Spring 2024 | Florida Planning Magazine

FLORIDA PLANNING

LOCAL ACTION

By: Kody Glazer, Esq.,

After months of our Live Local era’s version of “will they, won’t they,” the 2024 Legislative Session gave us Senate Bill 328 – the much anticipated Live Local Act “glitch bill,” which addressed several affordable housing-related issues but mostly amended the Live Local Act’s much-discussed land use tool authorizing eligible affordable housing developments in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas.

This tool preempts certain local standards relating to height, density, use, administrative approval and now floor area ratio (FAR) and certain parking requirements for developments that set aside at least 40% of its units as affordable to households at or below 120% of Area Median Income. Senate Bill 328 attempted to clarify some unresolved issues with the mandate’s implementation and added a few new policies as well.

[APA FLORIDA] KEY CONTACTS - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Name

APA Florida Executive Committee

President Whit Blanton, FAICP

Immediate Past President Wiatt Bowers, AICP

President-Elect Allara Mills Gutcher, AICP

Professional Development Henry Bittaker, FAICP

VP Continuing Education Lara Bouck, AICP, PE

VP Membership/Outreach Ennis Davis, AICP

San Felasco Section Gerry Dedenbach, AICP

Gold Coast Section Fabian De La Espriella, AICP

First Coast Section Casey Dendor, AICP

Phone E-mail

727-464-8712 president@floridaplanning.org

904-363-8488 pastpresident@floridaplanning.org fx

850-319-9180 presidentelect@floridaplanning.org

561-523-0687 profdevelopment@floridaplanning.org

407-481-5672 certmaintenance@floridaplanning.org

904-396-5727 membership@floridaplanning.org f

386-518-5120 sanfelasco@floridaplanning.org

786-245-5202 goldcoast@floridaplanning.org

352-408-6881 firstcoast@floridaplanning.org

Capital Area Section Kwentin Eastberg, AICP 561-436-4843 capitalarea@floridaplanning.org

VP Communications Amy Elmore, AICP 813-273-3774 communications@floridaplanning.org

Treasure Coast Section Scott Evans, AICP

University Liaison Van Linkous, Ph.D.

VP Conference Services Eddie Ng, AICP

727-462-2518 treasurecoast@floridaplanning.org

863-271-6154 university@floridaplanning.org

401-524-3263 conferencesvcs@floridaplanning.org

VP Section Affairs Ali Palmer 850-553-3528 sectionaffairs@floridaplanning.org

Atlantic Coast Section Brad Parrish, AICP 321-567-3776 atlanticcoast@floridaplanning.org

Secretary Jill Quigley, AICP

954-641-5680 secretary@floridaplanning.org

Sun Coast Section Nousheen Rahman 703-981-7215 suncoast@floridaplanning.org

Orlando Metro Section Roxann Read, AICP, CMA, FRA RA

Treasurer John Roach, AICP

EPG Representative Jarrell Smith

Promised Lands Section Laura Tefft, AICP

Emerald Coast Section Melissa Ward, AICP

407-245-0300 orlandometro@floridaplanning.org

561-822-1448 treasurer@floridaplanning.org

407-839-4006 epg@floridaplanning.org af

239-462-3452 promisedlands@floridaplanning.org

850-499-3735 emeraldcoast@floridaplanning.org

Heart of Florida Section Julie Womble 863-860-5105 heartoffl@floridaplanning.org

Broward Section Hing Wong, FAICP 925-549-2000 broward@floridaplanning.org

Student Representative Jared Hoehing Milllie Rivera (non-voting) students@floridaplanning.org

Executive Director Stefanie Svisco

850-201-3272 ssvisco@floridaplanning.org

Ad. Assistant/Bookkeeper Suzie Gray 850-201-3272 sgray@floridaplanning.org

Communications Manager Patti Shea 850-201-3272 pshea@floridaplanning.org

Legislative Representative Lester Abberger 850-524-2779 lesterabberger@gmail.com

Communications Intern Julia Sveen 850-201-3272 intern@floridaplanning.org

Graphic Design (Consultant) Summer Taylor 727-452-2416 summer@exaktmarketing.com

All other inquiries, contact APA Florida at 850-201-3272 or e-mail contact@floridaplanning.org

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

THE LEFT HAND AND RIGHT HAND OF STATE GOVERNANCE

We know Florida has a governance problem, with a complex, disjointed web of regional state agency districts, regional planning councils, hundreds of special districts, 27 transportation planning agencies, and a strong predilection for state pre-emption of the powers historically given to the 400+ municipal and county governments. Does Florida also have a comprehensive planning problem? It might.

In the continuing battle of dueling and conflicting state preemptions, Florida advances major affordable housing funding and supply reforms that usurp local land use authority through the Live Local Act and its 2024 revisions. Concerning, but not wholly objectionable. Fully funding affordable housing programs and giving meaningful private sector incentives to build housing at lower price points are laudable policy goals.

At the same time, the state also approved legislation to restrict the development and funding of transportation options that help reduce the cost burdens on households, especially lower income urban dwelling Floridians, those who are most vulnerable to fatal traffic crashes, serious injuries, and air pollution. Housing and transportation are by far the two largest costs in the average household budget – up to a combined 65 percent in some areas. Instead, the state targets restrictions on transit and transportation planning agencies while giving FDOT broader authority to double down on highway widening and tolling.

It’s almost like there’s no internal consistency of statewide policies for growth, housing affordability, economic development, and the environment. While it’s good to enable density and reduce parking requirements for affordable housing in commercial areas under the Live Local Act, undermining the state’s higher wage manufacturing jobs base with those same preemptions in industrial areas is not aligned with good economic development policy. Similarly, putting a cap on the amount of state transportation funds that can go toward public transportation, placing greater burdens on approving projects to make transit service more efficient, and restricting how agencies consider road modifications to improve safety and multimodal access is incongruent with the density and intensity of development enabled by the Live Local Act. If we’re going to force new affordable housing developments into commercial areas near busy commercial roadways, then we’ve got to have some flexibility for how said commercial roadways accommodate the needs of all users.

The Florida Department of Transportation is a very capable agency, highly skilled at transportation project development, design, and construction doing some amazing work statewide. Look at the rapid response to hurricane damaged bridges and highways. It is a valuable, indispensable partner that establishes a statewide framework for regional and local decisions. However, it’s not a planning agency. That responsibility primarily rests with local governments, regional planning councils, and metropolitan planning organizations in the state’s urban areas. Together, they plan long-term and strategically, aligning objectives, policies, and actions to ensure things like higher density development and affordable housing have transportation infrastructure in place that fits the context of how communities and regions need to adapt, grow, and thrive.

