Division of Community Planning Local Government Comprehensive Plan Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Local Government Comprehensive Plan Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports Prepared by: Florida Planning & Developmnet Lab Department of Urban & Regional Planning Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306-2280

Contents Executive Summary...1 Certification Program Overview Legislative Intent...2 Eligibility Criteria for a Certification Area...3 Contents of a Certification Agreement...4 Criteria for Evaluating Success of Certification...5 Certification Program Annual Reports Summary of Activity...6 City of Orlando Annual Report...6 City of Lakeland Annual Report...9 City of Miramar Annual Report...12 City of Freeport Annual Report...14 Issues and Options Participation in the Certification Program...16 Achieving the Certification Program s Primary Purposes...16 Alternative Paths to Comprehensive Plan Review Deregulation...19 Appendices Appendix A: Orlando General Requirements/City Commitments...23 Appendix B: Orlando Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals/Work Program...25 Appendix C: Lakeland General Requirements/City Commitments...31

Appendix D: Lakeland Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals/Work Program...33 Appendix E: Miramar General Requirements/City Commitments...41 Appendix F: Miramar Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals/Work Program...43

Division of Community Planning Executive Summary The 2005 and 2007 Reports is submitted to meet the requirements of Section 163.3246 (13), Florida Statutes (F.S.), that requires the Department of Community Affairs (herein referred to as the Department) to submit a report on the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program each odd-numbered year, listing certified local governments, evaluating the effectiveness of the certification, and including any recommendations for legislative actions. This report will include the combined status for reporting years 2005 and 2007. This report provides background information about the statutory requirements and process for implementing a local government comprehensive planning certification program agreement. The statute has provided an opportunity for eight local governments per year to pursue a certification agreement under this program. To date, four local governments have attempted to undertake a certification agreement. This report includes a status report for each of the local governments that have executed certification agreements, which include the City of Orlando, the City of Lakeland, the City of Miramar, and the City of Freeport. Information for this report was obtained from the annual reports submitted by each participating jurisdiction as well as from interviews that were conducted with planning staff in each city. An interview was also conducted with planning staff in one of the two cities that unsuccessfully applied to participate in the program. This report concludes with an assessment of issues and options that should be considered by DCA and the Legislature. They key issues and recommendations are: 2. 3. 4. The main benefit of the program is the reduction in state and regional oversight of comprehensive plan amendments. Nevertheless, participating jurisdictions identified costs that continue to make participation more difficult. The participating jurisdictions are not developing a full set of work programs to address each of their community development goals. Generally, the community development goals serve a useful purpose of establishing a clear-cut set of performance based planning standards, but jurisdictions are not developing work programs for each of their goals. DCA should consider means by which the work program requirement be more fully and creatively implemented to guide jurisdictions in meeting the certification program s community development goals. Providing grant funds to encourage jurisdictions to develop effective work programs is also recommended. The 2005 amendments to the certification program legislation enables at least one community to participate in the certification program without meeting the application and annual reporting requirements expected of other jurisdictions. Moreover, HB 7303, adopted in the 2007 legislative session, makes it possible for other jurisdictions to obtain relief from state and regional oversight without making the commitments to exemplary planning contained in the certification program. DCA and the Legislature should consider repealing these amendments as they jeopardizes the integrity of the certification program and devalue the work of jurisdictions that must apply through normal channels to participate in this program. 1. In order to increase the level of participation in the certification program, DCA and the Legislature should consider options for decreasing the costs associated with applying to and participating in the program and should consider ways for marketing the program to local jurisdictions. Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Certification Program Overview Legislative Intent The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program, Section 163.3246, F.S., is administered by the Department of Community Affairs. The purpose of the program is to create a certification process for local governments who identify a geographic area for certification within which they commit to directing growth. Eligible local governments must demonstrate a record of effectively adopting, implementing, and enforcing comprehensive plan objectives and policies and a commitment to implement exemplary planning practices. The level of technical planning experience exhibited by local governments is also taken into consideration. Additionally, the purpose of the Program is to designate certification areas that are contiguous, compact, and appropriate for urban growth and development within a 10-year planning timeframe. Municipalities and counties are encouraged to jointly establish the certification area, and subsequently enter into joint certification agreement with the Department. Certification is implemented by execution of an agreement with the Department. The legislation provides that the Department may review the performance of the local government and revoke the certification under specified conditions. The legislation also provides that a citizen may initiate a review of the certification, if the local government