HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformal Packet 05-25-2010 _
~ ~
. .
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
1:30 P.M.
INFORMAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER - COMMISSIONER GRANDE, CHAIRMAN BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
2. EAR-BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - LORRAINE TAPPEN OF CALVIN-
GIORDANO
3. YMCA BUILDING - COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY
4. ADJOURNMENT
CONFERENCE ROOM #3
ROGER POITRAS ADMINISTRATION ANNEX
2300 VIRGINIA AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA 34982
NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeai any action taken by the Board at these meetings wili need a recorcl of the
proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim rec:ord of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during
a hearing will be swom in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the oppoRunity to cross~xamine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone witti a disability
requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty~ight (48)
hours prior to the meeting.
Planning and Development
'~?g~',rul'~g~Yf `~i~'}~ ~Y~"pjf~l~~M~k'~'I~~~.~ ~~~9I ~'~u~.
-g ~ ~ Services Department
•
+ • • ~ MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Mark Satterlee, AICP, PDS Directo~-
FROM: Britton Wilson, Senior Long Range Planner
Planning Division
DATE: May 25, 2010
SUBJECT: Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Backqround:
Florida Statutes require local governments to adopt an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) once every
seven years assessing progress in implementing their Comprehensive Plan. The EAR identifies how the Plan
should be revised to better address community objectives, changing conditions and trends affecting the
community and changes in state requirements.
Counties are also required to amend their Comprehensive Plan based upon the EAR and submit EAR-based
amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). St. Lucie County adopted the EAR in
October 2008 and the report was found sufficient by DCA in January 2009. Once approved it becomes
incumbent upon the locai government to enact changes included within the EAR. This process allows local
governments to update their Comprehensive Plan to ensure it meets current community requirements.
As information changes over time (population, funding sources, and infrastructure needs) it may be necessary to
update data and analysis referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. As such, the County is adopting only the
Goals, Objectives, and Policies by ordinance to allow the opportunity to accommodate needed updates in data
and analysis as they occur. All revisions are contained within the draft document delivered to the Board of
County Commissioners approximately two weeks prior to todays meeting. Along with the draft Comprehensive
Plan Update, Commission members were provided a copy of a memo from Calvin Giordano & Associates dated
May 3, 2010 that summarizes the proposed changes, a memo from Michael Brillhart identifying County adopted
economic development incentives and public comment documentation with responses from staff where
appropriate.
Previous Action:
February 8, 2010 - A pubiic workshop was held.
February 15, 2010 - A public workshop was held.
March 8, 2010 - A public workshop was held.
March 18, 2010 - A workshop with the Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency was held.
April 15, 2010 - Public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency was held and
voted 5:2 in favor of recommending adoption of the proposed amendments to the Board of County
_ CDmmissioners. _ _ . _ _ _ _
Recommendation:
No action needed at this time. Input from the Board is requested following the presentation by Lorraine Tappen
of Calvin Giordano & Associates.
Attachments: PowerPoint Presentation, April 15th Planning and Zoning hearing minutes and written submitted
comments.
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/ Local Planning Agency
3 Roger Poitras Annex, Commission Charnbers, 3`d Floor
4 April 15, 2010 Meeting
5 6:00 p.m.
6 In the event of a conflict between these written minutes and a compact disc recording,
7 the compact disc shall control.
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER
10 Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
~ ~ A. Pledge of Allegiance
12 B. Roll Call
13 Craig Mundt Chairman
14 Pamela Hammer Commission Member
15 Edward Lounds Commission Member
16 Stephanie Morgan ............................Commission Member
~ ~ Tod Mowery Commission Member
~ 8 Kathryn Hensley Ex-Officio Member
19 Brad Culverhouse (arrived at 6:35)..Commission Member
20
21 Members Absent
22 Britt Reynolds (excused) Vice-Chairman
23 Susan Caron (excused) Commission Member
24
25 Staff Present
26 Mark Satterlee Planning and Development Services Director
27 Britton Wilson Senior Planner
28 Amy Griffin Environmental Regulations and Lands Manager
29 Laurie Waldie Utilities Director
30 Dawn Milone Recording Secretary
3~ C. Announcements
32 None.
33 D. Disclosures _ _ _ _
34 None.
35
. Page 2 of 7
36 II. MINUTES
37 Review the minutes from the March 18, 2010 meeting for approval.
38 Mr. Lounds motioned to approve the minutes as written.
39 Mr. Schrader seconded.
40 The motion carried 5-1, Mrs. Hammer dissenting because she was absent from the
41 meeting.
42
43 III. PUBLIC HEARING
44 A. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the St. Lucie
45 County Comprehensive Plan.
46 Petition for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments to the St.
47 Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
48 Mr. Satterlee, Planning and Development Services Director welcomed the Commission and
49 the public to the public hearing.
50 He told the Commission under the County reorganization the department's name has changed
51 from Growth Management to Planning and Development Services so any references to Growth
52 Management will be changed as such.
53 He stated this is the fifth opportunity for public input and most comments and concerns from
54 previous meetings and workshops have been addressed.
55 He stated the EAR represents a continuum of the Comprehensive Plan that was established
56 20 years ago, and most of it is updating and "housekeeping".
57 He wanted to emphasize that although there are not many new details being incorporated into
58 the Comprehensive Plan what staff is doing what is required by the State.
59 Ms. Wilson, Sr. Planner stated the update to the Comprehensive Plan is based on the
60 recommendations identified by the EAR, which was adopted and approved by the Board of
61 County Commissioners in October 2008.
62 Many of the proposed changes being made in the Comprehensive Plan are required by House
63 Bill 697 regarding energy efficiencies and greenhouse gas reduction strategies. The data
64 inventory and analysis has been brought entirely up to date. The amendmenfs reflecf current
65 St. Lucie County practices and the work of the Smart Growth Committee. No programs been
66 included that are not a part of current or future St. Lucie County initiatives.
Planning and Zoning Commission April i5, 2010
Minutes
.
Page 3 of 7 ~
67 Ms. Wilson stated based on the amount of feedback staff has received on the removal of the
68 waterways definition staff is proposing to reference the definition in the Land Development
69 Code were the definitions currently remain unchanged.
70 Ms. Wilson introduced Lorraine Tappen, AICP, Sr. Planner with Calvin, Giordano &
~1 Associates, Inc.
72 Ms. Tappen stated this is a state required evaluation of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
73 Plan. This is a two-step process to update the Comprehensive Plan with current community
74 objectives and state regulations.
75 Ms. Tappen provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan elements and sub-elements to
76 be amended. The EAR amendments will not include the Public School Facility, Towns Villages
77 Countryside, and Rural Land Stewardship.
78 She said each element consists of the data inventory analysis and the goals, objectives, and
79 policies, the content of which is largely regulated by 9J5 of the Florida Administrative Code and
80 Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Ms. Tappen said the data inventory analysis of each
8~ element that is being amended has been completely updated, the last update was done in
82 2002, and the EAR based amendments were adopted and in place in 2004.
83 Ms. Tappen stated one of the EAR recommendations was to fulfill a statutory requirement for
84 the Future Land Use Element to include intensity standards for the future land uses.
85 Ms. Tappen presented a power point, which included:
86 Intensity standards added for Non-residential Uses, Smart Growth Initiatives, 2009 Statutory
87 Requirement for the Airport, Greenhouse Gas Reductions, Sustainable Western Land Plan,
88 Multi-Modal Options, Transportation, Housing, Greener Living, Infrastructure, Alternate Solid
89 Waste Disposal, Coastal Management Development, Hazard Mitigation, Conservation,
90 Recreation, Intergovernmental Coordination, Capital Improvements, Economic Development,
9~ and Green Technology.
92 Mr. Lounds questioned if a development outside of the urban service boundary wished to
93 install a sateltite water treatment facility with the understanding that they would have to hook
94 up to an existing utility department.
95 Laurie Waldie, Utilities Director, stated currently it may be installed privately but may be turned
96 over to the County Utilities to operate. Ms. Waldie stated any development outside the urban
97 service boundary would need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC),
98 and there would be a utility service agreement set to delineate what would be built for that
- - _ _
99 development, the financing, and how it would be turned over to County Utilities.
100 Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010
Minutes
- Page 4 of 7
t 0~ Johnathan Ferguson, Land Use Attorney and resident, stated there are some vague policies in
102 the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested they consider whether there needs to be a reference
103 to the policies that they are self-enforcing or will have land development regulations to
104 implement them.
~ 05 Peter Harrison, representing Adams Ranch, handed the Commission a letter regarding the
106 impact of the proposed changes to Conservation element to Adams Ranch, which he read
107 aloud. Mr. Harrison stated he has problems with policies that seem to prohibit, restrict, or
i 08 regulate agriculture. He concluded with a statement he requested the Commission add to the
~ 09 Conservation element before forwarding the item to the BOCC.
110 Mr. Mundt stated he discussed suggestions from Mr. Harrison's February 15 letter with staff.
111 Mr. Lounds stated his concern that he did not want to put roadblocks to inhibit future and
1 t 2 progressive agriculture as it would change in the future.
1 ~ 3 Mrs. Griffin, Environmental Regulations and Lands Manager, stated the Land Development
114 Code exempts existing agriculture uses from the clearing process, new agriculture operations
~ ~ 5 that do not currently have an agriculture exemption will have to start from scratch with their
~ 16 initial clearing. Their agricultural operation would have to be up and running before they can
i ~ ~ get their agricultural classification from the Property Appraiser.
1 ~ 8 The Commission continued to discuss agriculture classification with staff.
~ ~ 9 Mr. Harrison stated he is ok with the way the policies are written currently, but would not like to
i20 see agriculture further regulated by the new situations.