Now imagine MPOs having to turn their consensus- and performance-based plans over to the State to determine if they are “in congruence with the needs of the region.” That language was in bills that nearly passed in the 2024 Session and will likely come back in some form next year. Imagine being forced to prioritize traffic speed and mobility over giving people transportation choices, improving access, and providing safety for all users because of irrational fears that some basic level of equity in transportation investment is purposefully designed to make driving so miserable that you’ll be forced to give up your Dodge Ram for the bus. This is what passes for State policy today.

Perhaps it’s time the state takes a step back and give a broader, long-term look at how its policies and strategies align across disciplines and geography, and how it can best provide an array of tools for regional and local governments, and the private sector, to use in a way that best fits their shared vision and context while meeting statewide goals. You know, like a comprehensive plan and a capital improvements program.

Whit Blanton FAICP

APA Florida President

[LIVE LOCAL] MANDATES

continued from cover page

Even before SB 328 passed, interest in Live Local’s affordable housing land use mandate was heating up across the state. A score of proposals in Boynton Beach, Clay County, Hillsborough County, Lake County, Miami-Dade, Lake Helen, Orlando, Boca Raton, and others have already begun to move through the approval process to get affordable housing built. Without Live Local, it is likely these projects would have required months or years-long rezoning processes to move forward— if they moved forward at all. The mandate has been off to a rocky start in certain corners of the state, to say the least, but it cannot be said the tool has not worked to get new housing approved. Concerns over income levels served, preservation of commercial and industrial lands, and positions on state preemptions aside, the Live Local Act has generated tremendous statewide interest in affordable housing policy that has not been seen maybe ever.

Senate Bill 328 (2024) Senate Bill 328 ended up in a much different place from where it began as, the first version of the bill would have ended the tool’s use in industrial areas. But by the end of its legislative journey, the cut to industrial lands was off the table and the bill made only the following mix of new policy additions and clarifying language to the Live Local land use mandate:

• Newly provides that local governments cannot limit the floor area ratio of a proposed development below “150% of the highest currently allowed floor area ratio on any land where residential development is allowed in the jurisdiction under the jurisdiction’s land development regulations.”

• Opens the possibility of split multifamily ownership and rental preemption projects as long as 40% of the units are rental and affordable.

• Provides that proposals in a transit-oriented development or area, as defined by the local government, must be mixed-use residential.

• Clarifies that maximum height, density, and floor area ratio entitlements do not include any bonuses.

• Requires local governments to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for preemption projects under certain circumstances. For example, local governments must reduce parking by at least 20% if a proposal is within ½ mile of a major transportation hub as defined in the bill and eliminate minimum parking requirements entirely for preemption projects within a transit-oriented development or area.

• Allows local governments to limit height of a preemption project to certain specifications if the proposal is adjacent to a single-family home community as defined in the bill.

• Requires local governments to post expectations for administrative approval on its websites.

• Includes other additions clarifying when a preemption project becomes a nonconforming use and exemptions and exceptions for proposals in close proximity to a military

installation or airport runway.

One key question that remained unanswered by SB 328 is whether commercial, industrial, or mixed-use parcels within a Planned Unit Development are eligible for the land use mandate. The bill also did not clarify the definition of “commercial, industrial, or mixed-use” areas; provide clear language about applicability in Coastal High Hazard Areas, floodplains, or other environmentally sensitive areas; nor did it address the fun question of what to do with golf courses.

Without a state entity tasked with providing guidance to unanswered questions, issues without a 100% crystal clear legal answer will continue to be the subject of developer and local government counsel negotiation and subject to the breadth of the Act’s catch-all provision that excepting use, density, height, floor area ratio, administrative approval, and in certain cases parking, “all applicable state and local laws and regulations” still apply.

Processing Live Local land use approvals. Since the Live Local Act passed in March 2023, some in the housing and planning sectors have been treading water in anticipation of a “glitch bill” that would change the law’s reach. Now that we have our “glitch bill,” I would expect more jurisdictions to be proactive about processing Live Local land use approvals and designing competing local housing policies (more on this later). I would also expect more affordable housing developers to be ready to move forward with their Live Local proposals.

Local planners can be proactive in clearly defining the scope of the Live Local Act’s land use mandate; SB 328’s new requirement to publicly post local government administrative approval standards will play a part in clarifying local implementation of the tool. Even before SB 328, jurisdictions such as Titusville, Boca Raton, Orange County, Hillsborough County, St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Melbourne have led the way in adopting Live Local policies that provide clear guidance for how the affordable housing tool can be used. Titusville, for example, passed a Live Local ordinance providing clear standards which zone districts they deem eligible for the land use mandate, applicable multifamily regulations for administrative approval, additional requirements relating to buffers, setbacks, open space, and noise, as well as the general processes for application. Planners can follow these jurisdictions’ lead and prepare for any impending Live Local applications from affordable housing developers.

Local governments can also proactively design their own compliance monitoring plans and land use restriction agreements to ensure Live Local Act preemption projects are affordable for the 30-year term. Since the Live Local Act and SB 328 are largely silent as to compliance monitoring (except the clarification in SB 328 finding that properties that do not remain affordable for the 30-year period are considered non-conforming uses), local governments have the opportunity to set their own compliance procedures for topics such as which party is responsible for continued on page 5

[LIVE LOCAL] MANDATES

income certification, required documentation, local government oversight, stern penalties for noncompliance, and even possibly setting compliance monitoring fees.

Designing local housing policy in light of the state land use mandate. Despite the Live Local Act’s requirement to approve eligible multifamily and mixed-use affordable housing in commercial, industrial, and mixed-use areas, local policymakers are still integral to guiding affordable housing growth using their toolkit of policy levers.

If a community is concerned about the preemptive nature of the Live Local land use mandate, it can counteract those concerns by making the mandate less valuable to affordable housing developers. If a jurisdiction facilitates a greater allowance of multifamily housing in residential areas by-right, makes it possible for more targeted places to be developed into a mix of uses, or otherwise layers incentives (like the optional land use approval tool at s.125.01055(6) & s.166.04151(6) of the Florida Statutes) to guide growth to desirable residential and commercial cores, the local affordable housing industry may feel less inclined to purchase and develop commercial and industrial parcels that planners may otherwise want to preserve for commercial and industrial uses. Local policymakers can also layer by-right allowances and targeted incentives to encourage units that serve lower income levels than the 120% AMI threshold allowed through the mandate.

Ideally, the Live Local Act land use mandate would not have been necessary; in an ideal world, jurisdictions across the state would have allowed for and the public and private sectors would have built all the affordable housing needed to house Floridians of all income levels. Now is the time to focus on local solutions that unlock affordable housing supply so the stern hand of the Legislature does not come back in future sessions to do zoning work for the locals.