is not substantially complying with the terms of the agreement. Certification expires 10 years after execution of the agreement between the Department and the local government. The legislation limits the Department to approving eight new certifications per year. The first application period was January 6 through February 4, 2003. In 2005, Section 163.3246, F.S., was amended to allow the following: (10) Notwithstanding subsections (2), (4), (5), (6), and (7), any municipality designated as a rural area of critical economic concern pursuant to s. 288.0656 which is located within a county eligible to levy the Small County Surtax under s. 212.055(3) shall be considered certified during the effectiveness of the designation of rural area of critical economic concern. The state land planning agency shall provide a written notice of certification to the local government of the certified area, which shall be considered final agency action subject to challenge under s. 120.569. The notice of certification shall include the following components: (a) The boundary of the certification area. (b) A requirement that the local government submit either an annual or biennial monitoring report to the state land planning agency according to the schedule provided in the written notice. The monitoring report shall, at a minimum, include the number of amendments to the comprehensive plan adopted by the local government, the number of plan amendments challenged by an affected person, and the disposition of those challenges. (11) If the local government of an area described in subsection (10) does not request that the state land planning agency review the developments of regional impact that are proposed within the certified area, an application for approval of a development order within the certified area shall be exempt from review under s. 380.06, subject to the following: (a) Concurrent with filing an application for development approval with the local government, a developer proposing a project that would have been subject to review pursuant to s. 380.06 shall notify in writing the regional planning council with jurisdiction. (b) The regional planning council shall coordinate with the developer and the local govern- 2 Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning ment to ensure that all concurrency requirements as well as federal, state and local environmental permit requirements are met. Eligibility Criteria for a Certification Area The Department may enter up to eight new certification agreements each fiscal year. The Department has adopted Rule Chapter 9J-35 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Program, procedural rules governing the application and review of local government requests for certification. The following cities have executed certification agreements: Orlando (June 10, 2004), Lakeland (July 2, 2004), and Miramar (September 6, 2005). In addition, the City of Freeport has been included in the certification program pursuant to legislative action. In order to be eligible for certification under the program, the local government must: (a) Demonstrate a record of effectively adopting, implementing, and enforcing its comprehensive plan; (b) Demonstrate technical, financial, and administrative expertise to implement the provisions of this part without state oversight; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Promote the development of housing for low-income and very-low-income households or specialized housing to assist elderly and disabled persons to remain at home or in independent living arrangements. Achieve effective intergovernmental coordination and address the extrajurisdictional effects of development within the certified area. Promote economic diversity and growth while encouraging the retention of rural character, where rural areas exist, and the protection and restoration of the environment. Provide and maintain public urban and rural open space and recreational opportunities. Manage transportation and land uses to support public transit and promote opportunities for pedestrian and nonmotorized transportation. Use design principles to foster individual community identity, create a sense of place, and promote pedestrian-oriented safe neighborhoods and town centers. Redevelop blighted areas. (c) Obtain comments from the state and regional review agencies regarding the appropriateness of the proposed certification; (d) Hold at least one public hearing soliciting public input concerning the local government s proposal for certification; and (e) Demonstrate that it has adopted programs in its local comprehensive plan and land development regulations which: 1. Promote infill development and redevelopment, including prioritized and timely permitting processes in which applications for local development permits within the certification area are acted upon expeditiously for proposed development that is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. 9. 10. 11. Adopt a local mitigation strategy and have programs to improve disaster preparedness and the ability to protect lives and property, especially in coastal high-hazard areas. Encourage clustered, mixed-use development that incorporates greenspace and residential development within walking distance of commercial development. Encourage urban infill at appropriate densities and intensities and separate urban and rural uses and discourage urban sprawl while preserving public open space and planning for buffer-type land uses and rural development consistent with their respective character along and outside the certification area. Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning 12. Assure protection of key natural areas and agricultural lands that are identified using state and local inventories of natural areas. Key natural areas include, but are not limited to: and in which public infrastructure is existing or planned within a 10-year planning timeframe. The certification area is required to include sufficient land to accommodate projected population growth, housing demand, including choice in housing types and affordability, job growth and employment, a. Wildlife corridors. appropriate densities and intensities of use to be achieved in new development and redevelopment, b. Lands with high native biological diversity, important areas for threatened and endangered species, species of special concern, migratory bird habitat, and intact natural communities. existing or planned infrastructure, including transportation and central water and sewer facilities. The certification area must be adopted as part of the local government s comprehensive plan. c. Significant surface waters and springs, aquatic preserves, wetlands, and outstanding Florida waters. d. Water resources suitable for preservation of natural systems and for water resource development. e. Representative and rare native Florida natural systems. 