121 Mr. Satterlee stated it is not our intention to do that, and staff will be addressing Mr. Harrison's
122 comments.
123 Robert Lucklow, resident, stated his appreciation that his comments have been received and
124 addressed. Mr. Lucklow stated he believes the plan being presented works against the
125 success of private enterprise.
~26 Garrett Bussel, resident, stated he has a concern regarding "sustainable development" in that
~27 it is a buzz-phrase for a bigger agenda. He stated it is not concerned with sustaining human
~28 beings, but with sustaining the flora and fauna and environment of our state. Mr. Bussel
~29 detailed his concerns for the Commission.
130 With no further comment from the public, Chairman Mundt closed the Public Hearing.
~ 31 Mrs. Hammer provided her comments to staff, which included:
~ 32 • Underlining or numbering (which she will give to Ms. Wilson and Ms. Tappen)
Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010
Minutes
Page 5 of 7 -
133 • Add policy 1.1.7.2 floor/area ratio to Note 2 on Page 1-15
~ 34 • Why policy 1.1.4.8 includes "or non-contiguous property" (Ms. Tappen responded so the
135 property owner may conserve land on property not contiguous to the land being
136 developed)
~ 37 • Page 1-29 Planned Unit Development should be changed to Planned Development
~ 38 • Page 1-32 policy 1.1.8.5 states regulations have to be amended within one year of
139 adoption, is that too short of a time? Ms. Tappen stated it is a state requirement.
~ 40 • Page 1-41 policy 1.1.17.5 did not make sense, also states School Board will ensure no
~ 41 schools are constructed within school zones designated on the St. Lucie County
~42 tnternational Airport construction zone map. Ms. Tappen stated there is a specific
t43 School Zone Map for airport uses where schools should not be constructed.
144 • Page 1-45 Figure 1-1 is missing Mr. Satterlee stated we are redoing the whole map
145 series
146 • Page 2-58 policy 2.1.1.2 refers to the MPO should it be TPO?
~ 47 • Page 2-59 policy 2.1.1.6 should have been revised according to accompanying memo
~a8 • Page 3-20 policy 3.2.4.2 a question regarding the date, to which Ms. Tappen responded
149 it reflects Florida statutes
150 • Page 4-31 policy 4a.1.1.3 was there any consideration of it being considered a super
151 majority instead of just a majority vote, to which Mr. Satterlee responded that has not
~ 52 been discussed
153 • Page 4-43 clarification on the third paragraph that says "shall be 110 gpcd" Ms. Tappen
154 clarified it stands for gallons per capita per day
155 • Page 5-33 the summary refers to goal 5.5 as being struck but some of the fives are
~ 56 underlined, to which Ms. Tappen stated it would have been more correct to say goal 7
~ 57 was struck. Mr. Satterlee stated some of the policies were to be retained at the request
158 of Don West, Public Works Director.
159 • A numbering sequence that didn't make sense on 9-23, 9-24, and 9-25
160 Ms. Tappen extended her appreciation for Ms. Hammer's time.
~ 61 Mr. Mundt stated the use of acronyms was an earlier conversation and the first time the term
~ 62 comes up staff should spell it out and put the acronym in brackets.
~63 Mr. Lounds asked about the eradication of invasive species specific to coastal areas in current
164 practice. Mrs. Griffin stated Land Development Code (LDC, the Code) chapter 6.00.5 that
165 requires all category 1 and 2 invasive species as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
166 Council that need to be eradicated on any new developments.
~ 67 Mr. Lounds asked if there is anything we could do to enhance that portion of the Code. Mrs.
~68 Griffin stated there is nothing we can currently do to require an existing landowner to remove
169 invasive species unless there is new development.
Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010
Minutes
- Page 6 of 7
170 Mr. Lounds asked if there could be intergovernmental coordination with the water management
~ 7~ districts to try to enhance the protection.
1 ~2 Mr. Satterlee stated the practicality and cost of doing so would be prohibitive, though we
t~3 encourage intergovernmental coordination.
1 ~4 Mr. Lounds stated he believes this is a"green" factor he believes is overlooked.
~ 75 Mrs. Griffin said it could be discussed among staff how they can reach out to other agencies.
~76 Mr. Lounds asked Mrs. Griffin to share what is being done with the extension of some of the
~ 77 creeks and what will be done with 10-Mile Creek.
~ 78 Mrs. Griffin stated the definitions are in the LDC, but the Comp Plan has just a general list.
179 Mr. Mowery stated his comments:
~ 80 • Policy 1.1.1.2a in reference to some letters and emails we have been receiving will we
i 8~ still be requiring that CDDs be established. Mr. Satterlee stated that became an issue
~ 82 because we had taken some of the description of the land uses out of the data and
~ 83 analysis section and moved it into the goals, objectives, and policies, because we feft it
~ 84 was policy. It is not really a directive but if you are developing you should consider
185 development with a Community Development District (CDD). Mr. Satterlee stated the
i 86 concern had been raised that it may not be something the County would not want to
~ 87 require. He said they might ask the BOCC whether they want to take that out.
~ 88 • Page 1-35 policy 1.1.9.14 would we like to add time period to when ihe LDRs be
189 modified.
t 90 • Page 1-44 policy 1.3.2.3 had further discussion taken place requiring that new single-
191 family homes meet green standards; Ms. Tappen was going to propose taking that out
192 since you cannot ask private buildings to meet green standards.
~ 93 • The word "conservation" had been excluded, Mr. Satterlee stated the discussions of the
194 semantic differences between the assumptions associated with what constitutes
~ 95 "conservation" or "preservation" have not come to a resolution of that
196 ~ Page 2-66 policy 2.3.2.5 regarding sidewalks the new language that seems to add them
~ 97 to all local streets in addition to major and arterial roadways, Ms. Tappen stated there is
198 flexibility and some cases with fairly low density development you may not see
i 99 pedestrian facilities. Mr. Satterlee stated it would be required to add it to the LDC and
200 would have to go through the public hearing process to be vetted out
201 With no further discussion Chairman Mundt asked for a motion.
P/anning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010
Minutes
Page 7 of 7 .
2p2 Mr. Lounds stated the last time this was done there was different staff and different public
203 comments, and stated staff has done an excellent job to listen to and understand public
204 concern, and would like to see this board move this on.
205 Mr. Mowery made the motion:
206 After considering the testimony presented during the public hearing, including
207 staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
208 acting as the Local Planning Agency of St. Lucie County forward the Evaluation
209 and Appraisal Report Based Amendments to the St. Lucie County Board of
210 County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Department of
211 Community Affairs and adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan based
212 upon the requirements established by state law as well as the local public
213 comments and input provided here.
214 Mrs. Hammer seconded.
2~ 5 The motion passed 5-2, Ms. Morgan and Mr. Schrader dissenting
216 Mr. Mundt extended thanks to staff, Ms. Tappen, and the Commission.
217 IV. OTHER BUSINESS
218 Mr. Satterlee stated the next draft of the EAR will be available the first week of May and we will
2t9 be updating the website as soon as possible.
220 Mr. Lounds asked if the Commission could get a copy of the document after it comes back
221 from Tallahassee. Mr. Satterlee said yes, and it will be on the web as well.
222 Mr. Mundt stated we are working on a new schedule for Chapters 10, 11, and 12. Mr. Satterlee
223 stated we would be continuing to pursue that.
224 V. ADJOURN
225 There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00.
Planning and Zoning Commission April 15, 2010
Minutes
Britton Wiison
From: Howie [hmfeinC~gmail.com]
~nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:52 AM
Britton W ilson
Subject: RE: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10
Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg
Thank you Britton. However, this does not specificaily state how much the sea level has risen in the St. Lucie County
area since 1988. I understand how the EPA arrived at these projections from reading a few writers books, but no where
does it say what the see level rise has been. Even my research online of these same writers cannot show one exact
measurement. These writers also admit that their projections are based on globai warming which has since been proven
incorrect. So why does St. Lucie County accept these writings on sea ~evel rise as fact? Can I make a formal request for
the County of St. Lucie to reconsider all of their decisions based on this erroneous information?
Thank you for your time.
Howard
From: Britton Wilson [mailto:Wilson6@stlucieco.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:57 AM
To: 'Howie'
Cc: 'Lorraine Tappen'
Subject: RE: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10
The following language is contained in the adopted EAR:
. ojected sea level rise, which the Environmental Protection Agency (1988) estimates at 4.9
to 7.5 feet along the east coast of Florida between 1980 and 2100, is another issue that
currently has come to the forefront and to the awareness of the public. Sea Level Rise in the
Treasure Coast Region, dated December 2005, prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council provides detail on this issue. The Incorporation of policies into the Plan
should be considered indicating that current and credible sea level rise data should be
considered when planning long term infrastructure and capital improvement activities, and in
future land use decisions.
The website for the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's data on sea leve( rise can be located here:
http~//www tcrpc or~/special proiects/TCRPC%20SLR%20Report%2012-05-05.pdf
I will need to speak with others more versed in transportation issues to answer that question.
From: Howie [mailto:hmfein@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:47 AM
To: Britton Wilson
Subjs~: RE: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10 _
Thank you.
>t to reiterate my questions from last meeting: Do we know where we get the information on our sea level expected rise
and exactly what has it risen since 1988? I mentioned how it is obvious that our drainage policies have created two major
effects on our water management - 1) that our water table does not get refilled properly leading to rationing and 2) dirty
1
water run-off has polluted our river systems and coastal waterways - What solutions have we come up with to solve this
problem?
Another issue I brought up was public transportation - Does the county look into the idea of a~lowing private companies to
offer transportation? This does not mean regulating them so strictly that there really is no viability to begin with. D.O.T
already has enough regulations.
Thanks for your time Britton.
