased density in the Maritime Industrial District recently approved. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with chapter 163.3175(I ) Florida Statutes (F.S.) which states: "The Legislature finds that incompatible development of land close to military installations can adversely affect the ability of' such an installation to carry out its mission. The Legislature turther finds that such development also threatens the public safety because of the possibility of accidents occurring within the areas surrounding a military installation. In addition, the economic vitality of a community is affected when military operations and missions must relocate because of incompatible urban encroachment. Therefore, the Legislature finds it desirable for the (local governments in the state to cooperate with military installations to encourage compatible land use, help prevent incompatible encroachment, and facilitate the continued presence of major military installations in this state." Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. states in part; ......The future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services; the need fir redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of noncontorming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations; .. " The Data and Analysis (DA) for the proposed amendment does not adequately address the anticipated population growth, the housing needs associated with the such growth, the need for redevelopment, and most importantly the compatibility of uses in close proximity to NAS Key West. The DA lacked analysis of any potential economic impacts on the community (loss of jobs, revenue, etc.) if the County continues to permit the encroachment of incompatible uses that negatively impact NAS Key West's operations and mission. There are a significant number otparcels located in Noise Zones 2 and 3 (moderate and high noise contours) in the 1977 AICUZ and the 2007 AICUZ Update. Residential uses are discouraged in the 65 DNL (day night average sound level) to 69 DNL and strongly discouraged in the 70 DNL and higher noise contours. It is recommended that all properties Iresidentral and commercial) in the 60 DNL to 64 DNL noise contours have a Real Estate Fair Disclosure Statement recorded in the Monroe County Public Records. The Disclosure should notify property owners and occupants: 1 ) which noise level contour the property is located; and 2) requiring appropriate site design and the use of sound attenuation construction methods to reduce the noise impact on uses within 60 E DNL and higher noise contours for both Key West international Airport and NAS Key West Boca Chica Air Field. The disclosure should also note that these sound attenuation measures do not mitigate outdoor noise. The proposed amendment does not appear to be consistent with Chapter 163.3175(1) F.S. which states that the Florida Legislature finds that incompatible development of land close to a military installation can adversely affect the ability of the installation to carry out its mission and can threaten public health, safety and welfare. As stated above, the properties affected by this amendment are within the 60 DNL and higher noise contours and as such poses a risk to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and poses an adverse impact on NAS Key West's ability to carry out its mission. This section further recognizes the positive economic impact of military installations on a local economy and further "finds it desirable for the local governments in the state to cooperate with military installations to encourage compatible land use, help prevent incompatible encroachment, and tacilitate the continued presence of major military installations in this state." Upon reviewing 380.0552 Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Area of Critical State Concem (ACSC) Principles for Guiding Development, we understand the County's obligations under the Principles are: "I o ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development": To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys : "To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: Naval Air Station Key West": "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys"; "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public satety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post - disaster reconstruction plan": and "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." We believe that the County's obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed by its obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare: to enhance the quality of life: to protect the County's economic well being; or protect pubic investments: hence the properties within the AICUZ footprint should be excluded. We understand. based on Mr. Coleman's comments to the Board of County Commissioners in his January 23, 2008 staff report, that the proposed amendment must be reviewed against the Principles for Guiding Development "as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation trom the other provisions." We maintain that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment when reviewed for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole is not consistent with the intent of the Principles as a whole and more specifically those provisions discussed above. The proposed amendment does not appear to be consistent with Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, Principles for Guiding Development. specifically Principle (d) which states "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development." The military provides a source of economic diversity to Monroe County with over 3300 (active duty and civilian) employees. It should be noted that the military, as a whole, is a major employer in Monroe County. Any significant 0 encroachment onto military operations may have an impact of reducing operations, therefore negatively impacting the local economy. The annual salaries are over $100 million with approximately 75 percent of personnel rent or own homes to the local economy as well as spending money locally. There are additional military personnel who come to Key West for training. This adds an additional S60 - $400 per day to the local economy. NAS Key West and the other military