13. Ensure the cost-efficient provision of public infrastructure and services. Each local government must provide an annual report to the Department of plan amendments adopted during the year and the progress of the local government in meeting the terms and conditions of the certification agreement. Prior to the deadline for the annual report, the local government must hold a public hearing soliciting public input on the progress of the local government in satisfying the terms of the certification agreement. Contents of a Certification Agreement If the local government meets the eligibility criteria, certification is implemented by execution of an agreement with the Department. The agreement must include the following components: (c) A demonstration that the capital improvements plan governing the certified area is updated annually. (d) A visioning plan or a schedule for the development of a visioning plan. (e) A description of baseline conditions related to the evaluation criteria in paragraph (g) in the certified area. (f) A work program setting forth specific planning strategies and projects that will be undertaken to achieve improvement in the baseline conditions as measured by criteria identified in paragraph (g). (g) Criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the certification process in achieving the community-development goals for the certification area including: 1. 2. 3. 4. Measuring the compactness of growth, expressed as the ratio between population growth and land consumed; Increasing residential density and intensities of use; Measuring and reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing the interconnectedness of the street system, pedestrian access, and mass transit; Measuring the balance between the location of jobs and housing; (a) The basis for certification. (b) The boundary of the certification area, which encompasses areas that are contiguous, compact, appropriate for urban growth and development, 5. Improving the housing mix within the certification area, including the provision of mixeduse neighborhoods, affordable housing, and the creation of an affordable housing program if such a program is not already in place; Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Promoting mixed-use developments as an alternative to single-purpose centers; Promoting clustered development having dedicated open space; Linking commercial, educational, and recreational uses directly to residential growth; Reducing per capita water and energy consumption; Prioritizing environmental features to be protected and adopting measures or programs to protect identified features; Reducing hurricane shelter deficits and evacuation times and implementing the adopted mitigation strategies; and Improving coordination between the local government and school board. (h) A commitment to change any land development regulations that restrict compact development and adopt alternative design codes that encourage desirable densities and intensities of use and patterns of compact development identified in the agreement. in meeting the terms and conditions of the certification agreement. Prior to the deadline for the annual report, the local government must hold a public hearing soliciting public input on the progress of the local government in satisfying the terms of the certification agreement. (m) An expiration date that is no later than 10 years after execution of the agreement. Criteria for Evaluating Success of Certification As stated in Section 12 of the Certification Agreement for each local government, the criteria for evaluating the success of the designation are as follows: 1. 2. Progress made toward achieving the commitments as set forth in the agreement, as detailed in the annual report to be submitted to the Department. Progress made toward improving the Baseline Conditions and achieving the Community Development Goals set forth in the agreement and implementing the Work Program set forth in the agreement. (i) A plan for increasing public participation in comprehensive planning and land use decisionmaking which includes outreach to neighborhood and civic associations through community planning initiatives. (j) A demonstration that the intergovernmental coordination element of the local government s comprehensive plan includes joint processes for coordination between the school board and local government pursuant to s. 163.3177(6)(h)2. and other requirements of law. (k) A method of addressing the extrajurisdictional effects of development within the certified area which is integrated by amendment into the intergovernmental coordination element of the local government comprehensive plan. (l) A requirement for the annual reporting to the department of plan amendments adopted during the year, and the progress of the local government Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports 5

Division of Community Planning Certification Program Annual Reports Summary of Activity Pursuant to Section 163.3246(5)(1), F.S., the Cities of Orlando, Lakeland, and Miramar have submitted Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Agreement Annual Reports to the Department. The purpose of these reports is to list plan amendments adopted during the year and to report on the progress of the local government in meeting the terms and conditions of the certification agreement. Section 163.3246(5)(e)(f), F.S., sets forth the following guidelines for the Certification Agreement for each local government. Section 6 of the Certification Agreement identifies certain Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals to be achieved using the specific planning strategies set forth in Section 7 Work Program of the Agreement. The twelve criteria are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the certification process in achieving the community development goals for the certification area. Section 163.3246(5)(h)-(k), F.S., sets forth the following guidelines for the Certification Agreement for each local government. Section 8 of the Certification Agreement identifies six