Howard Fein
From: Britton Wilson [mailto:WilsonB@stlucieco.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:19 AM
To: 'hmfein@gmail.com'
Cc: 'Lorraine Tappen'
Subject: RE: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10
Good morning Howard - attached is the PowerPoint that was used during the 2/S workshop.
~.~~.~,1
Senior Planner
Growth Management Department
St. Lucie County
Z300 Virginia Avenue
Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982-5652
T: 772.46Z.1582
F: 77Z.462.1581
E: WilsonB@StLucieCo,orq
From: Lorraine Tappen [mailto:ltappen@calvin-giordano.com] ~
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:07 AM
To: Britton Wilson
Subject: FW: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10
Britton-
Can you forward the powerpoint to Mr. Fein?
Lorraine
From: Howie [mailto:hmfein@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Lorraine Tappen
Subject: Copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update from meeting on 1/8/10
Hello Miss. Tappen,
Could you send me a copy of what you went over in the last meeting? I think it was a PowerPoint application but you
printed it. Do you have it in a PDF doc or PowerPoint? Thanks.
Howard Fein
z
HOME OF THE ADAMS RANCH BRAFORD CATTLE
~
Post Office Box 12909 • Fort Pierce, Florida 34979-2909
Telephone (772) 461-6321 • Fax (772) 461-6874
February 15, 2010
Mr. Mazk Satterlee, Director
Ms. Britton Wilson, Senior Planner
Saint Lucie County Growth Management Department
2300 Virginia Ave.
Fort Pierce, FL. 34981-5652
Re: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan Update
EAR Based Amendment Hearing, Future Land Use Element
7ear Mazk and Britton,
As you are aware, Adams Ranch and our subsidiary company, Arcco of St. Lucie Inc, are active
owners and operators of agricultural lands in Western St. Lucie County. The proposed changes to the
Future Land Use Elements and Conservation Elements will have significant long term impacts upon our
property and business operations. Please accept this letter as a record pursuant to the adoption and
implementation of the changes proposed to these comprehensive plan elements.
Each item below references the pages and policy numbers where changes are requested.
New, additional language is shown in underline, bold italics. We respectfully request the following
changes to the draft Future Land Use Element:
Page 1-4, Tabie 1-2 Future Land Uses (Unincorporated St. Lucie County)
Rural Land Stewardship Proaram was omitted, p/ease include
Page 1-6, Table 1-3 Land, Use Designation/Zoning Compatibility Matrix
Rural Land Stewardship Proaram was omitted, please include
Page 1-15 Goal 1.1: Ensure the highest_quality living environment possible, through a mixture of
_ - . _ . - - - _ _ _ _ .
Land uses reflecting the needs and desires of the local residents and properhr owners,
and how they want their community to develop. The goal shall be implemented by strictly
enforced building, zoning and development codes based on objectives and policies that
FEEDER CALVES • REPLACEMENT HEIFERS • BREEDING STOCK • COMMERCIAL CATTLE IN VOIUME
Letter to Mark Satterlee and Britton Wilson of February 15, 2010
EAR Based Amendments to the Future Land Use Element
will enhance St. Lucie County's natural and man-made resources while minimizing any
damage or threat of degradation to the health, safety and welfare of the county's
citizens, native wildlife and environment, through incompatible land uses. Please add a
statement to respect private propertV riqhts.
Page 1-15 Policy 1.1.1.1 - Land Use Matrix
Rural Land Stewardship Propram was omitted p/ease include
Page 1-16 A. Agricultural-5 (AG-5)
The AG-5 land use designation is intended for those areas of the County outside
. of the planned urban service area which are associated with agricultural and
Agricultural-related activities. These areas are recognized for first being
Appropriate for, but not limited to, the production of citrus, cash crops, sod,
ornamenta/ 8 nlant nurserv, or ranching activities. These areas are acknowledged as
potentially suitable for limited residential development under the following criteria:
Page 1-16 B. Agricultural-2.5 (AG-2.5)
' The AG-2.5 land use designation is intended for those areas of the County
outside of the planned urban service area which are associated with agricultural
and agricultural-related activities. These areas are recognized for first being
appropriate for, , but not limited to, the production of citrus, cash crops, sod,
ornamental 8 v/ant nurserv„ or ranching activities. These areas are acknowledged as
potentially suitable for timited residential development under the following criteria:
'age 1-21 Add # Q, Rural Land StewardshiQ Proqram (RLS) overlav was omitted p/ease
inc/ude
Page 1-21 Objective 1.1.2 - Provide in the land development regulation provisions for a compatible
and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use
outside of the urban service boundary and promotes retention of agricultural activities,
conserves 8 preserves natural resources and maintains native vegetative habitats.
Page 1-21 Policy 1.1.2.3 - All future non-agricultural development within the AG-5 and AG-
2.5 future land use categories will be required to preserve open space, which is
to be defined to include, but not be limited to, agriculturat activities such as
groves and range land as well as conservation 8 preservation of natural areas
according to the following criteria:
Page 1-24 Add Policv that retains the Rural Land Stewardship Proqram E/ement
The Preamble to the Adoated Comprehensive Plan Amendment adoQted
on September 13, 2006 states as a Goal : St Lucie Countv's qoal in
creatinq a Rural Land Stewardship Area, pursuant to Chapter
163.3177(11)(d), F.S, is to protect and conserve aQricu/tural lands and to
promote aqricu/tura/ viabiJitv within SSAs to direct incompatible uses
- awav from wetlands--and- upland habitat,- to - discouraQe° -vrbarr- - spraw/
throuqh the RLSA proQram, and to ensure develoament within the RLSA
that includes a functional mix of land uses and promotes economic
diversification.
2
Letter to Mark Satterlee and Britton Wilson of February 15, 2010 .
EAR Based Amendments to the Future Land Use Element
Page 1-29 Policy 1.1.7.1 - Continue to encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit
development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas,
through the County's Land Development Regulations which include:
a. Minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community
providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of
planned unit developments;
b. Minimum open space ratios of 35 percent in all planned unit developments and
including assurances that such areas will remain as open space to protect and
conserve existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent
uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities;
c. Provisions ensuring the long term conservation and preservation of remaining open
spaces;
Page 1-33 Objective 1.1.9: Through enforcement of Chapter 6.00.00 of the County's Land
Development Code, the County shall support criteria and standards for the
protection/creation and conservation of native plant communities within the County. For
the purpose of this plan, Native Plant Communities shall be preserved as defined in the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan, Regional Policy
10.1.2.2., "...preserved in viable condition with intact ground cover, understory and
canopy."
Policy 1.1.9.1 - St. Lucie County shall include within its Land Development
Regulations criteria and standards for the protection~ conservation and preservation of
both wetland and upland habitat within one year of adoption of this element. The
criteria to be included within the County's Land Development Regulations shall
be based upon, but not limited to, the following:
Page 1-35 Policy 1.1.9.15 - , the County shall work with other agencies
To consider the financial feasibility of a plan to promote
(through acquisition) or protect and conserve, (through incentives), the establishment of
designated wildlife corridors connecting viable environmental habitat in order to
allow the survival of far ranging species and prevent the isolation of natural
communities by 2014. This plan is to be developed in cooperation with the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Environmental
~~e~fie~ Protection, the South Florida Water Management District, Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the US Army Corps of Engineers and
affected landowners.
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - - - - _ _
Page 1-40 Objective 1.1.16: ~~A4, Within a year of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan,
develop amend the land development regulations to allow compatible agri-tourism and
3
Letter to Mark Satterlee and Britton Wilson of February 15, 2010
EAR Based Amendments to the Future Land Use Element
eco-tourism facilities on or near resources preserved for public_purpose, or private
lands according to the following policies:.
Add new policv 1.1.16.5 - Allow variance or exclusion from aaalicable loca/
buildino codes and Land Deve/oament ReQUlations when acceatab/e and
susta~nab/e Qreen or environmentallv friendlv buildinQ practices can be used in
lieu of conventional construction (i.e.: substitute comnostinv toilets in lieu of
standard seatic svstem, allow nermeable material in the parkin4 8 drivewavs in
lieu of Qavement, ect )
Page 1-43 Objective 1.3.1 - Create a sustainable plan for the County's western lands that will
Preserve and conserve a functioning network of agriculture, open space, and natural
areas while providing economically viable options for agricultural landowners, now and
in the future.
Page 1-43 Policy 1.3.1.1 - Explore techniques for preservation and conservation of agricultural
and rural lands including additional action steps in the Committee for a Sustainable
Treasure Coast -Final Report.
Policy 1.3.1.2 - Consider innovative partnerships between urban areas, local and
regional governmental entities, and rural landowners that take advantage of and
compensate forthe services and benefits that rural lands can provide to urban areas
and the region as a whole. Examples might include but not limited to. compensating
rural landowners to support CERP, IRL South Plan, ar~research on biofuels, rovide
water storaqe, conservation of aqriculture /ands or oaen saace
Because of the short span of time, between the release of these EAR based amendments and
the public hearings, I may have additional comments at the next meeting.
Thank you for consideration of these changes. At the next EAR hearing, I will have suggestons
for the Conservation Element.
Yo r Truly,
~ C~S 1
Peter Harrison, V. P.
Cc: Ms. Lorraine Tappen, Calvin GeoGiordano & Associates
4
HOME OF THE ADAMS RANCH BRAFORD CATTLE ~,I ~
.
~
~ .
ti~, ~
~
~
~ 3t
Vu.. >;L - P,~.: .
X
~ .
Jre . .
. ; _ . ,
. . ~ x~ : ~ ~ ~ ~~AM~ 1~A~~i~ i~~,
.