commands help strengthen and diversify the economic resources of Monroe County. Principle (g) states "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." There are numerous military installations and sites throughout the Florida Keys. the US military has had a presence in the Key West and the Florida Keys dating back to 1823 when a Naval Base was first established to counteract piracy. The US military and the Navy, specifically, are an mtnnsic part of Monroe County's history. It is not uncommon for military personnel to retire and become a permanent part of the Florida Keys after being stationed in the Flonda Keys. Principle (h)(4) states: "To protect the values, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized lite of existing and proposed major public investments including:... Naval Air Station Key West and other military installations." The proposed significant increase in residential densities within the Noise Zones 2 and 3 as depicted in the 1977 AICUZ tootpnnt and the 2007 AICUZ footprint is an encroachment into military operations and as such may increase the cost of operation or may negatively impact the mission capability of NAS Key West. There are other encroachment challenges created by increased residential densities adjacent military installations in Monroe County that may pose additional public health, satety and welfare concerns. Principle (k) states. "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public satety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan." The impacts on the potential increase in densities, population and vehicles was on hurricane evacuation was not considered in the DA. Development in the county has an effect on humcane evacuation which impacts all of the jurisdictions in Monroe County and could affect the development potential of the other junsdictions. This hurricane evacuation issue warrants being addressed as part of the required DA. Principle (1) states: "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." If the proposed amendment becomes effective, the local government will be permitting increased residential densities in a high noise area and will be creating public health, satety. and welfare concerns. Measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction through sound attenuating construction methods may be an effective method to reduce noise levels in the 64 DNL and lower. it will not, however, eliminate outdoor noise problems. Outdoor living is a part of the Florida Keys lifestyle and will be greatly attected by noise. This is further supported by Chapter 163.3175(1) F.S. as cited above. Chapter 9J-5.003(90) FAC defines a comprehensive plan policy as the way programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Goal 101of the Monroe County 7 2010 Comprehensive Plan is the goal which this proposed amendment implements. Goal 101 specifically states the County shall manage growth to "to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors...." If the proposed amendment becomes effective and permits increased residential densities in a high noise area and will be creating quality of life issues and public health, safety, and welfare concerns. Chapter 9J5-006(3)(c)2 requires amendments to the future land use element to provide for compatibility of adjacent uses. Chapter 9J-5.003(23) defines "compatibility" as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The proposed amendment creates a compatibility issue for both the residential uses and military installation. These uses negatively impact each other. The proposed amendment does not enhance the quality of life or ensure the sate of residents and visitors due to compatibility issues. The staff report also states the amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal 601 which states "Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by all current and future residents to adequate and affordable housing that is sate, decent, and structurally sound and that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and individual preference." Locating affordable housing or any type of residential use, in a high noise area is contrary to Comprehensive Plan Goals 101 or 60I of providing housing that enhances the quality of life and is sate. It could be argued that the County would be remiss, in terns of public health, safety and welfare, if they knowingly permitted housing, specifically, affordable housing within the higher noise level areas, contrary to their adopted regulations. It could also be argued that it is discriminatory to relegate affordable housing to those areas which have public health, safety and welfare concerns, such as areas with high noise levels, high volumes of vehicular traffic, and other factors that are less desirable. The term we use regarding this type of development is contrary to the principles of "Environmental Justice" which we are paniicuiarly sensitive to guard against. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would promote an increase in population living in the high noise areas or accident potential areas, as well as creating other types of encroachment concern. This is contrary promoting to public health, safety and welfare. We believe that the County's obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed by the obligation to protect the County's economic well being, protect public investments or the obligation to protect public health, safety and weltam hence the properties within the AICUZ tootpnnt should be excluded or we would suggest that any areas which poses encroachment challenges, be regulated by an overlay district to mitigate and impacts on the property trom the adjacent or nearby military use. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes an increase in the overall density county -wide. This tact was not specifically addressed at the January 5, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. It is our contention that the staff report did not provide, as required by state statute, the Data and Analysis (DA) of the impact of the increase in the overall density potential with the amendment, including the estimated increase in 9 numbers otdwellings and population. This analysis backup information is required to be part of the (DA) for every comprehensive plan and Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendment. Such an analysis might include an inventory of vacant parcels that would be large enough to benefit from an increase in density and to locations where affordable housing would be logical (i.e. dry parcels near employment centers) outside of' the AICUZ footprint. E ENCROACHMENT CHALLENGES SYNOPSIS The types of encroachment sources, described and defined below are drawn from various studies and reports of Navy and non -Navy actions that have occurred which have had an impact on training and test activities. Although not all encompassing, these potential sources of encroachment need to be examined to determine if they exist at an installation, range, military training routes (MTR), special use airspace (SUA)or operation areas (OPAREA). Once a potential challenge is identified, it should be analyzed to determine the potential impacts and constraints imposed. Urban Development (population growth) — As communities grow toward the boundaries of installations, ranges, OPAREAs, and beneath MTRs and SUAs, land use development could become incompatible with the Navy's mission. Incompatible development can seriously compromise the quality of the Navy's training and test mission requirements. Urban development may not surmount to an immediate threat, but continued incompatible development could present a long-range threat to the mission. Urban development may also damage habitat needed for wildlife to survive, making the installation or range the only available habitat in the area. Airborne noise - The central issue of airborne noise is the impact, or perceived impact, on people, animals (both wild and domestic), structures, and land use. Competition for air space, land, and sea space - The Navy owns, controls, or uses resources, that need to be available to accomplish testing and training missions. These resources must be of sufficient size and quality to provide effective training and testing. Public pressure to share or relinquish some of these resources may inhibit the Navy from accomplishing its training and test objectives, or inhibit anti-terrorism/force protection programs. Competition for scarce resources (oil, gas, minerals, potable and irrigated water, and ocean access) - Community pressure to gain access to valuable resources located on land or sea that Navy owns or controls may affect Navy's ability to use this land or water for training or test objectives. Threatened and Endangered Species — Restrictions for the purpose of protecting threatened or endangered species can reduce the value of an installation, range, or OPAREA for testing and training by limiting the types of permissible activities in terms of composition, magnitude, or timing. Maritime issues (Marine Mammals, Endangered Species, Fish Habitats, Coral Reefs, Coastal Zones, Sanctuaries, and other marine protected areas) -- Regulatory or permit requirements protecting ocean resources cumulatively affects the Navy's ability to conduct training exercises or testing in the marine environment. 10 Ordnance - Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)/Munitions -- Application of various environmental laws to munitions training, demolition, disposal, or testing activities could have severe and adverse impacts on readiness. Safety Arcs and footprints (Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) Arcs, Surface Danger Zones, Weapons Safety Footprint Areas) - Land adjacent to installations and range safety zones, including land within the installation or range, may not be suitable for certain types of land use or economic development purposes. Frequency Spectrum - The competition for available frequency spectrum may lead to a reduction in available spectrum for training and developmental/operational testing activities. The lack of spectrum may decrease the effectiveness of exercises by restricting the number of war -fighting systems that can participate. As the potential for residential and commercial encroachment increases, so does the risk of increased RF emitters and receivers, which could result in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) problems between Navy systems and public or commercial systems. Air Quality - Impacts to training and test missions in non -attainment areas, and conformance with individual State Implementation Plans (SIPS), may restrict existing mission requirements or preclude execution of new missions, as well as deployment and use of new weapon platforms. Water Quality - Discharge permit requirements and timelines and/or prohibited or restricted access to wetlands and/or their buffer zones can restrict existing mission training,, preclude or restrict integration of new technology/weapons systems into existing missions and training or preclude future growth and execution of new missions in amphibious, riverine, estuarine and other salt and fresh water related missions. Interpretation of Historical/Environmental regulations - Regulatory or permit requirements may affect training and testing activities. Other non -Navy actions may affect Navy's current regulatory or permit requirements under these regulations. Interagency Coordination (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and State equivalents) - Navy often uses land controlled by another Federal or State agency. The types of allowable uses and restrictions are often the result of negotiations between the parties or subject to the other Federal agency's policies and regulations. These restrictive uses can limit training and testing activities. Legislative initiatives that restrict training or testing activities - Congress may enact legislation that directly or indirectly limits the Navy's flexibility to conduct training or testing activities. 11 Policy 101.4.21 Monroe County hereby adopts the billowing density and intensity standards for the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 - 101.4.17. However, the Maximum Net Density for development or redevelopment parcels where the residential component constitutes affordable workforce or employee housing as such housing may be defined by any local state or federal law or regulation shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage or total square footage of aQ [9.1-5.006(3)(c)7]. (The remainder of this page left intentionally blank) Q,. \4