planning strategies that each city must address within eighteen months of the Agreement s effective date. The City Commitments include improvements to the Land Development Code, Alternative Design Codes, public participation, joint processes for school coordination, extra-jurisdictional effects, and coordination with Water Management Districts. The City of Orlando entered into a certification agreement with the Department on May 12, 2004 and has submitted its Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Agreement Annual Report for 2004, 2005, and 2006. The City of Lakeland entered into a certification agreement with the Department on July 2, 2004 and has submitted its Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Agreement Annual Report for 2004, 2005, and 2006. The City of Miramar entered into a certification agreement with the Department on September 6, 2005 and has submitted its Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Agreement Annual Report for 2006. Pursuant to Section 163.3246(10)(b), F.S., the City of Freeport has submitted a Local Government Comprehensive Planning Certification Agreement 2006 Annual Monitoring Report to the Department. The purpose of this report is to list the number of amendments to the comprehensive plan adopted by the City, the number of plan amendments challenged by an affected person, and the disposition of those challenges as set forth in the certification agreement between the City and the Department that became effective January 1, 2006. City of Orlando Annual Report General Requirements In 2004, the boundary of the Orlando certification area (see Figure 1) was adopted as part of the local government comprehensive plan. Since then, there have been two amendments to expand the certification boundary by 1,634 acres in 2005 and 221 acres in 2006. The City also adopted its Capital Improvements Plan in 2004, updating it annually in 2005 and 2006. The City adopted 28 Growth Management Plan amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) during the 2004 calendar year, 24 in 2005, and 52 in 2006. Public hearings have also been held for the three consecutive years to solicit input on the progress of the local government in satisfying the terms of the Certification Agreement. The City has filed its annual reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006 (see Appendix A). Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Orlando City Jurisdiction Exhibit B N APOPKA VINELAND RD Figure 1 - Orlando Certification Area Map City Commitments LAKEVILLE RD W COLONIAL DR EAST WEST EX CONROY RD S APOPKA VINELAND RD DR PHILLIPS BV By: INTERNATIONAL DR S R 535 I - 4 HIAWASSEE RD TURKEY LAKE RD S R 439 INTERNATIONAL DR CLARCONA OCOEE RD SILVER STAR RD I - 4 S R 416 S R 435 S KIRKMAN RD PINE HILLS RD S R 50 S R 526 SUNSHINE STATE PY W SAND LAKE RD EDGEWATER DR S R 423 BEACHLINE EX S R 528 S R 91 CENTRAL FLORIDA PY Secretary Department of Community Affairs An Agency of the State of Florida L E G E N D City of Orlando City Planning Division January 2007 S JOHN YOUNG PY S R 423 S JOHN YOUNG PY FOREST CITY RD S R 434 N ORANGE BLOSSOM TL KENNEDY BV S ORANGE BLOSSOM TL U S 441 LEE RD EAST WEST EX HOFFNER AV As set forth in Section 8 of the Certification Agreement, the City Commitments include improvements to the Land Development Code, Alternative Design Codes, public participation, joint processes for school coordination, extra-jurisdictional effects, and coordination with Water Management Districts. November 12, 2005 marked the end of the eighteen month period from the City of Orlando s Certification Agreement, and at that time, the following progress occurred (see Appendix A). As of November 12, 2005, the City had reviewed its Land Development Code and had determined that there are no regulations restricting compact development. The City intended to defer the adoption of new alternative design codes. Public participation S R 424 U S 441 U S 441 S ORANGE BLOSSOM TL I - 4 I - 4 HOLDEN AV S R 482 S R 423 E COLONIAL DR S ORANGE AV S R 527 ORLANDO AV FAIRBANKS AV S R 426 LANDSTREET RD TAFT VINELAND RD CENTRAL FLORIDA GREENEWAY ALOMA AV S R 15 CONWAY RD N SEMORAN BV AIRPORT BV W Date: BOGGY CREEK RD S R 527A S R 436 S R 408 AIRPORT BV E S R 15 N GOLDENROD RD S R 551 S R 551 S GOLDENROD RD S R 50 CURRY FORD RD S R 552 NARCOOSSEE RD S R 417 S R 417 S R 15 S R 417 DEAN RD LAKE UNDERHILL RD EAST WEST EX Orlando City Jurisdiction Effective March 16, 2006 CENTRAL S R 15 NARCOOSSEE RD FLORIDA UNIVERSITY GREENEWAY S R 417 improvements had been implemented by revising the City s Internet site to include Planning Board and City Council notices, agendas, minutes, ordinances and staff reports. The City included references to four objectives and 27 policies in the comprehensive plan regarding joint processes for school coordination. To address extra-jurisdictional effects in the certification area, the City adopted a Joint Planning Agreement with Orange County in 1994, but it expired in 2005. Through 2005, the City worked with Orange County to develop a revised joint planning agreement. Extrajurisdictional impacts related to schools are addressed by two inter-local agreements, one adopted in 2003 and the other adopted in 2006. Regarding coordination with water management districts, the City participated with the St. Johns River Water Management District and 13 other municipalities to create a Regional Stormwater Master Plan. The City had not adopted an ordinance to encourage water conservation or promote the use of reclaimed water. Since November 12, 2005, he City has deferred the effort of investigating the feasibility of combining several adopted regulations into one Alternative Design Code to later in the term of its Certification Agreement because the existing regulations are accomplishing the City s objectives. The City Planning Division s web site now includes meeting schedules, the Growth Management Plan Policy Document, an Evaluation and Appraisal Report web site, DCA Notices of Intent for plan amendments, and Inter-local Agreements for School Facility Planning, as well as future land use and zoning maps for the entire City. In December 2005, the City adopted Growth Management Plan amendments to implement requirements of the 2004 Wekiva Parkway and Protection Act adopted by the Legislature. The City also coordinated with the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) to draft a Water Supply Plan which was adopted by City Council in January, 2007. Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals Please see Figure 2 and Appendix B for information on how Orlando has done in meeting the community development goals outlined in the certification agreement. Appendix B identifies the baseline conditions for each community development goal and the progress that has been made in meeting each of these goals. Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports 7