Post Office Box 12909 • Fort Pierce, Florida 34979-2909
Telephone (772) 461-6321 • Fax (772) 461-6874
April 15, 2010
St. Lucie County Planning Boazd Members
Mr. Mark Satterlee, Director
Ms. Britton Wilson, Senior Planner
Saint Lucie County Crrowth Management Department
2300 Virginia Ave.
Fort Pierce, FL. 34981-5652
Re: St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan Update, EAR Based Amendment Hearing
Conservation Element
Adams Ranch and our subsidiary company, Arcco of St. Lucie Inc, are active owners and
operators of agricultural lands in Western St. Lucie County. The proposed changes to the
Conservation Element will have significant long term impacts upon our property and business
operations. Please accept this letter as a record pursuant to the adoption and implementation of the
changes proposed to these comprehensive plan elements.
Overal~ the biggest concern with the proposed changes to the Conservation Element is the
unintended consequence of having bona fide agricultural activities restricted, regulated or
prohibited
Bona fide agricultural land use is desired by St. Lucie County. In fact, the primary goal of the
County's Western Land study is to "foster continued agricultural production" and the
"acl~owledgement that a functioning network of agriculture, open space, and natural areas is
essential for regional sustainabiliry. "(Western Lands Study Approval of September 8, 2009).
Also, to encourage agriculture, as part of the Westem Lands planning, on Page 1-43 of the
Future Land Use Element, St. Lucie County has the following proposed objective:
Obiective 1 3 1- Create a sustainable plan for the Countv's western lands that will
- - p,reserve a functioninq nefiaork--of aanculture --open-spa~e:-~nd- ~a#urai-areas -while
providinq economically viable options for aqriculturaf landowners. now and in the future.
FEEOER CALVES • REPLACEMENT HEIFERS • BREEDING STOCK • COMMERCIAL CATTLE IN VOIUME
Letter of April 15, 2010 to Planning & Zoning Board Members, Mark Satterlee and Britton Wilson
EAR Based Amendments to the Conservation Element
Agriculture is a sustainable means of preventing urban sprawl, providing jobs, paying ta~ces,
producing food and conserving open space. Studies performed by The American Farmland Trust
shows ttiat on average, for every $1.00 of taxes paid by privately owned agricultural land, only $.37
cents is received in retum for services. ( http~//ww~~~ Tarmland org'resources.-'reports/default.asp)
Each item below references the pages and policy numbers where changes are requested.
New, suggested language is shown in underline, bold italics. We respectfully request the following
changes to the draft Conservation Element:
Page 6-22, Policy ~6.1.4.3 - The County shall continue to require land development activities
to provide a minimum 50-foot buffer zone of native upland and transitional
vegetation along rivers, creeks, and estuaries, to be maintained from the landward
extent of state waters o~ from Mean High Water of the rivers, creeks, and estuaries;
whichever is greater. •
Page 6-25 Policy ~6.1.5.3 - .
,
. Land development Activities and Land
development ~l uses known to adverselY affect the qualitv and quantitv of water
sources and natural qroundwater recharqe areas shall be requlated to protect the
qualitv and quantfir of these resources.
Page 6-27 Policy ~6.1.8.2 - The County shall~eqaife-t#~e protect~
plant and animal populations and t#~e
ser~sewa~iep-~e# their native habitat, including intact canopy, understory and
ground cover upon which these populations depend for survival.
Protection essFble mechanisms would include:
f. Proposed site clearinq activities for Land Development purposes within the
known ranqe of listed species or where such species are expected to occur based
upon habitat suitabilitv and species ranqes shall be surveyed bv qualified
environmental consultants and/or qovernment ecoloqists prior to approval and
commencement of such activities to determine whether or not aopulations of listed or
plant and animal species occur.
Page 6-28 Policy°~6.1.8.8 = St: Lucie County shall reqaire the submission of an
environmental impact report, which addresses concems for habitat preservation
and species protection for land development projects on parcels greater than ten
acres, or that are located on the barrier island, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, or are
adjacent to public conservation lands, or are othervvise considered Environmentally
2
Letter of April 15, 2010 to Planning & Zoning Board Members, Mazk Satterlee and Britton Wilson "
EAR Based Amendments to the Conservation Element
Sensitive Areas as defined in this Element. The County may provide a process of the
for [sic) the consideration of a waiver of this requirement, subject to meeting
standards as may be described in the County's Land Development Code.
Page 6-29 Policy ~6.1.8.9 -
spe~ies.The Countv shall corrtinue to identifv native u~land vec~etative
communities that could be considered hiQh Qualitv The Countv shall provide for
the arotection aapronriate use and conservation of these areas based on criteria
which consider the administrative and fiscal constraints of the Countv Potential
mecharnsms shall include aoauisition restriction or arohibition of land development
act~wties and incentives to arotect and maintain these areas
Page 6-35 Policv 6.1.12.13 - To ensure arotection of the natural resources of the Countv
ident~ed in this Plan. the countv shall direct all inoomaatible future land
development _uses awav from these natural resouroe svstems
In closing to eliminate the unintended consequence of interfering with bona-fide agricultural
land use in St. Lucie County, we ask ttie Board Members and staff for the insertion of the following
statement, into the preamble of the Conservation Element. This statement was adopted by Osceola
County, during their EAR revisions in 2007 - 2008. The Osceola County Conservation element was
accepted and found to be in compliance by the Department of Community Affairs.
"The goals, objectives, and policies as set
forth in this element shall not be construed to
prohibit, restrict, regulate or othenvise limit the activity of bona fide jarm operations that are
operating consistent with sound agricultura! practices (as set
forth, jor example, in NRCS)
best management practices, or regulations promulgated and/or permits issued by State and/or
Federal agencies."
Thank you for your consideration of the above items and requests.
' cerel ,
C~'C~c ~CC~
Peter Harrison
Vice President
Cc: Ms. Lorraine Tappen, Calvin Giordano & Associates
3
Britton Wilson
Frpm; reachmucklows [reachmucklows(~att.net]
~t: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:46 PM
, a; Britton Wilson
Re: County Comprehensive Plan
These amendments, as presented in the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan Update, are antithetical to the basic
ideas of the United States Constitution.
They limit the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They are based on the hoax of global warming, and are retro grade with respect to the economic freedom that is the
key to salvaging our nation's economic recovery.
Sincerely,
Robert B. & Debra L. M~cklow
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
i
Mar. 18. 2010 2;O7PM No, 0097 P. 1
- -M ` ~.~°'Y` Evaluation and Appraisal Repo~t (EAR)
Based Amendments
~ To th~ St. Lucie County
' ' ' ' Comprehensive Land Usa Plan
Please Note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most wrilten communications to or
from County ofiicials, regarding County business, are public records available to the public and
media upon request. It is the policy of St. Lucie County that all County records shal! be open for
personal inspection, examination and / or copying. Your written or e-mailed communications
wifl be subject to public disclosure unless an exemptfon applies to the communicalion.
O~~lonal cantact inFormation":
Name: $~++~r
Phane: nz•e~s~oea EIT?afl: g~~ndtaw~y~y+~noo.~m
a Opt-in for future email updates
The St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, County stafF and consultants want yvur
comments on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Please write comments betow and return to the
St. Lucie County Growth Management Departmeni by cllcking on the Submit button, or you may
submit comments and suggestions in person, by phone, or fax to the address at the bottom 4f
this page.
Comments / Suaaestlorts;
The information presented for the EAR plan at the workshops does not include any
cost ~na(ysis, It is an unknown what the tax burden to the citizens of St. Lucie County
wfll be to implement the straiegies in this plan. It is admirable to want to adopt green
building standards, pedestrian friendly design standards and implement ihe
recommendations of the S~C Bicycle, Pedest~ian, Greenways and Trails S#udy,
however, there is no tangible benefit to being labeled a"Green County",
There are some encouraging p~rYs of the study that should be pursued such as mass
transit, energy efficient, affordable housing and plasma arc gasification of solid waste,
however, this plan, if fufly implemented will inerease impact fees in a recession and
this is not In the best interests of the community. With a 14.9% unemployment rate, St.
Lucle County should be invesNgating ways to entice empfoyers to this a~ea, nof drlve
fhem away with impact fees. The lohg-term strategies for growth fn St, l.ucie County
are good, i, e., biotech, digital media, emerging technologies. Do not stifle the Iong
term strategies by implementing a burdensome plan that wi11; at best, give St. Lucie
County a"Green County" label along with hlgher taxes and fewer local Jobs for the
citizens of thls caunty.
Prlnf GROWTH MANAG~M~N7 - 230D Virginie Avenue - FoA Pierce, F~, 34982-5652 sU~m~t
Phone (772) 462-2822 FAX (772) ~62-158~
Comments on St Lucie County EAR-based Comprehensive Plan Amendments
March 18, 2010
Submitted by: H.M. Ridgely III
Taken in their entirety the proposed changes to the St Lucie County Comprehensive Plan based on the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the EAR, represent an overarching desire to make deve~opment and
growth very difficult or near impossible to achieve. Policy after policy adds additional financial burdens
and uncertainty to the possibility of getting a project approved in a way that makes economic sense.
Given the current economic times, it seems to me that the county should be encouraging economic
growth in hopes of creating jobs for the nearly 15% of the county population that is unemployed.
Potential employers will not seek to come to St Lucie county a due to the perception that they are "not
open for business." It is cheaper and easier to go somewhere else. Higher costs of doing business and
uncertainty will guarantee that St Lucie county remains in its current economic torpor.
A few specific comments are as follows.
Future Land Use Element "FLUE"
Policy 1.1.1.2 A. Agricultural-5 (AG-5)
The third bullet point requires that all development activities other than crop or food production on
parcels or combinations of parcels in excess of 200 acres be required to establish a Community
Development District "CDD" to finance any necessary infrastructure. This policy was previously in the
Data and Analysis portion of the FLUE. This policy should be eliminated simply for the reason that CDD'S
are extremely expensive to create and with a base density of 1 unit per five acres this policy will
effectively stop anyone from developing any parcel if a CDD is required. This appears to be the intent.