The City of Sarasota’s recent efforts to create a “competing” attainable housing density bonus program for targeted downtown and commercial cores is a tremendous example of this. To complete with the LLA land use mandate, Sarasota established its own

density bonus program where developers only need to set aside 15% of the bonus units as affordable housing in exchange for up to four times density – depending on the underlying zone district. The city’s density bonus program even requires the attainable units to serve lower income levels than the LLA tool. At the time of this writing, Sarasota has had four applications for its locally driven density bonus program and zero applications for the Live Local land use mandate.

Certain statewide zoning preemptions may not be pretty in practice but affordable housing is a cross-jurisdictional issue that sometimes necessitates statewide solutions. There is always going to be push and pull when it comes to controversial policy decisions and the Live Local land use mandate is not perfect – the income levels served, suitability in heavy industrial areas, and lack of state guidance on unresolved questions could be further explored. But in a time where Florida is only getting more unaffordable by the day, the fact that the LLA has already gotten affordable housing units permitted where they wouldn’t have been before is a huge step in the right direction.

The Live Local Act only scratched the surface on policies aimed at getting more housing built in our state. Local policymakers are still empowered, if not morally obligated, to address local affordable housing policies relating to zoning reforms in residential districts, missing middle housing allowances, ADUs, incentive zoning, local funding, expedited permitting, preservation of existing housing stock, targeted infrastructure investments, fee waivers, use of public land, public/private partnerships, CRAs, tenants’ rights, support for persons experiencing homelessness, and the list goes on – few of which were squarely addressed by the LLA.

If it is true that local proactivity is the best way to prevent future state preemptions, now is the time to put political and creative energy into solutions that catalyze the affordable housing development that our state so desperately needs.

Kody Glazer, Esq., is the Chief Legal and Policy Officer for the Florida Housing Coalition. He can be reached at glazer@flhousing.org.

RETHINKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN GAINESVILLE:

A Tale of Reform and Resilience

By Juan Castillo and Forrest Eddleton, AICP

The challenge of affordable housing in Gainesville is more than a policy issue — it’s a daily reality for many of our citizens.

As the costs of homeownership and rentals continue to climb, the standard financial advice to spend no more than 30 percent of one’s income on housing has become a distant ideal. For instance, and highlighting the severity of the crisis, the Gainesville Housing Action plan identifies that close to 50 percent of Gainesville residents now spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing, roughly 83 percent of renter households are cost burdened, and Black and minority renters are disproportionately affected.

CONTEXT AND INITIAL EFFORTS. Our efforts to combat the housing crisis began in earnest in 2018, motivated by compelling findings from local research, notably a report by the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The study revealed disturbing trends, including the disproportionate adverse effects on minority communities occurring alongside a surge in population but a sharp decline in affordable housing availability. These insights spurred the creation of the GNVRise initiative, a voluntary inclusionary zoning program designed to encourage developers to reserve at least 10% of units in new subdivisions for below-market rates. Despite its potential to significantly impact housing affordability, GNVRise faced substantial public resistance and was defeated in 2019.

EXCLUSIONARY ZONING REFORM. After the unsuccessful attempt to address affordable housing through GNV Rise, Gainesville commissioned a study that provided a backbone analysis to the housing context in Gainesville. It highlighted the mismatch of increasing housing costs compared to the area’s median income and

continued on page 7

further underscored the disproportionate impact the lack of affordable housing has on people of color and minorities. Some contextual factors identified include how 63 percent of Gainesville’s residential land area is restricted to single-family housing with 80 percent of Gainesville’s housing units consisting of either singlefamily homes or large (10+ units) apartment buildings. The data underscored the urgency for reform. Our response, the Exclusionary Zoning Initiative (EZ Reform), aimed to dismantle single-family exclusionary zoning by merging multiple districts into one, reducing lot size requirements, and permitting small-scale multifamily developments. Despite its initial approval, this progressive measure was rescinded by the newly elected City Commission in 2023, illustrating the volatile nature of urban policymaking. The concerns that were voiced during the repeal of the EZ reform included increased traffic, changes to single-family neighborhood character, and potential environmental impacts.

PIVOTING

TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING.

The repeal of EZ Reform has shifted our focus towards enhancing rental affordability, particularly within the non-student market in Gainesville, a university town with high demand for student housing. To that end, we have refined our approach to inclusionary zoning. Moving away from the volatile nature of single-family housing, we now specifically target multifamily developments.

Our updated Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policy requires that new multifamily projects set aside a certain percentage of units for affordable housing. To offset costs for developers, we offer a density bonus as an incentive. This mandatory approach takes advantage of the strong demand for multifamily developments to secure contributions towards affordable housing. The policy has generally been met with positive feedback from the community, reflecting a broad-based support for initiatives that address the pressing need for affordable living spaces.

continued on page 8

[AFFORDABLE HOUSING] GAINESVILLE

continued from page 7

REVISITING

SMALL-SCALE DEVELOPMENTS.

In refining our approach further, we are revisiting certain less contentious elements of the previous EZ Reform. A new proposal includes changes to minimum lot sizes and setbacks but does not allow for any small-scale multifamily developments in single-family zones. This strategy focuses on increasing the stock of single-family homes on smaller lots, aiming to preserve neighborhood characteristics while boosting housing availability.

Addressing the affordable housing crisis in Gainesville is a complex multifaceted endeavor that requires resilience, adaptability, and ongoing engagement with community stakeholders. Through a mix of targeted zoning reforms and policy

innovations, we are making strides toward a more equitable housing landscape. Our experience illustrates that while not every reform will pass, each effort deepens our understanding of viable solutions and necessary reevaluations. Looking forward, we are committed to using every tool at our disposal to ensure that affordable housing in Gainesville evolves from an ideal into a reality for all of our residents.

Juan Castillo is a Planner II with the City of Gainesville’s Department of Sustainable Development. He can be reached at CastilloJ1@cityofgainesville.org. Forrest Eddleton, AICP, is the Director of the City of Gainesville’s Department of Sustainable Development. He can be reached at eddletonfk@gainesvillefl.gov

Build & launch community-centered engagement plans.

Scan the QR code to schedule a call with our team.

MWBE vendor. Womxn-owned social enterprise.

A Live Local Act Developer Success Story

Having grown up in Florida, I’ve witnessed firsthand how population growth changes the landscape of the places we call home. I drive by areas these days that look far different from when I was younger. Some for the better, others not quite what you’d have hoped.

By Chuck Hollis, CCIM

After graduating from UCF 20 years ago, I immediately started my career in the homebuilding industry, working for Centex Homes.