Division of Community Planning Evaluation Criteria Goal 1a Compactness Increase 3.37 3.45 3.54 3.84 1b Compactness Decrease 2.32 2.24 2.25 2.27 2a Residential Density Increase 1.48 1.49 1.54 1.58 2b Non Residential Intensity Increase to 3.2/5 Yrs/2009 3.07 3.03 3.06 3.21 3a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Improve by 5%/5 Yrs/2009 102 Cal/5 Cal/5 Cal/5 3b Interconnectivity Maintain @ 1.4 or > 1.41 1.73 1.76 3c Pedestrian Access Add 25 Miles/Yr 491.0 546.9 560.0 578.1 3d Mass Transit Improve 30 Min 30 Min 30 Min 30 Min 4 Jobs Housing Balance Maintain @ 1.02 to 1.3 1.02 0.99 0.97 0.98 5a Housing Mix owner occupied LTG Increase to 45% 41.1% 41.7% 41.2% 41.3% 5b Housing Mix Parramore owner occupied Increase by 10%/10 Yrs/2014 17.9% 20.3% 27.0% 6.8% 5c Affordable Housing Ownership Reduce to 2.63/10 Yrs/2014 2.86 3.44 4.35 4.32 5d Cost Burdened Households owner occupied Reduce by 1%(68.81 25.6% 23.2% 25.6% 25.6% households)/10 Yrs/2014 5e Community Development Goals: Orlando Baseline 2004 2005 2006 renter occupied Reduce by 5%(1,033 40.2% 41.5% 40.2% 40.2% households)/10 Yrs/2014 Substandard Units single family Decrease by 5%(23 units) 458 Census Census Census /10 Yrs/2014 multi family Decrease by 5%(375 units) 7,497 Census Census Census /10 Yrs/2014 6 Mixed Use Development Maintain a mix of land uses Min Max 2010 Residential 2.5% 10% 5.0% 7.4% 8.6% 13.3% Office 20% 25% 10.2% 9.1% 9.7% 8.1% Commercial 40% 55% 53.5% 54.2% 52.3% 53.9% PRI 5% 20% 12.5% 11.4% 10.8% 8.8% Hospital 1% 5% 7.5% 6.9% 6.4% 5.6% Industrial 5% 15% 11.5% 11.1% 12.2% 10.3% 7 Dedicated Open Space 20% N/A 21.3% 11.9% 25.0% 8 Education & Recreation Approve 5/5 Yrs/2009 15 16 16 16 9a Per Capita Water Consumption Decrease 12.06 12.41 12.12 12.26 9b Per Capita Energy Consumption Decrease 1.04 1.01 1.02 1.01 10 Environmental Protection Maintain at least 10% 10.80% 11.70% 11.00% 15.10% 11 Hurricane Shelters Add 2/5 Yrs/2009 23 23 23 23 12 Coordination with School Board See 8 See 8 See 8 See 8 See 8 : Goal Not Met Cal/5 : Calculated Every 5 Years Census : Calculations Based on 2010 Census Annual Report of Measures Figure 2 - Orlando Goals Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Of the 12 evaluation criteria, Figure 2 shows that Orlando has not been meeting its goals on seven: 3d. Mass transit 4. Jobs Housing Balance 5c. Affordable Housing Ownership 6. Mixed-Use Development: Percent of land in urban and metropolitan centers that is office (too little in 2004-2006); Mixed-Use Development: Percent of land in urban and metropolitan centers that is hospital (too little in 2004-2006) 8. Education & Recreation Uses in Neighborhoods 9a. Per Capita Water Consumption 11. Hurricane Shelters In addition, earlier progress has slowed or reversed with regard to the following four criteria: 1b. Compactness: Miles of city boundary/square miles of city land area 3c. Pedestrian Access 5b. Housing Mix Parramore 6. Mixed-Use Development: Percent of land in urban and metropolitan centers that is residential (too much in 2006) Work Program As specified in Section 163,3246(5), F.S., a work program setting forth specific planning strategies and projects that will be undertaken to achieve improvement in the baseline conditions as measured by the criteria identified in paragraph (g) [the community development goals] is required of each certified jurisdiction. Please see Appendix B for a summary of the Orlando Work Program undertaken to achieve realization of the city s community development goals. In general, while the City reports work program activity taking place on all of the community development goals, there are several community development goals for which no directly relevant work program is reported. In the case of the mass transit community development goal, for example, there is no work program that directly relates to mass transit. Nor are there specific programs identified for addressing the increase of interconnectivity in large-scale subdivisions and planned developments. Similarly, there is no specific program identified for reducing water consumption. Another example is Community Goal 8, Education and Recreation Uses in Neighborhoods. Instead of reporting on the work program for achieving this goal, in accordance with the certification agreement with DCA, the City reports on the work program for Mixed Use Neighborhoods, which is not one of the 12 community goals. City of Lakeland Annual Report General Requirements In 2004, the boundary of the Lakeland certification area (see Figure 3) was adopted as part of the local government comprehensive plan. Since then, the City annexed 3.25 acres in 2004 and there have been two additional amendments to expand the certification boundary by 915.99 acres in 2005 and 524.5 acres in 2006. The City does not address a Capital Improvements Plan in their report. The City adopted 8 plan amendments to the comprehensive plan during the 2004 calendar year; 6 were amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and 2 were text amendments to the Lakeland Comprehensive Plan. In 2005, the City adopted 26 plan amendments; 19 were amendments to the FLUM, and 7 were text amendments. In 2006, the City adopted 18 plan amendments; 12 were amendments to the FLUM, and 6 were text amendments. Public hearings have also been held for three consecutive years to solicit input on the progress of the local government in satisfying the terms of the Certification Agreement The City has filed its annual reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006 (see Appendix C). City Commitments As set forth in Section 8 of the Certification Agreement, the City Commitments include improvements to the Land Development Code, Alternative Design Codes, public participation, joint processes for school coordination, extra-jurisdictional effects, and coordination with Water Management Districts. January 2, 2006 marked the end of the eighteen month period from the City of Lakeland s Certification Agreement, and at that time, the following progress occurred (see Appendix C). Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning use map and text changes to the comprehensive plan. Also the City is able to schedule public discussions of proposed land use changes at CAC and NAC meetings as well as publish notices in the City s quarterly neighborhood newsletter Regarding school coordination, the City s annual reports refer the reader to five policies in the City s Intergovernmental Coordination Element which refer to the City s interlocal agreement with the School Board and Polk County on educational facility planning. To address extra-jurisdictional effects, in 2005 the City of Lakeland and the City of Auburndale adopted an agreement regarding common boundaries to minimize potential future conflicts. The City would like to pursue a similar agreement with the City of Bartow Finally, regarding coordination with water management districts, the City expresses concern that the City is out of permitted capacity. They are therefore seeking to get the City s Water Use Permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District renewed at a higher level. Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals T-06-003 Ordinance #4763 Adopted 07/03/2006 Figure 3 - Lakeland Certification Area Map As of January 2, 2006, the City had performed an analysis of large lot zones and recommended that they be limited to edge areas of the City and/or outside the Central City area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City has not reviewed or amended its Alternative Design Codes due to lack of staff to address the workload. Public participation improvements were implemented through the City s citizen forums to keep citizens, residents, and business owners informed, especially the meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the various neighborhood associations, the Neighborhood Association Council (NAC), and the advisory boards of the City s three community redevelopment areas. New initiatives include the City website posting of proposed land 10 Please see Figure 4 and Appendix D for information on how Lakeland has done in meeting the community development goals outlined in the certification agreement. Appendix D identifies the baseline conditions for each community development goal and the progress that has been made in meeting each of these goals. Of the 12 evaluation criteria, Figure 4 shows that Lakeland has not been meeting its goals on six: 1a. Compactness: Resident population/acres of city land area; 1b. Compactness: Miles of city boundary/square miles of city land area 3d. Mass Transit 5b. Affordable Housing Ownership 6. Mixed Use Development: Number of approved zoning requests for higher percentage of non-residential uses in RM and RH land use categories 8. Education and Recreation Uses in Neighborhoods 11. Hurricane Shelters Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Evaluation Criteria Goal 1a Compactness Increase to 2.25 by 2014 2.05 2.00 1.99 1.98 1b Compactness Decrease 1.43 1.89 1.89 1.94 2a Residential Density Increase to 2.6 by 2006 & 2.46 2.65 2.62 2.60 3.0 by 2014 2b Non Residential Intensity Increase to 1.1/5 Yrs/2009 1.02 1.12 1.13 1.13 3a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduce by 1%/2009 & 27.0% Cal/5 Cal/5 Cal/5 3%/2014 3b Interconnectivity 1.41 1.73 1.76 a Sidewalks (linear feet) Reduce sidewalk gaps 267,209 N/A 263,609 258,709 b PUDs Increase 20 24 27 30 3c Pedestrian Access Increase by 14 miles/2014 145.0 212.0 214.4 215.3 3d Mass Transit Improve 50 min N/C 52 min N/C 4 Jobs Housing Balance Maintain or increase 0.414 0.424 0.431 0.434 5a Housing Mix owner occupied Increase to 63%/2014 60.0% LTG LTG LTG 5b Affordable Housing Ownership Reduce to 2.63/10 Yrs/2014 2.86 4.43 5.32 5c Cost Burdened Households owner occupied Reduce by 1% (52 18.0% Census Census Census households)/10 Yrs/2014 5d Community Development Goals: Lakeland Baseline 2004 2005 2006 renter occupied Reduce by 2% (137 38.0% Census Census Census households)/10 Yrs/2014 Substandard Units single family Decrease by 5.5% (350 1,389 Census Census Census units)/10 Yrs/2014 multi family Decrease by 1.5% (53 208 Census Census Census units)/10 Yrs/2014 6 Mixed Use Development Increase request 0 N/C N/C N/C 7 Dedicated Open Space Increase 16% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 8 Education & Recreation Approve 2/5 Yrs/2009 2 N/C N/C N/C 9a Per Capita Water Consumption Decrease 8,968 6,761 6,861 7,020 9b Per Capita Energy Consumption Decrease 1,105 1,179 1,082 1,060 10 Environmental Protection Increase to 5% by 2009 & 3.00% 11.00% 11.00% 11.25% 10% by 2014 11 Hurricane Shelters Add 2/5 Yrs/2009 9 N/C N/C N/C 12 Coordination with School Board Increase coordination See 8 See 8 See 8 See 8 : Goal Not Met Cal/5 : Calculated Every 5 Years Census : Calculations Based on 2010 Census LTG : Monitored over long term, not annually N/A : Not available N/C : No change Annual Report of Measures Figure 4 - Lakeland Goals Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Figure 5 - Miramar Certification Area Map Work Program Appendix D shows that many of the community developments goals have associated work programs that are underway, but others do not. Regarding the promotion of compactness, while the City has prepared a Special Public Interest Overlay District for the Garden District, sector or citywide standards for promoting compactness have not been developed. Similarly, there is no identified work program for meeting the mass transit goals for the city. As in Orlando, the City does not have a work program for linking education and recreation uses in neighborhoods. While the City has a work program that addresses water consumption, it acknowledges that energy conservation has received less attention. City of Miramar Annual Report General Requirements In 2006, the boundary of the Miramar certification area (see Figure 5) was adopted as part of the local government comprehensive plan. The City also adopted its Capital Improvements Plan in 2006. The City adopted one plan amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) during the 2006 calendar year, Ordinance 06-12. A public hearing has also been held to solicit input on the progress of the local government in satisfying the terms of the Certification Agreement and the City prepared its annual report on the certification program for 2006. (see Appendix E). City Commitments As set forth in Section 8 of the Certification Agreement, the City Commitments include improvements to the Land Development