This significantly devalues the value of any contiguous land owned by a single owner of greater than 200
acres.
This comment also applies to section B. AG-2.5
Objective 1.1.4
What is "Smart Growth" There is no definition.
Policy 1.1.4.3
States as a matter of fact that development outside the urban service area is a fiscal burden to the rest
- of~he communi~y.- Unless~liis
canbe empirica7ly proven tfien this policy should be stricken. Policies
based on opinions are a poor way to create a comprehensive plan.
Policy 1.1.4.7
Requiring a needs analysis before being able to amend the FLU map to increase densities assumes that
all density is fungible and the consumer should take the next available unit before any more are created.
This is not how vibrant communities are created. The consumer needs to have choices between housing
products and location to entice them to move to the community.
Policy 1.1.7.1
Clustered housing within a PUD just to achieve some sort of open space for the sake of open space is
not a sound policy. Fragmented open space of no real environmental value only achieves the goal of
making the landowner poorer by requiring him to provide a disproportionate share of some fictional
level of service for open space.
Policy 1.1.9.7
Removing the definitions for the boundaries of water bodies merely subjects potential future
development to be subjected to the whim of the county on what they may require. Since when is
subjectivity and less certainty a good comprehensive plan policy?
Policy 1.1.11.4
Bullet 1. States that "The extractive operation does not adversely affect areas determined to be
environmentally significant. Who makes the determination? What criteria are used? This is another
ridiculously subjective policy that needs to be stricken.
Policy 1.2.1.5
The 2008 Greenways and Trails Study is flawed in theory and practice and should not be implemented.
Landowners whose property is "underneath" the map are merely being held to some future donation of
their property. Again, another devaluation for the landowner. In practice even a landowner whose
land is not "underneath" the planned routes can be subjected to such a forced donation if his land is
deemed a reasonable substitute for the actual planned path.
Goal 1.3
Apparently developing a comprehensive plan to be energy efficient through land use patterns that
reduce drive times and greenhouse gases doesn't apply to the Greenways and Trails Study which
- --~sent~aHy desires to create-a-network-of traits and paths throughout the western agri~uttural p~rtion of
the county. Wouldn't citizens who live inside the urban service area currently and the future need to
drive many miles west to even the nearest access point to such a network? Even if the Greenways and
trails network were fully built out the nearest access point to the edge of the urban service area is
approximately five miles. Since most residents do not live right on that edge their drive will likely be
substantially further. There are many policies relating to the Greenways and Trails Study throughout
the revisions to the comprehensive plan that should also be stricken.
Policy 1.3.2.3
Requiring all new residential structures to adhere to green building standards will be costly and put such
new homes far out of reach financially for the vast majority of St Lucie County residents. Green building
should be an option and if the market desires it, builders will build them.
Infrastructure Element
Policy 4A.1.1.3
Define sprawl. Subjectivity is the death of good growth.
Policy 4A.1.2.6
Requires that no development can occur anywhere in the unincorporated county unless they provision
water and sewer from one of the three existing utilities. Since the county has a policy of no utilities
outside the Urban Service Area "USA" the county is taking away the right to build anything outside the
USA. Can anyone say taking?
Additionally, specifically naming the three existing utilities excludes will limit options for projects in the
future.
Conservation Element
Policy 6.1.2.15
Define "untreated" stormwater discharge. How will any commercial projects get built?
Policy 6.1.5.3
It can easily be argued that all human activity adversely affects quality and quantity of water sources.
And recharge areas. This policy is designed to give the county a way to object to any project they do not
like. It should be stricken on the grounds of being entirely subjective.
Policy 6.1.8.2 f
Policy needs to exclude bona-fide agricultural activities.
Policy 6.1.8.12
Clustering is an undefined term. Requiring a project to meet such a subjective standard is bad policy.
This should be stricken. I'm also not sure what exactly "micro-siting" is.
Objective 6.1.15
What is the Wetland Inventory and Evaluation Study and how much will it cost? GIS, read "aerials" is
not a tool that can be used for inventorying what's on the ground.
intergovernmental Coordination Element
Policy 8.1.1.1
How do you implement a Western Land Study that is nowhere near completion? f wonder if the
Western Land Study has a foregone conclusion?
Transportation Element
Policy 2.3.1.1
To reiterate, the Greenways and Trails Study is flawed and should not be implemented as it is a waste of
financial resources for a specious purpose that will only serve a very small segment of the population.
Additionally is requires citizens to drive long distances to the rural areas to access such a system.
Policy 2.3.2.5
Sidewalks should not be required in rural areas. It should be encouraged based on a case by case basis.
Economic Development Element
Policy 10.1.1.7
Ajobs / housing balance of 1.5 is unrealistic given that St Lucie county has historically been a bedroom
community for many jobs outside the county. This policy will merely be used a yet another excuse to
not approve any residential development. Additionally, retirees, which make up a sizeable portion of
county residents need to be taken into account and subtracted from both the numerator and
denominator to arrive at the proper ratio. In fact, I would posit that the county is already at a 1.5 ratio if
they were taken out of the denominator for the current ratio.
Jo~AT~v A. FERGUSON*
ATTORNEY AT LAW
*Board Certified City, County and Local Government Law
2366 S. Brocksmith Rd. fergusonlanduselaw.com Ofc. 772-465-0729
Fort Pierce, FL 34945 fergusonlanduselaw@gmail.com Ce11772-971-7506
May 17, 2010
Via E-Mail
Mark Satterlee, Director
Planning & Development Services
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Re: EAR Based Amendments - Comments
Dear Mark:
I offer the following comments on the February 2010 draft of the EAR based
comprehensive plan amendments. In general, many of the proposed amendments do one of two
things: they make it more expensive to develop in St. Lucie County without a corresponding
public benefit or they commit the County to expensive reviews, studies and programs with no
indication as to how much such work will cost or where the County will obtain the funds to do
such work.
I realize that there is a May version now posted, however, I did not have the time to go
back through to compare the May version to the February version. I recognize that the latest
version may have addressed issues raised by myself and others. I will be happy to sit down with
you or Britton to go through my comments in more detail if you feel that would be helpful.
Sincerely,
~ ~
Johnathan A. Fergus
Enc.
Cc: Britton Wilson
COMMENTS ON FEBRUARY 2010 VERSION
EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
COMMENTS PREPARED MAY 15 2010
Page references are to the February 2010 version and the language in italics is from the proposed
text.
1) Page 1-16, Policy 1.1.1.2.:
The requirement to develop as a Planned Development (PD) for projects in excess of 8 lots
should be deleted and, as with all other property, the PD rezoning should be optional.
There should be no requirement to create Community Development Districts ("CDD") if the
project is larger than 200 acres. Creating a CDD may be an unnecessary cost.
2) Page 1-21, Policy 1.1.2.2.:
The requirement to develop as a Planned Development (PD) for projects in excess of 8 lots or
more than 160 acres should be deleted and, as with all other property, the PD rezoning should be
optional.
3) Page 1-24, Objective 1.1.4.:
Consider changes to the future land use plan based upon smart growth, energy efficient land use
patterns and discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl.
This objective uses the appropriate buzz words but adds no substance to the Comprehensive Plan
("Plan") because the buzz words are undefinable. As a result it adds uncertainty to the Plan
which in turn simply adds an entry point for future disagreements. The objective should be
deleted.
4) Page 1-24, Policy 1.1.4.3.:
Retain an urban service area boundary to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low
density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability
of the community to meets its service needs.
At this time this policy reflects an unsupported conclusion and should be deleted. If such a
policy is inserted in the Plan, it should be based on empirical data. To date there is no such data
for St. Lucie County unless you want to refer to Dr. Stronge's Economic Analysis prepared for
the Western Lands Study which supports the opposite conclusion.
5) Page 1-24, Policy 1.1.4.7.:
Page 1 of 6
Future land use map amendment applications that increase residential development must
demonstrate a numerical population need unless the amendment enhances urban infill or
redevelopment projects.
This policy should be deleted unless "need" is defined by objective standards. A needs analysis
is a complex operation and to add this simple policy without addressing the complexities of a
needs analysis is irresponsible.
6) Page 1-28, Policy 1.1.5.13.:
Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an
unanticipated economic burden upon existing tczYpayers, services, and facilities of St. Lucie
County.
Without standards this policy is unenforceable and does nothing but add uncertainty to the
process and will inevitably lead to arguments. It is also poorly written. For example,
"anticipated" economic burdens would be allowed, it is only "unanticipated" economic burdens
which are prohibited. This policy should be deleted.
7) Page 1-31, Policy 1.1.8.1.:
This policy should be amended to read as follows:
All new subdivisions, planned unit developments and site development plans shall be designed to
include an efficient system of internal traffic circulation that daes not require internal trips or
trips of short duration to be forced onto the major roadway network. Connections to new and
ezisting subdivisions shall be encouraged but shall not be required.
8) Page 1-43, Policy 1.2.1.5.:
This policy should be amended to read as follows:
The County shall coordinate with the St. Lucie TPO and FDOT to implement the
recommendations of the 2008 SLC Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways & Trails Study
("GreenwaYs when funding is available. Individual propertv owners shall not be required to
contribute to the fundinR of the Greenwavs di erent from the contribution of the St. Lucie County
population at larQe.
9) Page 1-43, Policy 1.2.1.6.:
Ezplore and implement innovative transportation funding practices that discourage sprawl such
as a mobility fee that charges all new developments with costs varying on location and vehicles
miles traveled (VMT) per the Transportation Element.
Page 2 of 6
This is an unworkable policy and should be deleted. The County does not have the time or
resources to "implement" an unproven and non-existent system. The Plan should not contain
policies that cannot be effectively implemented.