Fast forward to 2024, and one of the major issues facing all of Florida is the lack of affordability in housing options. There are a host of contributing factors: scarcity of skilled labor, regulations, inflation, etc. A key driver of supply, and thus affordability, is the availability of sites on which residential construction is permitted. The risk and timing of approvals is a discipline within itself for any developer.

As we collectively work toward solutions to intelligently build homes across the spectrum of product types for a growing population, the focus is on how to create communities with a sense of place. In-fill locations naturally become among the more relevant and available options when seeking to minimize the impact to municipal services, while providing proximity to other drivers of placemaking - retail, restaurants, schools, transportation corridors, etc.

There are many viewpoints on the Live Local legislation in Florida, even with its evolution and challenges. I’m thankful to share an experience that resulted in a productive collaboration between our project team and the City of Cape Coral.

The subject site is situated within the Coral Shores Shopping Center Planned Development, which was

continued on page 11

continued from page 10

developed back in 2004. While the Publix center itself is successful, the vacant out parcels have been sitting that way for 20 years. In our minds, this was a perfect example of what we look for in a site, it checked all the boxes.

Unfortunately, while working with city staff, we collectively realized there was a cap on residential development within the Comprehensive Plan for the Pine Island Road District. Newly constructed and planned units threatened to breach the cap, and thus our project application could not be processed at that time.

Through a collaborative approach with city staff, the application of Live Local Act offered a potential pathway for the project to move forward. Once we absorbed the nuances associated with site design, we conducted a second round of application meetings with the city and are now moving forward.

This, of course, is an abbreviated story. There were days we (us and staff) were pulling our hair out. Like Friday March 8, when the legislature again changed major provisions contained within the act. Like it or not, the development of real estate is a series of partnerships that begins locally.

My takeaways:

● Remember that planners and other staff members are working just as hard, if not harder, than anyone else in the equation. They deserve nothing less than the utmost in professionalism. If you listen to them carefully, they’ll usually guide you as much as they can.

● There is no single solution. It takes creativity and mutual respect in order to move the needle.

● Education goes a long way. Most developers aren’t presented with the same struggles that municipalities are facing on a daily basis. And staff members aren’t thinking about cap rates and financing costs when they review our applications.

Bottom line, it’s always been a people business and always will be. Your approach most certainly affects the outcome.

Chuck Hollis, CCIM, is the Managing Director of Lotus Southeast.

Live Local Act Options:

Considering Employment Centers and Other Housing Solutions

By Stephen Noto, AICP

Since its adoption in 2023, the Live Local Act has spurred Florida’s planning and development industries talking about housing in new and somewhat untraditional ways. Talking points like accessory dwelling units to help with generational living gave way to affordable high density residential development in non-residential areas. This isn’t a mixed land use discussion either, this is an attempt at plug and play development in areas that were not meant for plug and play.

Since its adoption in 2023, the Live Local Act has spurred Florida’s planning and development industries talking about housing in new and somewhat untraditional ways. Talking points like accessory dwelling units to help with generational living gave way to affordable high density residential development in non-residential areas. This isn’t a mixed land use discussion either, this is an attempt at plug and play development in areas that were not meant for plug and play.

As a result, those housing discussions have morphed into a different type of discussion: protection of employment centers. Florida has historically had generally higher real estate costs, however, in the last four years, those costs, including the cost of rent, have made many ask if they can even afford to live in the state anymore, or at least question where in the state they live. How do we then, as planners and policymakers who want to encourage more affordable housing, try to solve this wicked problem: Create unique policy that encourages affordable and perhaps higher density housing, but also protect areas of our local communities that have been specifically planned for as employment centers?

Aside from the mixed-use exception based on the zoning mix within a county or city, the Live Local Act does not contemplate its impact on removing non-residential acreage. That is not its purpose. Therefore, it is going to be up to the policymakers and developers to create unique solutions.

Short of creating very complex standards related to how Live Local Act projects are processed within a local agency, these projects cannot be blocked from occurring in commercial or industrial zoning categories. Arguably, the best way to protect employments centers would be to then allow for what the Live Local Act allows in residentially zoned parts of a county or city.

The creation of policies surrounding density, intensity, and savings of time, may encourage developers to look within the residential areas of a community. At the same time, coordinate with developers of larger, master planned communities, that will include employment centers, to create employment center minimums, and not to allow Live Local Act projects to occur within those employment centers.

Instead, allow them to occur with the residential fabric of the community, where residential supportive infrastructure such as schools and parks are more conveniently located, as they should be. It should be said, that even when you see a theme park giant such as Disney try to provide affordable housing, as they’ve been pressured to years to do, run into NIMBY issues, these more fabric-based solutions will not be easy, for the same NIMBY reasons that most projects encounter.

Moving forward, how can we better plan our communities, existing and future, in order to avoid the complications of a bill like Live Local?

The toolbox has become immense with “missing middle” policies, such as more creative options in the duplex and triplex spaces. New to market options, such as Built-to-Rent communities, offer context sensitive solutions to a much needed product type. Working with advisory boards and elected officials to understand how proper land use planning can impact overall affordability.

And perhaps most importantly, educating the public about the benefits of mixed-use communities, providing attainable housing for those who need it, and how it can be provided in a manner that is in character with the existing community.

Stephen Noto, AICP, is the Planning Director for RVi Planning + Landscape Architecture. He can be reached at snoto@rviplanning.com.

Consistency, Compatibility, & Compliance:

HOW WILL PLANNERS ANALYZE THE 3 CS UNDER LIVE LOCAL PREEMPTIONS?

Susan Swift, AICP

Whether or not you agree with the mission of the Live Local Act’s preemption aspects, the way it is written is having a direct impact on how local government planners, engineers and attorneys perform their development review responsibilities.

Local government planners must still analyze projects against these three parameters before approving site plans or permits. The fact that the preemption clause has upended more than 50 years of Florida law and national zoning precedence is making it more difficult to analyze consistency, compatibility, and compliance.

This article looks at a few issues that planners are, or will be, wrestling with as development projects are applied for and lawsuits are filed.

CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The prevailing interpretation of the preemption sections of the law is that an LLA-eligible project must be approved administratively if it is “otherwise consistent with the comprehensive plan” with the exception of density, FAR, height and land use. Given the variety of formats, policies and land use categories across Florida’s 478 cities and counties, this is a gross oversimplification of the underpinnings of state’s growth management system.

continued on page 15

continued from page 14

Needless to say, the category color on a Future Land Use Map is not the only determinant of consistency. Planners must still analyze whether the project is “otherwise consistent” with the neighborhood, corridor or special topic plans and policies that direct where growth is encouraged and where neighborhoods are protected. This context is provided in the text of the plan – in addition to the color on the map.

COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREAS

The most impactful part of the act is the height preemption and the potential lack of compatibility for some 100,000 residential properties across Florida. This is a conservative estimate of only those properties directly abutting commercially zoned parcels. Those residents that live next to a commercial lot and relied upon a building of 30-45 ft. now could have a building of the highest height allowed within one mile.

For example, in Sarasota County and its municipalities, there are 2,466 impacted residential parcels. In North Port, the height could double from 35 ft to 70 ft; in Venice the potential adjacent heights could increase from 35 ft to 57 ft.; and in Unincorporated Sarasota County the height could jump from 35 to 85 ft. (See map)

In Tampa and other jurisdictions with intense central business districts, there must be thousands of single-family and townhome lots abutting commercial, industrial, or mixed use zoning districts that are now jeopardized by buildings at grossly incompatible heights.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

Planners and land use lawyers consulted for this article agree that the law is poorly written with undefined terms (mixed-use), internal conflicts (parking), and a plain lack of understanding of basic zoning law (nonconformities). Whether unintended (or intended), consequences are being unveiled weekly:

Does the term “mixed use” have to be in the name of the zoning district; or will any “residential/office” district suffice?

Will Planned Development/Planned Unit Development sites be deemed mixed use? At least one lawsuit is pending to make an existing residential Planned Development subject to Live Local preemption (see Walden Lake, LLC vs. City of Plant City, 23-CA-016857).

Will owners apply for commercial or industrial zoning for additional height/FAR? The LLA addresses nonconforming uses but ignores non-conforming structures.

This and long-term compliance, enforcement and penalties need significant clarification in the future in order to achieve the ultimate goal of increased affordable housing stock. Local governments will require resources for new personnel to enforce unit affordability for more than 30 years. Further, the LLA discusses non-conforming uses but does not address non-conforming structures.

If preemption allows a 200-foot-high building at 100 units per acre, where only a 45-foot-high, 35-unit-per-acre building was entitled under CG or C-2 zoning in 2024, but only 20 percent of the units are rented to affordable households in 2030, what happens to that non-conforming structure?

The law’s authors and sponsors may have intended that the act eliminated the need for analysis of consistency and compatibility –and that by the reliance on “any area zoned for commercial, industrial, or mixed use,” the only test necessary to approve such projects would be for code compliance. It could have been written as such, had they collaborated with those who have to administer it.

Instead, many communities have resorted to adopting their own Live Local Ordinances to comply, and ironically, this may result in hundreds of different procedures and interpretations that affordable housing developers must navigate.

Susan Swift, AICP is the Director of Planning at Boggs Engineering LLC/Boggs Design Partners. She can be reached at sswift@boggseng.com. GIS Analysis for this article was produced by Maureen Goff, MSc, Owner of Freerange GIS.  She can be reached at maureen@freerangegis.com.

The Live Local Act: A Well Intentioned Law In Need of Improvement

By David Goldstein, Esq.

The Live Local Act had a noble goal: Ensure Floridians have affordable housing that give the opportunity for residents to live close or “local” to their work.

While a noble goal, the Live Local Act was unfortunately drafted as a “once size fits all” approach that has unintended negative consequences and it is often not achieving its goal.

This article discusses some of the major flaws1 with the land use/zoning preemption in the Live Local Act (Sections 125.01055(7) and 166.04151(7), Florida Statutes; hereinafter “Preemption”), and recommends potential improvements.

1. Preemption Does Not Result in Affordable Housing:

The Preemption is currently not achieving housing that is “affordable” or even needed in most jurisdictions. The statutory definition of “affordable” includes housing for “moderate income persons”, those between 80 and 120 percent of the median annual adjusted gross income (AMI).

The rents that meet 80 to 120 percent AMI vary by location, but in many counties, these rents are at or above market rate rents and can exceed $2,000 per month. By way of example, according to the 2023 rent limits chart published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, a rent of $2,349 per month for a two-bedroom unit would be considered “affordable” in Pasco County and qualify for the Preemption. Furthermore, most jurisdictions in Florida do not have

a material deficit of housing in the 80 to 120 percent AMI range. Based on the 2023 Shimberg Center for Housing Studies Annual Report, there are only a few counties that have a material deficit of rental housing in the 80 to 120 percent AMI range (primarily Miami-Dade and Broward counties).2

Recommended improvement: Allow those counties without a material deficit to limit the Preemption to developers providing housing below 80% of AMI.

2. Preemption Fails to Consider Multifamily Zoned Parcels and Economic Development Needs: The Preemption attempts to increase the supply of land for affordable housing by allowing such housing on land zoned for commercial, industrial, and mixed use, and by creating density and height incentives. Unfortunately, the Preemption applies regardless of whether the local government has an adequate supply of vacant multifamily zoned property.

Recommended improvement: Allow local governments to receive credit for each acre of vacant multifamily zoned land that they make available for the density and height incentives (“Multifamily Zoning Credit”), and then allow the local government to remove their highest priority commercial, industrial, and mixed-use sites from the Preemption based on their Multifamily Zoning Credit. This allows local governments to preserve their most

[LAW] NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

continued from page 16

important commercial, industrial, and mixed-use sites. This preservation can be crucial to achieving other important goals, including economic development, preservation of ad valorem tax base, and the reduction of fiscal impacts and commuting times.

The need for local governments to preserve such sites for economic development purposes is particularly important for those counties that have a deficit of jobs to employed residents (a/k/a “jobs poor counties”). As reflected in Graphic A, a recent Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council study concluded that jobs poor counties have longer commute times because their residents are unable to “work local”.

Many jobs poor counties are bedroom communities to jobs rich counties, and the Preemption makes it more difficult to reverse this trend. For example, Pasco County has made a concerted effort to preserve industrial and mixed use land for future employment, and has even adopted an award winning mobility fee system and Ready Sites Program that incentivizes landowners to preserve land for industrial and office development.

If this can now be converted to multi-family housing under the Preemption, existing and future residents in counties like Pasco will continue to have long commute times to jobs rich counties.

One of the most egregious examples of the negative impacts of the Preemption is reflected in Graphic B.

This site is located at the northwest quadrant of an interchange at I-75 and Overpass Road in Pasco County. The State and County spent approximately $65 million on this new interchange and associated road widenings to spur economic development. Pasco County changed the future land use classification and zoning of this property in 2022 to allow for commercial, office and light manufacturing uses, and specifically prohibited all residential uses on the site.