Code, Alternative Design Codes, public participation, joint processes for school coordination, extra-jurisdictional effects, and coordination with Water Management Districts. March 6, 2007 marked the end of the eighteen month period from the City of Miramar s Certification Agreement, and as of the 2006 Annual Report, the City has completed or made progress on the following commitments set forth in Section 8 of the Certification Agreement (see Appendix E). The City is in the ongoing process of reviewing its adopted Land Development Code to identify any land development regulations that restrict compact development. The City is considering an Alternative Design Code known as SmartCode, a form based code intended to achieve a development pattern based on the principle of encouraging desirable densities and intensities of use and patterns of compact development. Regarding public participation, the City has retained a consultant to provide neighborhood planning services to targeted areas through outreach, education and 12 Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning Community Development Goals: Miramar Baseline 2006 Evaluation Criteria Goal 1a Compactness Increase 5.13 5.46 1b Compactness Maintain 1.097 1.097 2a Residential Density Increase 5.13 5.46 2b Non Residential Intensity Increase to 1.4/5 Yrs/2010 1.02 1.13 3a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Calculate 1 sq. mile per year N/A N/A by 2015 3b Interconnectivity Calculate 1 sq. mile per year by 2015 N/A 30 Streets 75 Intersections 3c Pedestrian Access Calculate 1 sq. mile per year N/A 64 miles by 2015 3d Mass Transit Maintain 30 min 30 min 4 Jobs Housing Balance Maintain between.20 &.25 0.25 0.26 5a Housing Mix owner occupied LTG Increase to 85% 80.1% 80.2% 5b Affordable Housing Ownership Maintain between 5.25 & 7.0 5.25 4.97 5c Cost Burdened Households owner occupied Reduce by 3% (241 8,044 Census households)/10 Yrs/2015 26.0% renter occupied Reduce by 1% (24 2,448 Census households)/10 Yrs/2015 8.0% 5d Substandard Units total units Decrease by 5%/10 Yrs/ 3,843 Census 2015 6 Mixed Use Development a Regional Activity Center Maintain Residential 45% 52% Office 5% 0% Commercial 15% 6% Industrial 30% 36% Municipal 5% 3% Town Center 3% b Historic Miramar Min Max 2015 Residential 75% 90% 85% Office 5% 10% 1% Commercial 5% 15% 9% Municipal 2% 10% 4% Employment Center 4% 10% 2% c Western Miramar Maintain Residential 90% 83% Commercial 3% 3% Industrial 5% 4% Municipal 1% 8% Employment Center 1% 2% 7 Dedicated Open Space Maintain 968.9 968.9 8 Education & Recreation Approve 2 by 2015 2 Joint Use Facilities 9a Per Capita Water Consumption Maintain 8.31 8.31 9b Per Capita Energy Consumption Maintain 1,205 1,445 10 Environmental Protection Maintain 15% 15% 11 Hurricane Shelters Add 2/5 Yrs/2010 7 N/C 12 Coordination with School Board Maintain : Goal Not Met Census : Calculations Based on 2010 Census LTG : Monitored over long term, not annually N/A : Not available N/C : No change Annual Report of Measures Figure 6 - Miramar Goals Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

Division of Community Planning planning workshops, visioning, and development of action plans. There has also been one new homeowners association established. The City has adopted an interlocal agreement with the Broward County School Board providing for joint processes for school coordination. The City included references to objectives and policies in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the comprehensive plan regarding joint processes for addressing extra-jurisdictional impacts from proposed development. The City currently has requirements for the use of reclaimed water and irrigation for all commercial development. There has been no additional water conservation ordinance proposed to date. Baseline Conditions and Community Development Goals Please see Figure 6 and Appendix F for information on how Miramar has done in meeting the community development goals outlined in the certification agreement. Appendix F identifies the baseline conditions for each community development goal and the progress that has been made in meeting each of these goals. Of the 12 evaluation criteria, Figure 4 shows that Miramar has not been meeting its goals on four: 4. Jobs Housing Balance 5b. Affordable Housing Ownership 6a. Mixed Use Development: Regional Activity Center; 6c. Mixed Use Development: Western Miramar 9b. Per Capita Energy Consumption Work Program According to its 2006 annual report, the City of Miramar has not established work programs for these community development goals: non-residential intensity, vehicles miles traveled, interconnectivity, pedestrian access, jobs housing balance, and housing mix. City of Freeport Annual Report General Requirements During the 2005 legislative session, Section 163.3246(10) F.S., was amended to require the Department of Community Affairs (Department) to consider a municipality certified if it was designated a Rural Area of Critical Economic Concern (RACEC) and located within a county eligible to levy the Small County Surtax. The City of Freeport, which lies within Walton County, which is eligible to levy the Small County Surtax, was notified by the Department that effective January 1, 2006 it was a certified local government. The designation applied to all land within Freeport s municipal boundaries as of January 1, 2006 (see Figure 7). In 2006, the City of Freeport adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-CP1, which includes seven amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and two text amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and meets the requirements of 163.3246, F.S. Cumulatively, the seven adopted FLUM amendments consist of 3,069 acres and have the net potential to create an additional 25,609 dwelling units and 124,240,420 square feet in non-residential development. The adopted FLUE amendment added a new category called Medium Density Residential land use category with density standards of 4-8 du/ac. The newly created land use category is to provide an additional option between the current Low Density Residential (4 du/acre) land use category and the Urban Development (16 du/ac) land use category. The FLUE amendment also added the Okaloosa-Walton Transportation Planning Organization Boundary Map, as well as, the present and projected level of service standards as identified in the T.P.O. s Congestion Management System Plan in September 2005. Although the Department of Community Affairs is not required to formally review the adopted amendment for compliance because it does not embody the characteristics of Chapter 163.3246(9)(b) and is consistent with Chapter 163.3246(9)(a), F.S.; staff has identified concerns with the adopted amendment 06-CP1. The Urban Development land use category, which is intended to be a mixed use category with the widest range of mixed uses and the highest density and intensity standards, is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.006(4) because it does not include a percent distribution among the mix of uses and measurable intensity 14 Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports

EASY ST Division of Community Planning CO HIGHWAY 282 (A.K.A. SITE C-6 CUTOFF) US HIGHWAY 331 S SITE C-6 RD PINE ST BRIAN LN VILLAGE LN CHURCH ST JOHNS LN POPE ST STATE HIGHWAY 20 W AZALEA DR CO HIGHWAY 83A W SHORT CUT RD EARL GODWIN RD CONCERT CT Freeport HARRISON ST NORTH ST K ST STELLA DR STATE HIGHWAY 20 E PINEY POINT RD PANDA DR CO HIGHWAY 83A E SARAH ST DOVER LN MILO ST ANDY DR SHIPYARD RD SPARKLEBERRY LN JONES DR US HIGHWAY 331 S AMAN RD JOE CAMPBELL RD TAUNTON RD WAYDES LN CO HIGHWAY 83A E ALDEN LN MULLET DR RUBY DR LAIRD DR OLD OAK RD JADE DR US HIGHWAY 331 S SHADOW LN CO HIGHWAY 3280 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Produced by: Walton County GIS/IR Department Walton CoBoardof County Commissioners EOC Annex 75 S Davis Ln DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435 Office Hours: Monday - Friday7A.M.- 5:30 P.M. Voice: (850) 892-2452 Fax: (850) 892-3101 E-mail: gis@co.walton.fl.us This GIS data is not a legal representation of the features depicted; anyassumption of the legalstatus of this data is hereby disclaimed. City of Freeport µ Figure 7 - Freeport Certification Area Map standards for non-residential uses. Also, the data and analysis provided to support the adopted amendments lacked a public facilities analysis for roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, and recreation and open space based upon the maximum development potential for the adopted land use designations. In addition, the data and analysis did not assess cumulative impacts on the public facilities. DCA staff recommend that the amendment should include adequate data and analysis ensuring that the adopted level of service standards for the public facilities will be maintained and that the development impacts will not degrade the adopted level of service standards. The City of Freeport also reported that there were no challenges filed by an affected person and no Development of Regional Impact applications filed with the City within the course of the year. Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports 5

Division of Community Planning Issues and Options From the above discussion emerge three issue areas that merit further attention: 1. Participation in the Certification Program Since adoption by the Legislature in 2002, only four jurisdictions have succeeded in being accepted into the certification program Orlando, Lakeland, Miramar, and Freeport. Only two other jurisdictions Naples and Sarasota have even applied to participate in the certification program. Even though 163.3246 F.S. permits up to eight jurisdictions to enter the program each year, no jurisdiction has initiated an application since the program s first full year in 2003. Despite the clear-cut incentive of reduced state and regional oversight of the comprehensive plan amendment process, Florida s jurisdictions are no longer seeking to participate in the program. It is not yet clear why many of the state s jurisdictions have not applied. One possible answer to this question may come from one of the communities that unsuccessfully applied to participate in the certification program. After submitting voluminous documentation to DCA, the city replied to DCA s criticism with a thick document. After several back and forth communications with DCA, the Department finally rejected the city s application. Given the high degree of effort put into both the application and to responding to DCA s criticism, the city s planner that oversaw the application now says the whole application was a waste of time and that the city would not do it again. More generally, it is clear, from the documentation associated with each city s application, that the costs of applying to the program are significant. The applications submitted by Orlando, Lakeland, Miramar, as well as Naples and Sarasota, are extensive and required significant effort, not only in their preparation, but in response to the intense scrutiny applied by the Department of Community Affairs. One of the city planners interviewed for this study commented on the level of distrust exhibited by DCA in the application process. It is therefore recommended that DCA and potentially the Legislature carefully look at the costs that are associated with applying to the program. While it is very clear that the privileges that the certification program accords local governments are not to be granted lightly, it is also clear that the application for the certification program has significant costs. As an additional incentive, DCA and the Legislature should consider targeting grant funds to jurisdictions in the certification program. The additional costs imposed by participation in the program, both to meet the additional administrative costs, as well as to adopt exemplary planning practices (see below), should be met with increased state assistance. At the same time, DCA should consider ways in which it can better market the certification program and its benefits. The certification program clearly represents a new way of doing comprehensive planning in Florida and like other new ideas, its benefits may appear less obvious than its costs. DCA s current web site contains only a very brief discussion of the certification program, including a three and one-half year old slide show that contains little information or selling points on why jurisdictions would want to participate in the program. 2. Achieving the Certification Program s Primary Purposes Embedded in 163.3246(1) F.S. are two primary purposes: a) enabling local jurisdictions an opportunity for less state and regional oversight to the comprehensive plan amendment process and b) the stimulation of exemplary planning practices. The following discusses how well these two purposes have been achieved. 16 Certification Program 2005 and 2007 Reports