10) Page 2-62, Policy 2.12.7.:
This policy should be amended to read as follows:
e. If the Count,Zb~en adops~ e~'~he a mobiliry fee, the County may consider the
elimination or re-evaluation of the Level of Service standards.
11) Page 2-63, Policy 2.1.2.12.:
The County shall consider implementing a mobility fee in accordance with reyuirements adopted
in SB 360 that charges all new developments with costs varying on location and vehicles miles
traveled (VM7') by December 2011.
The County does not have the resources to comply with this policy and it should be deleted.
12) Page 3-17, Objective 3.1.1.:
This objective requires the County to interfere with the "affordable housing" market. The
County cannot successfully manipulate the housing market and cannot successfully ensure
"affordable housing." However, the County can take steps to assist the housing mazket by
removing unnecessary impediments that drive up costs without a corresponding benefit.
Towards that end, the objective could read as follows:
The County shall review existin~ and proposed regulations for their ne ag tive f nancial impacts
on a fordable housin~ for all current and anticipated residents; on residents with special
housing needs, includin~ rural and farmworker housi~; and on workf'orce housing.
13) Page 4-31, Policy 4A.1.1.3.:
In order to prevent sprawl and leapfrog development in the unincorporated areas of the County,
no water or sewer utility companies shall be permitted to construct or install water or sewer
facilities to serve or provide water or sewer utility service to new development within the
unincorporated areas of the County without the consent of the County Commission.
The Plan should not contain standardless policies. This policy prohibits an activity without
providing the reader with any idea as to what the standards might be other than "sprawl and
leapfrog" development. Such a policy grants the County Commission the incorrect notion that it
can deny a request for utility service based on this policy because the County Commission gets
to define "sprawl and leapfrog development" without the guidance of enumerated standards and
on a case by case basis. Such a policy should only be adopted if it is accompanied by standazds
in the Plan or adopted in the LDRs.
Page 3 of 6
14) Page 4-32, Policy 4A.1.2.6. [and similar Policy 4D.12.5.]:
Development within the unincorporated areas of the County will only be permitted when such
development ties into or makes provision for obtaining water or sewer utility servicefrom the St.
Lucie Countv Water and Sewer Utility District, the Ft. Pierce UtilityAuthority or the City ofPort
St. Lucie Utilitv within their respective service areas.
„ „1 r„r.,,,,, ~,,,,;~,.~,;r; n [staff proposed
changes].
This policy, as amended, prohibits all development outside the urban service area. The policy
should remain unchanged.
15) Page 5-17, Policy 5.1.1.10.:
The County shall continue to monitor all credible climate change and sea level rise data and
what direct and potential effects this has on the coastal system natural resources. Based on this
data the County shall evaluate and update the resource protection standards of the land
development regulations and this plan as necessary.
The County does not have the resources or expertise to implement this policy and it should be
deleted.
16) Page 5-23, Policy 5.1.5.7.:
When reviewing redevelopment applications for a site with previously existing manmade
alterations on a dune, beach or shoreline system, the alteration shall be evaluated to determine if
removal is feasible, and if so, if benefit would occur through removal as a part of the
redevelopment project.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
17) Page 5-26, Policy 5.2.1.6.:
The County shall consider the most current and credible sea level rise data when planning long
term infrastructure and capital improvement expenditures and land use amendments in areas
less than 10 feet in elevation.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
18) Page 6-19, Policy 6.1.1.4.:
Page 4 of 6
The policy should be amended to read as follows:
The County shall continue to support, seek additional funding sources for and implement the
Greenways and Trails master Plan to facilitate and encourage alternative transportation means.
Indivzdual propertv owners shall not be reguired to contribute to the fundin~of the Greenwa~
di erent from the contribution of the St. Lucie Countv population at large.
19) Page 6-21, Policy 6.1.2.15.:
No new untreated point source discharges into estuarine and coastal waters, for stormwater
runoff, will be permitted.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
20) Page 6-22, Policy 6.1.4.2.a.:
Project modification measures to reduce wetland loss and degradation. All projects shall be
required to mazimize design modifications to ensure wetland impacts are avoided or minimized
to the maximum extent feasible.
This change to the policy adds uncertainty to the development process and adds costs without
necessarily ensuring a corresponding benefit. This policy enacts a de facto "no wetland impact"
rule without explicitly saying so. The change should be deleted.
21) Page 6-25, Policy 6.1.5.3.:
Activities and land uses known to adverselv affect the quality and quantity of water sources and
natural t;roundwater recharge areas shall be re~ulated to protect the qualitv and quantitZ of
these resources.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
22) Page 6-27, Policy 6.1.8.2.f.:
Proposed site clearing activities within the known range of listed species or where such species
are ezpected to occur based upon habitat suitability and species ranges shall be surveyed by
qualified environmental consultants and/or government ecologists prior to approval and
Page 5 of 6
commencement of such activities to determine whether or not populations of listed or plant and
animal species occur.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
23) Page 6-30, Policy 6.1.8.12.:
The County shall require clustering micro siti~ ofstructures or other protective mechanisms to
preserve native v~etative communities or protected species habitats.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
24) Page 6-34, Policy 6.1.12.4.b. & c.:
Those Environmentally Sensitive Areas identified as containinQ habitat worthy of preservation
may require a clustering of allowable density to more suitable areas for development to avoid
and minimize impacts to hi~hlv sensitive habitat
Environmentallv Sensitive Areas containi~ hi~hlv sensitive native habitat worthv of
preservation mav require the habitat be protected throuQh a conservation easement or other
method acceptable to the Countv Only footpaths or entrvwavs will be permitted zn such areas.
Policies without standards or the requirement to adopt standards should not be adopted. It is
impossible to understand the impact of this policy and to understand its application. Either the
policy should refer to regulations to be adopted in order to implement the policy or it should be
deleted.
25) Page 6-39, Objective 6.1.15.:
St Lucie Countv shall i~lement the Wetland Inventorv and Evaluation Studv desi~ned to
facllitate the develo~ment o,~,policies and procedures to improve the protection of the existinQ
wetlands in the Countv.
The County cannot afford to implement this objective.
Page 6 of 6
t
. ~
m v o ~ ~ ~ ~
m y m 3 s ~
a„ a ~ 3
~
m ~o~d 70
n ~
m w°_ ~ F a ~ o ~
. ,7 a 3 m v
9 ~ ' 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ m " ° ~ ~
= a ~ m o o j~~ 3 j a y=
~ 3 n m~ 3 » n;i D° o, ~ C'~ ~
~ m' ~ m ~ ° ° ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ j
~ o ~ m~ o=~o w Vl ~ y 3~ O N~
o~ ~ m°° .2 o n m Ot 3 c m~
Q ie ~ w a ° _ ~ N 0/ 3 p~
w
~ ~ ~ o N m o m m a c
n n<
a~u' $ n p n~ m
,o N N ~ C ~ N O 1t1
o ~ ~ ~ 0~3 v ~
o ~ ~ y m ~
o y
o ~ ? N Z
~ y C
v - d v
~
~ ~
~ P ~ m
W ~ _ ~ ~I
. . . .
' - ~ c n c,~ om
..........o ~a~ ~~om
3 Q- ~ c
mA~ ~ffC)M2~ c~ O~ O(D fD (DO
o v m u~i y c~ 7~ NO ~
N CD O ~
O m o y e~o y~» v~ u~i O A~i O N~~~ O 0.~ ~
a ~'30 7 7~ d C~ m 7 A ~ N~~~(~D~ ~a ~
.av ~ ~ o = ~ D ~
~ <O<A 'ao1° ~c°' I Q ~ ~ c ~ ~
~ ~o ~ ~ m ' ~ m a~ o ~ 01 i
~ v A m A ~o ~ ~3 .n.. 3 n~ ~ f~D ~ 9.
n~ j y p ~ 7 ~~w~ y (D ~ 7 lNJf C1
~ m a y~ ,r G~ ~ N a O ~ ir
~ = a
~ Q ~ y a j m~ a o
° ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
o'- ~ ~~nm y `D m 1P
~ ~ ~ n' ~ ~ ~ m 7~DD ~
~ ~ ~~=o ~ 0 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3 y Q ~
~ ; . ~p ~ ' a
- a ~
~ ~e _ ~ ~ y rF N y
~
~n
~
N
v
N
O
N
O
N
s
~ O •
~ N
O
N
~
i--I
\
~
~
,
d t ~ ~ .
~
~ S = _ ~ _ = C ~ L
R ~ ~ ~ S $ S 8 °
x
10 p ~ a° O O
C ~ m ~ y r~
~ ^ ~ ~ a~-. fA fi
~ ' {A C rn
ul - a ~ ~ C C: p
4) c
~ u ~rn O ~ ~ C a
~ W N
O ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ a~ a~ a° ~e B ~ ~ ~ ~ L
Z o t~ $ ~n ~n i°n i°n v°~ ~ $ ~ C a ~
O o y"~ a° a°a °v a° d ~ m p 3
w ~ m ~ a~ 'c p ~
m ~ " ~ ~ oE
~ ~ ~ ~ s o
~ W W _ Na .y
~ y ~ ; ~ ~a ~ o m
y~ m~ o o ~ 3~ 3 ~ = p•- >
~ 9 ~ m o 0 0 0 o v~i o v~i ~ ` ~ C y
N ry' I~~- S C w Q V
~ ~ o ~ ~ M ~ ~
r W y ' 1~
~ q °»a m ° 5 c b ~ ~ ~w
~yy ~ w y ~ g ~ ° ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C U C
~ C J~ ~ a~ ~ s t' ~ T~ T om
~ ~ ~ a U ~ U
d 5 ~ c
M .