After the adoption of the Live Local Act, the landowner approached the county to convert the site to predominantly multifamily apartments. This would be contrary to Pasco County’s planning, financial and economic development initiatives for the site, and deprive citizens the opportunity to “work local” at the future businesses that would occupy the site.

Recommended improvement: The Legislature should implement the Multifamily Zoning Credit or exempt jobs poor counties from the Preemption.

David A. Goldstein, Esq., is the Chief Assistant County Attorney for Pasco County and is Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law. He can be reached at dgoldstein@pascocountyfl.net

[1] There are many other legal ambiguities and policy flaws in the Live Local Act that this article does not attempt to address, primarily due to word limitations. Rather, the author has focused on two issues that in the author’s opinion would be easiest for the Legislature to address without disturbing the current general structure and intent of the Live Local Act.

[2] See Shimberg Center for Housing Studies 2023 Annual Report, pages 32 and 33, here

[3] In the 2024 legislation session, the Legislature did adopt HB 7073, which allows certain counties to opt-out of the 80 to 120 percent property tax exemption in Section 196.1978(3), Florida Statutes, based on a surplus of housing in the 80 to 120 percent range; however, the Legislature has not yet created a similar opt-out with regard to the preemption.

[4] The landowner subsequently withdrew this request after Pasco County threatened litigation against any landowner seeking to utilize the Preemption.

Graphic A

Graphic B

WHEN DIGITIZING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 Lessons

ADVERTORIAL BY TYLER TECHNOLOGIES

To help peers navigate the challenges and opportunities of a major software implementation, the city of Palm Beach Gardens, recently shared their experiences launching permitting and licensing software with the American Planning Association.

The city’s planning manager, Samantha Morrone, and software project manager, Dave Crump, offered their lessons learned about how their planning and IT departments worked together to meet the needs of their community.

Palm Beach Gardens recognized the inefficiencies of its paperheavy workflows for planning and zoning. The planning review process, which could require as many as nine sets of plans, was tedious and inefficient for city staff and local developers. To meet the challenge, the city implemented Tyler Technologies’ Enterprise Permitting & Licensing software for online services and mobile functionality.

Enterprise Permitting & Licensing is a comprehensive, integrated permitting and licensing software solution built for local governments. The software combines in-demand features — such as an online citizen application portal, electronic plan reviews, and mobile inspections — with centralized, automated workflows that eliminate silos and reduce permit and plan turnaround time.

It’s critical to start with the right team, says Crump, who cites the importance of identifying open-minded, organized staff members who embrace change and are knowledgeable about internal processes. Morrone and Crump stressed the importance of positive relationships, and collaboration-building was invaluable, says Morrone. “Dave allowed me to have a sense of ownership over the course of implementation. It felt like I had some responsibility for how this works and why it works the way it does. I think just communicating really helped us gain that relationship.”

Morrone and Crump stress the importance of keeping an open mind to new ways of doing things rather than just forcing new software to accommodate existing workflows that have been in place for years. They stressed the value of understanding the intent behind the new software’s functionality and optimizing workflows for that functionality.

*photo credit: Captain Kimo of Palm Beach Gardens

Crump suggests that municipalities start small rather than overload end users with all of a program’s bells and whistles. He notes that he spent time building elaborate graphs for internal users in Hub, a data dashboard for Enterprise Permitting & Licensing. However, users shied away from using the advanced functions of Hub in the beginning. Interestingly, users have started to use Hub’s advanced features now that they have developed a core understanding of the software. In retrospect, Crump would have delayed rolling out the more complex features.

THE PAYOFF

In the end, the city’s hard work has paid dividends

“We really strive to work well together, and we do,” says Morrone. “Now we will be able to focus on more important things and the minute details that we may not have been able to focus on before.”

Creating Great Community Places

GAI’s Community Solutions Group is an idea driven strategic consulting practice that is committed to enhancing communities in ways that are sustainable, vibrant, livable, and authentic to the people we serve.

City of Jacksonville Riverplace Boulevard Complete Street, Duval County, Florida

Conference Featured Speakers Announced 2024 Florida Planning Conference

TAMPA

l SEPTEMBER 3-6, 2024

We’re excited to announce the featured speakers for the 2024 Florida Planning Conference at the Tampa Convention Center. Please read about this amazing industry leaders who we know will inspire you.

Our Host Committee is busy finalizing mobile tours, receptions, and other at-conference offerings, so please check the conference website and chapter’s social media accounts for FPC24 announcements.

WEDNESDAY OPENIING PLENARY SPEAKER

VERONICA DAVIS

Author of Inclusive Transportation: A Manifesto for Repairing Divided Communities

Veronica O. Davis is the Cities Program Director in the United States for AtkinsRealis. Veronica has nearly 20 years of experience in engineering and transportation planning. She is an Entrepreneur and Civil Engineer, co-founding Nspiregreen, LLC., which manages Community, Multimodal Transportation, and Environmental planning and consulting.

While at Nspiregreen, she led the Vision Zero Action Plans for Washington, D.C. and the City of Alexandria. She co-founded Black Women Bike, an organization and movement which builds a community and interest in biking among black women through education, advocacy, and recreation.

In 2012, Veronica was recognized as a Champion of Change by the White House for her professional accomplishments and advocacy.

THURSDAY KEYNOTE LUNCH

LISA SHIPLEY

CEO of the Live Wildly Foundation

Hailing from the corn fields of central Illinois, Lisa brings a lifetime of love for nature to her role as CEO of Live Wildly.

With 25 years of experience in conservation, she spent nearly two decades at The Nature Conservancy and most recently led the Last Wild Places program at the National Geographic Society, as well as the implementation of its Campaign for Nature. This is where

Lisa learned of the Florida Wildlife Corridor Campaign and was inspired by the potential to protect such a large-scale landscape. She joined the effort and helped lead the Campaign to pass the Florida Wildlife Corridor Act.

For Lisa, Live Wildly means connecting with your passion – whether it’s art, music, cooking, or sports (Lacrosse Mom!) –you can find it in the Corridor.

FRIDAY CLOSING PLENARY

DAVE CLARE

Circle Leadership

For well over two decades, Dave Clare has been at the coalface of leadership. He is a practitioner that has led multiple businesses in and through commercially and organizationally challenging times. It’s one thing to claim expertise and experience through a range of challenging business environments, but it’s quite another to understand them, digest them, and guide people through them with a simplicity and focus that always points to purpose.

Bringing care, compassion and an urgency to his process, Dave’s legacy in the making is one of achievement, fulfillment, and joy in the workspace. Dave’s process works because they matter to everyone - clients, teams, leaders, everybody!

FPC24 Registration 411

• Registration and hotel room block open on June 3. All registration prices can be found @ floridaplanningconference.org

• Attendees must register before booking a hotel room.