~
~
i c ~
c~ ~
~o ~ ~L.`..
~ ~ ,
o ~ ~ ~
~ ~ri ~ c~ 3 3
~ ~ IA ~ o c o
~ ~ ca ~
~ ~ ~p " ° o
` >
N (n ~ !A ~ ~ U
~ O (n U L.L ~ C-O C
.N ~ ~ ~
C
w ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~
~ '=~~a~ ~ s .~o ~a~o
> >
> U G~
a ~~~t~ ~ ~o~
~ = p U T> ~ W~ N
0 G ~ ~ 'O t~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ et ~ 7
4) > ~ ~ y ~ r r Q r ~ C
`d V C `•c r0 ~d
~
v ~ C7 C~ ~ a.U .U ~~U U~
w Q f a° ~ a° .o
W . . . - M . . . .
t
• •
oo~ ~~c ~o ~NO ~ ~
~~o ~o~, ~ .~~-~o~
~ ~ y~ ~ ~ o
~,a ~~1 ~ ~
~m~ ~ Z 1 oN1 ~ ~
~ cQ iv ~ ~ r 71 ~ ~ o ~ m '11
Qc~ ~Dmfll ' ~ ~.on ~
ma~~ y~ s ~ ~ ~ ~m~, o
fA-~
~o m = i~ _ ~om ~ C ~
~
~'a<~ n~ ~ ~ m ~.o ~ ~
n°~ c~i 1~f1 ~ w~ c
j~A~ ^N•j ~ ~ f~-A• Nn ~ ~w~
Q~ j 37~ Z ~ (D w O i~
COfA O~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ ir
~y~ ~N•Z ~ ~ C ~
y ~ y n ~ ~ ~ (D ~
~ ~ 3 ~ ~ !n ~ (D ~
>
n = y ~ = a
m ~ ~ Z ~ N
~ ~ v~
(p p N [A N
~ ^ G~ ~ n
r~ s
j ~
J
• • N • ~ • ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ rn ~ ~ m
1 z
~ a~i m`~ `C Z " v°,- iv iv =
~ ~f N~ ~
1(A N 7 N aN ~ D~ C
W aX m ~ i ~ ~.m ~
~ y~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
m ~ o ~ i; > C i
~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ tA 1 ~
v ~ ~D m t/1 ~ N »
~ ~w m~ ~ ~ ~rn ~
~~N Q~ ~rn ~~v r
o,~ ~ v r ~ C a1
~ 3 0~~ m ~ wn ~
~ ~ 3 C' ~ ' a ~ ~
~ a ce o ~ ~ a` O
o , Z
co ° C
~ o a~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~
~ w ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Q w 'c. '
~ mc ~
C1 ~ Q y p_ c
(D y = y
~ O ~
w
~ ~
N ~
~
N
V
\
N
O
N
O
W
~ o
~
o ~
N
~
~-i
\
Lf1
~ ~
T
~
O ~ C N (/J
~ cp 3a~
Z > .m ~ a~~i ~n ~
C O ~ h°~' C ~~~n o..
O ~ ~ ~ ° Lo ~'m
~ ~ ~ ~ "3 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ c~i ~ a c° E
0 ~ ' 0 ~ 'o a
d ~ o d c o a~i ~ o
~ _ ~ co
~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~o
n co
f M r m m ~ W a~i ~ o~
r F g° , o~ c~
N ~ ~p
O ~ c0 N (V U,` OD (O
= N ~ c~ ~ ~~~a~~ rE
' Z E ~i~ co>~ <cy
~ii' W U ~ 'U ~ ~ N •C N ~ C N ~
W'- ~ a° t' Z v a~ v c~a ~in v~~
~ a° o o ~a°v~a~~a~
t9 • F~ . . .
co ~
~ T
.A~ y
~ ~ ~
v!
~ y
Q ~
~ : . ~ Y
O~=' o a C y~
~ F p ~ ~ O N~, V'O
~
~ ~ ° Y W T? 3c ~
` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` m ~ ~ ~ y
O W co ~ -
~ ~v c 0 ~c~ E
0.
~ Q a Q~ ~ M O y o
~ C t
9 o a Q C ~ E o a~
o ~
W W o~~ E ~ 10 d a~ 3 3 p ~
i' ~ y°' r~ I ~ O a~~ c U
~ m c J~ m~ o~
O C N~ N i
_ ~ r ~ ~ ~ D~C7~n~rn
M ~ M ~ M
: Z U N~ N ~ T C N~ N
W ~ ~ ~ ~~y ~ o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~U ~ U > 'U
O ~ O ~ O
- ~ ~ ~ • ~ dd d'C ~
~ • ~ •
~
~
. . ~ m~ 00 o v~
o~° 6 a = ~ y. n~i
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n~
C~ o w c° ~ c° w 2
~N ~ 'a 7~! O,W ~j A
C W ~ jV n N (D (n r
'GN ~1~ ~ Q y~1 O~<
~ ~ = I C ~ ~ ~
~ < (D ~ C~1 C ~ G1 Z ~
~ fD ~ ~A Z ~ (D m O ~ ~ ~
O ~ Z O y 7~.. Q
cD ~ ~ ~
fA ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~
CD ~ y ~ ~
~ ~ ~
w ~ m~ ~ ~ 3 ~O
o ~A a ~ ~
~ o
Q co 3 ~
~ ~ ~ m
Q N
m
- m ~ ~ ~
a
w ~ ~ w
~ a
m ~ ~ ~
a
~
CO J
. . • •o o~o op
N~ CINN~ 0461~ ; C`. '
~~~o Q~~o o, ~ ~ a
m omm- °-'.mrmn ' ~ ~.n. ~ ,c
32 ~ 3,2 ;.~o 82 0 ~ ~ w w~
~ ~y^A O O 0~3BD oD a 4 D~ IV IV ~
, j_w~~ n o ~o~~:N y aW <J CJ
? ~7 ~ N m. ~~N C7t fV ~
~ a~~n~ ~ Q~~rn wco ~ O? X= 0
m ~mA~ ~ m ~ `°a$~ e
~ ~ 7 ~ O ~
p OO~ O (!7 C~~~~ ~ y ~ 'li
o > o ~ ~ c =
fD N - ~ y ~ 3
'm : _ ~ a, ~ 30 0 ~ a
~ ~Q9_^> r,~ ~7~x°iv m~ c i, Z
i
m fD~ a~' D~ ~~^.v~?' C)ia ~a: 3~ YI ~ ~
w oo~~ fD ~ mrn,om ~Z ~ 1 ~ com ~ m
a „~-,~m~m y ovmm ,'Z~ s~ ~ W Q Z Q
~ ~'mm3 ~7 ~Z Q3dmm m I~
m of3m ~nmv~v° F !f ~ ~ ~ Y~ ~
~ °c~~ f ~f m u£i ~ ~ ~ 7 O ~ ~
p N^'J m dA y ~ C Q 7 ~
f Q°yf c m~y ~ A ~ A1 p 3 ~
m m34.~ = v o \f iA
~ E`~~' y ,z m~ o !t ~ a ~ fll ~ii
m p1- r~n o v Q~ < ~
' 3 `n -.f.n m C in c t~n.. ~
N O a~~ " y= ~ N ~
o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ° ~p a
o F°=3< ovm D ~
~ fDQym ~~o ~ c a
~ ~fD ~'~a n 8 ~ ~ ~
o~ 3 n
- ~ 3 a O
m~_.
~ ~'nmo y3.~ m Q j uCi
a ~
~ ~n'a~ c n~~ u ~ m ~
~ rn~ °`F ~.~o f
' S~.m m.~v ~
mQ~ ~y? ~ j
w
£~n °~a m ~
Ul
\
F-~
J
N
O
F-~
~ O
,
~ o
~
0 1O
N
\
n
~--1
\
ul
N
N
p rs N
LL
cII
~ O ~
.a _ ~
o> " a ~
C V Z~ r~r~ ~ ~ ~ o
m s ~ ~ : C ~ ~ ; ~
~ ~ a y m
~ ~ ~ o 'm ~ ~
~ p ~ > i° d
~ i U ~ ~ '~O m c~ m
C m ~ j ~ y
A j (q N a ¢.2 v~ a a~i
C ~ a~~,'y~E C o~,,~
ca c. N s m
~ W~~ U•C a `n o m m o~
(q fC ~ ~ c ~ a d~
d ~ Z O m~~ c~ T
k ~ Q'C ~.C f~ ~ A O a~ ~ m'~ E a
: p J O p c0 ~ ii ~ p in a~ o a~
A ~ O.C w a y~ y m
O W ° wr a~ ~ r o a m
~ C r~.=a li O ~°oms~o~d
~1~~. J r 7 N~ ~ E s o o ~ E
U ' 0 2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _m
~4} ~ U N U~ ~y~ ~ y E o` c~i i~
O 0 a ~ fA V W LL U~~ W
d~ d~ ~ a o 0 0 0 0 0
v • • - _ ~
~ ~
N ~ N
rn ~
y 3
a c ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 3 ~ O N
N ~ c p , N
~y o~ j, ~ a` E E
C ° f0 ~ ~ ~ C -o 'z^ o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ VJ
a= ~ ~ N O >
~ a~i a~i ~ ~ ~ _ ~ a
~ ' ~ • -a
a ° = E ~ ~ o. ~`a
o a ~ _
y C ~ N c ca
~ Z~~y o a~ C O N
n vi a v~ ~ i0 Q
IY `o o > ~ ~ ~p `
o> > -a
~ o c ~ a
~ N ro 2 ~ co
~ ~ n N ~ d a ~ a 2
a Wo_~o~ ~ a a~o~L
I ~ Wo~U¢~ i, ~ ~7~~0~'
~ O F ~ ~n
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U N N
` Q ~ (C
t+ ~ ui o ui ui y i'~ U
a N T L
Q O~ O O~ U~'U ~
Q a¢ a da O a~
t~ . . . _ ~ •
~
. • . = Z
y ~ ~ ~ a . . . p .