• Be aware of a conference hotel scam that is circulating.

Congratulations to APA Florida’s Newest FICP Members

KATHIE EBAUGH, FAICP

During the course of her outstanding 27-year career, Kathie has been a planner on a mission to build great communities by giving citizens an opportunity to be heard, valued, and recognized. She has created a legacy of building strong communities through collaborative and inclusive planning initiatives.

Kathie has transformed school planning through her reformative leadership. She reimagined the school planning process to create a new paradigm that is community based instead of top down. Her specific efforts in two of the country’s largest school districts, Lee and Sarasota Counties, provided a model for the state of Florida where she is a recognized leader in school planning.

Kathie’s passionate commitment to community planning has transformed numerous communities.

Kathie’s exceptional leadership helped rebuild history through the vigorous redevelopment of an under-resourced minority community, Franklin Park. Through her community planning initiatives, a new school campus is now under construction that will recognize the community’s vision, and retain the school’s history, while providing collaborative educational programs.

Kathie is a fierce advocate for diversity and promoting the role of women in the planning field. Among other things, she created a social media web-group devoted to women planners in Florida, where knowledge, professional experiences, and personal insight can be shared.

KRISTEN LARSEN, FAICP, PH.D.

Professor Kristin Larsen’s interest in the challenges facing marginalized communities, including the root causes of their marginalization, stems from her experiences working as a planner. She embraced efforts to directly address structural racism in her housing policy and neighborhood planning work.

Shifting to academia allowed her to engage more deeply with the historical record, leading to contextual studies that inform current practice and explore housing solutions at the federal, state, and local levels.

As an academic, Kristin established the first ever accredited online planning degree that has allowed a wider range of students to gain expertise in planning and secure graduate degrees who would not have otherwise been able to do so.

Throughout her career, Kristin has been deeply engaged in connecting policy and practice, research and outreach, theory and implementation. In addition to characterizing her teaching and research, this approach also defines her dedication to service, including appointments to the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP).

LAND USE & PLANNING LAW CASE UPDATE

by: David A. Theriaque, Esq., Theriaque & Spain

DEVILLIER V. TEXAS, NO. 22-913, 2024 WL 1624576 (APR. 16, 2024)

The State of Texas installed an approximately three (3) foot tall barrier along the median in U.S. Interstate Highway 10 (“I10”) between Houston and Beaumont, Texas. The barrier was intended to prevent stormwater from covering the south side of I-10. During Hurricane Harvey in August 2017 and Tropical Storm Imelda in 2019, the barrier performed as intended and kept the south side of I-10 open. Unfortunately, the barrier also flooded several property owners’ land to the north, “displacing them from their homes, damaging businesses, ruining crops, killing livestock, and destroying family heirlooms.”

Richard DeVillier sued the State of Texas in state court, alleging that the State of Texas had taken his property “by building the median barrier and using his property to store stormwater” and, therefore, he was entitled to just compensation. Mr. DeVillier contended that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a cause of action to sue the State of Texas. The trial court agreed but the appellate court reversed.

The United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Mr. DeVillier’s case “to decide whether a property owner may sue for just compensation directly under the Takings Clause.” In other words, the Court accepted the case to decide whether the Takings Clause itself creates a cause of action for damages. The Court decided against answering this question, however, because “Texas state law provides a cause of action by which property owners may seek just compensation against the State.” The Court vacated the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case is another example of how difficult Takings Clause actions are for property owners. Mr. DeVillier started in state court, had his case removed to federal court, the federal appellate court concluded that his case should be dismissed, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider his case, and then the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal trial court so he could amend his Complaint and start all over. Yikes!!!

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, NO. 22-1074, 2024

WL 1588707 (APR. 12, 2024)

George Sheetz and his wife applied for a permit to build a prefabricated house on their property in the County of El Dorado, Calif. As a condition of receiving the permit, the County required Mr. Sheetz to pay a traffic impact fee in the amount of $23,420. The traffic impact fee was imposed without an “individualized

determination that the fee amount was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his specific development.” Rather, the traffic impact fee was determined by a rate schedule based upon the type of development – commercial, residential, etc.

Mr. Sheetz paid the traffic impact fee under protest and sued the County in state court. Relying upon Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1994), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), Mr. Sheetz contended that the traffic impact fee was an unlawful exaction of money. The California Court of Appeal ruled against Mr. Sheetz, concluding that the requirements of Nollan and Dolan were inapplicable because the traffic impact fee was imposed by legislation and not on an ad hoc basis by administrators.

In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the state court decision. The Court reviewed the two-part test set forth in Nollan and Dolan. Pursuant to Nollan, the first prong addresses whether the permit conditions have an “essential nexus” to the “government’s land-use interest.” Pursuant to Dolan, the second prong addresses whether the permit conditions have a “rough proportionality” to the “development’s impact on the land-use interest.” The Court held that this two-part test does apply to “legislatively prescribed monetary fees” as “the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions.” In so doing, the Court declined to address whether a permit condition, such as a traffic impact fee, that is imposed on “a class of properties must be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular development.”

This is a good opinion for planners to read as it contains an excellent overview of the constitutional text, history, and precedent regarding Takings Clause rules.

David A. Theriaque, Esq., is the founder and partner of Theriaque & Spain. He can be reached at dat@theriaquelaw.com

A MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Stefanie Svisco

Thank You, Volunteers!

We are nearly halfway through 2024 and we have been busy here in the chapter office working for you! In my nearly year and a half here, I am continually amazed at the volunteers who donate their valuable time to the chapter – from our Executive Committee to Section Leaders to CPAT Members.

The 2024 Legislative Session was an active one for us – some wins, some loses – but we couldn’t have done it without the volunteers on the Legislative Policy Committee, who helped us draft letters, bill language, and meet with legislators. I am grateful to all the talented policy pros who helped guide us through the year.

We also have volunteers on the ground helping us educate non-planners on the fundamentals and tenets of community planning. To date, we have hosted six Planning Officials Training Workshops (POT) statewide. I am thrilled to report the POTs have become a popular program that we hope to expand even more. A huge thank you to Merle Bishop, FAICP, Owen Beitsch, FAICP, and Bob Cambric, for their expertise and leadership! I am learning a lot from you, too! (PS: We are hosting another POT @ FPC24!)

Speaking of invaluable volunteers, I would like to congratulate the FPC24 Host Committee members on their work thus far. Led by Katrina Corcoran, AICP, and Sofia Garantiva, AICP, their army of volunteers have recruited three fabulous keynote speakers, selected 78 stellar sessions (out of 135 submissions!), crafted 10 intriguing mobile tours, and scheduled other fun at-conference goodies waiting for you in Tampa. And we plan to top the conference off with a reception at the Florida Aquarium on Thursday evening. You won’t want to miss it!