o~ o ~ o ~ o o~ o ~ o a
o c~ o ~i c~ o ci Z i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~c
~ 1 ~ y rn a a> y rn <
~ N 3 1 m
~ ~ N ~ ~
io O i ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
w ° n mA o v' w c'' ~ ~
O ~ ~ • I O O ~ Q ~ A O 3
~ p~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y 7 ai ~ ~ O ~
C° o ~ o O IA
' ~ ~ ° Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z {0
( m ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ c~i m ~
~ ~ n ~ . y ~ j ~ O ~
O y j a ~ ? m ~
~ o o ~ o 0 0~ ~
c ~ ~ ~ p
m a ~ ~ ~ 2
n~ , o
~ > > c o
a ~ ~
a, m < m o
m ~
2 fD ~ ~
m m ~
N ~ ~ ~
v
• • _ • • • • ~
C) W ~ o a o ? o o~
, ~.~~~~~~a
~ ~ a ~ _ m o Z
. rn .c -1 ti g i~~= 1 1 p
~ 1<(D ~ . 3~ y A~ A A
p 1 n O A j 3 iv ~D cn o tO ~
m i" ° c p n~ ~ j O
< C~'~O f11 ~ o• ~ ~ ~ w,~ m • I I
~ N' O ~ v~i 3 a~ C! 0 3
7 p ~ 7 ~ ~
~m mc O ~1 o ~
' 3 j N~ Z ~ m N°~-' Z ~
~ ~ ~ c~i ~ a n ~ °Q f ~
~ 2 ~ ~
~n ~ g < m ~
~ ~ y !~F a~ ~ ~ 3. ~ ~F
~ o ~ ~ ~ ° a
' m a~i ~ ~ w v~, ~ ° ~
~ y ~ o ~ c
~ ~ ~ N n
m ~ c
y ~p ~ ~ 'm
~n ~ ~ w ~
ti~ _ y °
m
O Q = ~
0
i ~
N ~ I ~~I
~
~
~
V
~
N
O
N
O
v
f O
r-I pp
O
N
\
~
~--1
\
L!')
a ' O
r''~„ , M N
~ ~
G o
~ ~ o ~
W ~ ~ ~ ~
_
A ~ ~ ~ =
C j ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~
~ F > J ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~
F Y p(n ~ U' V c0
O ~ ciS O ~ ~ ~ ~
~ d c ~ d V O w~ ~(~0
C C p ~ ` N O w~
O ~ C ~ j ~ ~ > w ~
E ~ E `o " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
` W~ a= v~ - ~n o~
~ X,-. o~ $ ~ o c a~,
o W~ U p> > W U~ w ca
Y L
~ ~ T T ~ T y,,,~ I~~ _ W ~ VI ~ ~
: ~ ~ • C C Q~ ~ ~ ~ J
~ a r o j'' W v T~
~
4 ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ J T ~ ~ ~
4~ C c~'i a~ s' d~~ ~+c`u
oe oc~o op o~ 'o"
; ~ J ~ U ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ Q
• • • Z • •
~ T
N M
~
L o
~ ~3 ° ai c~'i aS .a>
M ~ ~ ~ c~
W ~n ~ ~ M
F ~ a C ~ J
~ ° ` ~ c ~ cn
c
; C ~ E N ~ `Y° ~ c°' ~ ~
O a ~ ~ U dI ~~o
~ J N cn > y o N-a .g o
~ Q m O (/j ~ = f~ - ai U C
Z~ ~ N 7 ~ O r
` ~ a~ > d~v o~~n o ~ a
~ Fwa~ > ~ 10 3°p
~ ~ ~ Q
~ ~ W c~ ~ c ~ ~ v O~ ~ aNi
a~ c~c ~ ~ a co cn cn co
yVj c~a -~o ~a ~ a ~ Ii iW+ Q~
I' ~ N Y ~ p I ~ ~ ~ _ fC J~ t0
~~~rn~ ~m ~ 0. N ~cY ,.oE
y~j ~ a ~ ca .o ~ W ~ Q N~ m~ ~
v ~ o[g arni n v ~'aEi Q~: c
Z ~o ~Y~a ~ ~~~5
Q 'o"m~ ~ ~ ~
Z a~ a~ • ~p U E 3 U c~a U
W • • d • •
9
• m • ~
~ ~ ~ O
ooaooooo
° a cc 00
rDC=cn(~aci
o ~ ~ - ~ w c m ~ ~ (D n
~ ~ N~ w v, ~ j ~ ~
c m m m,Z: o C m ~ .A ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ y N ~ ~ O
~3~~m~~~N ~ c~ ~1 a o
;~=~=a~aA m p
S 7 O N ~ C y. ~ ~ ~ .i ~ Q~ ~ ' ~:~I
y ~ ~ ~ » ~
f0 a~ N q Ot O~ C O :I O ~ O O i:
~~~N~~~N ~ 3 ~ z 3 ~
3 ~ ~
0 3 cp
~ M O O N p N 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
n ~ a ~ ~ m (D v
~ o ~ a m v O S
< w o y j ~ ~ ~ (D ~
m ~ c ~ a ~ n
fp O N ~ ~ ~
7 ~ ~ O
f~i~ f0 Q ~ O Q Q
61 C Vl ~ ~
a a ~ ~ 4 ~ ~
< N ~ 3 3
~D N O ~ ~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ' C ~
m ~ ~ ; ' ~ S
K
.
V ' ~ k_:
~ • ~ ~ ~ `
w~~ ~ D o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o ~
p~-j' y~ Z D~ ~ C~ y ~ ~
p N 1~p~j 1 ~ p 1~ ~r 3~ o w~ o7i ~,z ~
3 ~ in ~ ~ m ~c N= 3 w m
y~ O o ~ 0 111 s ~ m y. m w ~ w~ iv
a~ o'v, j in m O w m w f
D ~ o a a 0
. . . o
~c n ~ » ~ i
~
~ ~ fT1 ~ C7 ~ Q ~ ~~a c m c o Q Q i
- O O.~~.. p~ 4. p ~
o ~~3 3 _ ~ ~ z 3 ~
Cp C ~ Q 3 m ~ ~ n c~p N Q N ~ 6
~ ' Z ~ Q d C ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
~~Qw yo o o
X~ p N. ~ c~i N
j~ ~(D n O ~ m c~ N ~
y 7 ~ ID 7 Q- ~ ~ w ~ ~
O ~j 7 O (D ~ ~n ~
o~. ci ~ 3. X 0 z 0
00 °-a ~ y '0
3 ~ 3
o • m
~D ~w > >
< ~
ai O ~ ~~p rt s'`
~ ~ i;
~ O
~ ~ ~ , e.
U'I
F-~
V
\
N
O
N
~p O
r
~ O
r-I ~
O
N
\
~
e-i
\
tll
C'7 ~t
~ ; , - ~
W ~ ~
h ~
~ S x
~
W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0
~ N w o ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~
d ~ o° ~rn o i:+ ° ~ o a
~ ~ N
~ , aa N N Q ~ C
/ ~ W O~ N Yf ~ ~1 C~
M y o m N C~r ~ 7~ ~ O C ~
~ ~ W C~~ C V ~i 1"ie
C N O m= O d p~ ~ O O p m
~ ~ ~ i t~ a° ~ a c A~ gm m c5 og
; i .o Q ~ o ~ Y m ¢ E . 1~ ~ vm8 H~ ~ ~ ~5
~i ~ ~ o c ~ c o ~ ~ ¢ p i ~ 8 3 ° ~ ~ $ ~ ~ - x g ~ ~ ~
L a~~ •o o€ c) 3 z o~ C~ co ' QQ~ gQ ra8 ~g oZ~
ii ~ ~ N Y o c E~~ c a , n~ ~ 5 m 8~ ~ s ~ c~ E 8
~ ~ a w ~ o o~ m 3 0° 92` a~ ~m ~~Q Q~
O 3 I
L ~ W 3 R U C F 4f U$ . ~ O ~ ` LL c r m ~ N
C O O O E ~ ~ ~ n o ~ C~i o `ri ~ ~ > ~
¢ F a
~ ~ 'c v v o.~ e s~~i ~s
C m U ~ m
7 W O U O w7 i~a w`~ LL °a $n i0 _°cc7
a a m o m
~ ~
M ~ C~
~
o ~
~.r ° c`u = o =
G ° ~ y m
~ ~ c w` E
~ ~ m W > a
~ y N d c d
~ ~ ~ ~ c a
a = Q_~ °
O v O ~y E
o ~ ~ ~ c
~ ~C ~q A \ O w U
~c ~ ~ Y`/ a> > m
~ ~ N / ~ ; o
~ O ~ . ~ U C O
O ~ ~ E o
ON N
~ ~ fn d Q C m O
O N V° r "
v a o ~ d.. ~
~ O ql U.~ C ~ rn
E ~ ~ oE r ~
o m
_ = ao~'iu) O ~A m o ~ ~d
C y m L= m o~,
C~ `n v-° v? _ A ~ m
O W ° r ,
~i ~ ~ ~ ° ~ °E °c m>onm y~
~ N C~L f+j O,+ lO(nm °U''a~=~mhmU~~ ~
W Z~ OY O V NL m W~c 0~'~'m~t~~ ~g ~O
~t~' ~N ~ `-0oac u ~~m~
W TT W ~ ~~mQUJJ~~O~U<m C>
{V V V ~ V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~c
~ ~ O C O c a rn c°~i
~ a a~, a ~n.=_ ~ ~
. . .
. .