Thank you to hundreds of volunteers that make APA Florida run. We cannot do it without you!

As always, please do not hesitate to contact the Chapter Office for anything you may need. I look forward to seeing you in Tampa!

APA FLORIDA WORKING FOR YOU

Our annual session review webinar was a huge success, in part thanks to our guest member, Sen. Bobby Powell, Jr., AICP, who gave attendees his session POV. Top issues of concern covered were the Live Local Act glitch bill (SB 328), the always controversial Vacation Rentals Bill, infrastructure and transportation funding and limits, and the bevy of local preemptions bills that passed.

Thanks to our panelists: W. Thomas Hawkings, AICP, JD; Allara Mills Gutcher, AICP; Wiatt Bowers, AICP; Lester Abberger; and Alex Magee. 1.5 CM credits (1 Law CM) were offered.

Statewide and section leaders met on April 5 in Ocala to talk future chapter goals and get updates on current projects, including:

• Our AICP research paper exploring ways to increase the recognition and acknowledgement of the AICP credential in professional development, particularly among state and local governments in Florida

• Our FAICP nomination process, which will be reviewed in time for the next cycle.

• The 2026 and 2027 Florida Planning Conference locations. Miami, Destin, and Hollywood are among the cities in the mix.

Planning is in full swing as 78 sessions – out of the recordbreaking 135 submitted – have been selected for the big event at the Tampa Convention Center from Sept. 3 -6. This year what is usually referred to as “pre-conference” day will officially be Day One.

We have a full schedule on Sept. 3 that includes all day Planning Officials Training Workshops and the always free for attendees AICP Exam Prep Course hosted by Henry Bittaker, FAICP, and Susan Coughanour, FAICP. There will be sessions and all-day mobile tours. So, don’t count out Tuesday! You won’t want to miss it!

As seen on page 20, we are so excited for this year’s roster of featured speakers Veronica O. Davis, Lisa Shipley, and all the way from Australia, Dave Clare. We know attendees will be inspired.

The conference Host Committee is busy finalizing mobile tours and nightly events, including university alumni and student receptions. And we can tell you here first, the closing reception will be at the Florida Aquarium in downtown Tampa!

PLANNING OFFICIALS TRAINING WORKSHOPS

We are excited that these workshops (we call them POTs) are being so well received across the state. So far this year we have conducted workshops in Ocala, Ocoee, and Miami. As mentioned above, we will host a larger POT at FPC24.

Some attendee verbatims:

“The training covered a variety of relevant planning topics offering a great refresher and learning opportunities.”

“I think his presentation should be mandatory training for all elected or appointed officials and other decisionmakers.”

“The speakers were wonderful, had excellent back-and-forth dialogue, and were highly knowledgeable and experienced in their respective fields.”

“[G]etting a broad introduction made it easy for me to understand and made the topics less intimidating. I feel like I gained a lot of great knowledge I will be able to use to research more into these.”

If you are interested in hosting a POT, please fill out this interest form and we will be in touch!

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MET IN OCALA

2024 FLORIDA PLANNING CONFERENCE

[CONSULTANTS] DIRECTORY

Advertise in the Consultants Directory

The Consultant Directory is a fitting place to showcase your firm.  $250 buys space for a year in the newsletter (four issues) plus inclusion in our web-based consultant directory.  Display ads to promote your business, conference, projects and more are available.  Contact the Chapter office at 850-201-3272 for rates and details.

In a Livable Community, people of all ages can make their town or city a lifelong home Learn about what’s happening in Florida. Contact Laura Cantwell at lcantwell@aarp org

[FLORIDA] PLANNING

Published by the Florida Chapter, American Planning Association, the Florida Planning digital magazine has a current circulation of 3,000 members, subscribers and other readers. Four issues are published a year.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS

For APA members, Send to: Member Records Department

American Planning Association 205 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1200 Chicago, IL 60601

Fax: 312-786-6700 or log onto www.planning.org/myapa

ARTICLES

Florida Planning welcomes articles, announcements, letters, pictures and advertising. Call 850-201-3272 regarding articles. The next issue will be published August 2024.

DEADLINES

Article deadlines are generally four weeks prior to publication. Ad deadlines are generally two weeks prior to publication. Consult the editor for any exception to this schedule.

ABOUT THE CHAPTER

APA Florida is a non-profit organization funded through membership dues and fees. Contributions are also welcomed for general purposes and earmarked programs. Please note that contributions are not tax deductible.

For news and information on chapter concerns, visit the APA Florida website at florida planning.org

APA Florida

2017 Delta Boulevard, Suite 101 Tallahassee, FL 32303

Phone: 850-201-3272

Email: connect@floridaplanning.org

[UPCOMING] EVENTS

MAY 23: TRIP GENERATION STUDY FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THROUGH AND FAST FOOD WITH DRIVE-THROUGH

Webinar. Host is the Florida Department of Transportation. Our objective is to accurately assess impacts to the state roadway system due to excessive driveway queuing from internal drive through lanes because of high volume/high generator land uses when located adjacent to state roadway facilities. Site trips and queueing information will be collected for these two land uses at multiple sites throughout the State of Florida. Free. 1.5 CM. Information here.

JUNE 13 – 14: FDOT’S 2024 TRANSPORTATION

SYMPOSIUM

Hollywood. Host is the Florida Department of Transportation. The first of two symposiums, the state’s transportation agency will host sessions on a variety of issues (download agenda pdf here) including: emerging technologies, safety analysis, pedestrian safety, PD&E, case students, emergency management, and more. Free. No CMs available. Information here.

JUNE 21: TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME: CONNECTING STADIUMS TO COMMUNITIES

Webinar. Host is Planning Webcast Series. When carefully planned with their surroundings, new sports facilities offer the opportunity to revitalize communities, promote economic development, and create great places. Learn lessons from renowned urban designer and architect Janet Marie Smith, who was instrumental in designing the pioneering Orioles Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore, the renovation of Fenway Park in Boston, and the recent modernization of Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Free. 1.5 CM.

Places

in Florida Noms Open on June 17

The nomination window for the 11th Annual Great Places in Florida Award opens on June 17. The theme for the 11th Annual Great Places in Florida is Great Places Exemplifying Safe Mobility for All, which recognizes human mistakes and vulnerabilities, while creating context sensitive safety interventions to limit conflict points through innovative infrastructure projects, education and awareness, available technologies, enforcement, community engagement, and more. Any Street, Public Space, Greenway/Trail, or Downtown in your community is eligible for submission. Criteria, timetable, rules here.