[Call meeting to order] [00:00:26] >>> GOOD AFTERNOON WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. PLEASE RISE SO WE CAN SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> PLEASE READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT. >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW, THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELATIVE TO THE AGENCY. OFFERING, A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. AT EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY IF THEY DO NOT THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND MANY TO ENSURE A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED. PHYSICAL DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE PRESENTED SUCH AS DIAGRAMS CHARTS PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK CONCLUSION INTO THE RECORD. RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER AGENCY COMMITTEE OR COUNTY INTERVIEW OF APPEAL RELATED TO THAT. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAVE [PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 06/20/24] COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE AND DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID PERSONAL [1. Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Transmittal Hearing. The State of Florida requires local governments to evaluate and update their Comprehensive Plans every 7 years, this process is known as the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The County's consultant, Inspire Place Making Collective, has provided an analysis of the County's current comprehensive plan and identified proposed changes in order to meet current state regulations. The proposed changes reflect updated Florida Statute code sections and citations, as well as an expansion of the current planning horizon from 2025 to 2035, as required by Florida law. •] ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU. AGENCY MEMBERS WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 20, 2024. MOTION FOR APPROVAL? MOTION AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ANY A% POST? THAT MOTION PASSES. ANYBODY ON THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA? IF SO PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE WE ARE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE. >> THANK YOU. DIR. OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THANK YOU ALL FOR ATTENDING THIS SPECIAL MEETING TO ENSURE WE COULD GET THIS ITEM MOVING FORWARD. BRIEFLY AND I WILL INTRODUCE THE CONSULTANT. WE REQUIRE SOME ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO TRANSMIT CONFERENCE A PLAN AMENDMENT GENERATED BY STAFF FOR THE YEAR PROCESS NOT 2015, SO MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS WE WILL TRY TO WRITE CLARITY AND COMMUNICATE THE DIFFERENCES. AGAIN IT IS TRANSMITTAL WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THIS HOWEVER YOU VOTE THEN IT WILL GO TO THE COMMISSION AND EVENTUALLY IT WILL COME BACK FOR ADOPTION. THIS IS , I THINK HE HAS PRESENTED BEFORE. HE IS THE PRINCIPAL OF INSPIRED COLLECTIVE DOING THE PLAN UPDATE FOR US. I WILL LET HIM COME IN AND GIVE A PRESENTATION. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MDM. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME AGAIN. OKAY. I HAVE A RELATIVELY SHORT PRESENTATION WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE WE CAN GET TO YOUR QUESTIONS SOONER. I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A RELATIVELY NUANCED SUBJECT. I AM GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THE BORING STUFF AND GET TO THE MEAT AND POTATOES. THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE STATUTES IN SECTION 163 , 3191 WITH RESPECT TO HOW WE DO THE PROCESS. IT USED TO BE BACK BEFORE THE 2011 COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT WE HAD LONG REPORTS SO ANYBODY AROUND BEFORE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE [00:05:01] REPORTS ANYMORE, BUT NOW THEY CHANGED IT BACK IN 2023 WE HAVE TO UPDATE THE PLAN AND INCLUDE A 10 YEAR HORIZON AT MINIMUM. FOR THE YEAR PROCESS. THE COUNTY LETTER IS DUE AUGUST 1. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS PREEMPTING THE LETTER TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF OUR STATE REQUIREMENTS IN THE UPDATE, EXTEND THE HORIZON TO 2035, CHECK THE BOX SO THAT WAY THE STATE WILL NOT HAVE INFLUENCE ON THE 2050 VISION UPDATE WE ARE DOING. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BIGGER PICTURE, THE MORE WHOLESALE CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS JUST MEETING STATUTE REQUIREMENTS TO EXTEND THE HORIZON 10 MORE YEARS , CHECK THE BOX ON EACH ONE OF THOSE STATUTE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER TIME AND YOU WILL NOTICE STAFF HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB THAT REALLY IT HAS BEEN A RELATIVELY MINIMAL CHANGE. WE ARE UPDATING AND I WILL GO THROUGH THOSE QUICKLY. EVERY SEVEN YEARS THE EAR THAT DID CHANGE SO WE ARE UPDATING THE PLAN EVERY SEVEN YEARS BASED ON THE STATUTES. TO GET BACK TO THE SCHEDULE REAL QUICK. THIS PUTS US AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS CLOSER TO THE END OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE WATERS TOO MUCH, BUT WE HAVE THE OPEN HOUSE COMING UP ON JULY 23. THAT IS FOR THE 2050 VISION PLAN UPDATE. AGAIN THIS IS TO CHECK THE BOX TO MAKE SURE WE GO AHEAD AND GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF SO THE STATE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE THE VISION UPDATE IN FRONT OF THEM AND THEN THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE STATE COORDINATED REVIEW AND THAT IS NOT IN THE COUNTY INTEREST. 'S WE ESSENTIALLY DO HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE COMMUNITY VISION WHICH WE THINK IS A GOOD THING FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. HAPPY TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF CHANGES IN THE UPDATE FOR 2035? UPDATING SOME REFERENCES , THERE ARE STATUTE REFERENCES OR ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REFERENCES AND IT GOES ON, THERE ARE ALSO REFERENCES TO MAYBE OUTDATED LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO DEPARTMENTS SO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IS NOW FLORIDA COMMERCE. IT USED TO BE DCA OR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THE STATUTES AS THEY CHANGE NAMES OVER TIME. UPDATE THE MAP SERIES SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP HAS BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE 2035. WE HAVE NOT MADE CHANGES TO THE MAP, IT IS JUST CHANGING THE HORIZON EAR OF THE MAP SO NOW 2035. NOT ANYTHING TO HIDE ANYTHING WITH NO CHANGES TO THE MAP, JUST THE TITLE AND OF COURSE WE WANT TO REFLECT STATUTORY CHANGES. I WILL GO THROUGH THOSE A LITTLE QUICKLY IN A MOMENT. WHEN YOU SEE CHANGES TO THE REFERENCES YOU'LL SEE CHANGES TO THE HORIZON, 2035, UPDATED NAMES OF THE ELEMENTS TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTES. AGENCY NAMES, AGAIN THE SPECIFIC SECTION NUMBERS FOR THE STATUTES AND FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. AGAIN, UPDATING THE MAPS, AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE EAR MEMO, THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR THE AMENDMENTS, WE HAVE INCLUDED A SERIES OF MAPS, SO THOSE ARE MAPS HELPING TO SUPPORT DATA ANALYSIS THAT IS PROVIDED. AND I KNOW WE PROBABLY HAVE GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE. THOSE ARE PROJECTIONS STAFF HAS PREPARED THROUGH MODELING AND LOOKING AT HISTORIC TRENDS AND WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. THERE ARE SOME PREEMPTION'S WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ONE RELATED TO THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS. ANOTHER GENERALLY RELATED TO THE SOLAR FACILITIES AND AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES AND THEN FLOATING FACILITIES , AS WELL. WE ALSO HAVE SOME PREEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTES FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND MAKING SURE THE [00:10:06] COMP PLAN DOES NOT OVERSTEP WITH RESPECT TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THEN TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY , WE CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE IN A MOMENT. TODAY IS THE LPA HEARING FOR THE EAR AMENDMENTS. WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE 16TH. AND THEN THAT WILL GET THE AMENDMENTS IN FRONT OF THE STATE WHICH WILL THEN MORE OR LESS PUT YOU INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAR REQUIREMENTS GO THAT WAY YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR LETTER ON AUGUST 1 STATING YOU ADDRESSED SECTION 163 AND GET YOU THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT WAY WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE VISION AND UPDATE THE PLAN TOTAL. SO THAT IS THE PROCESS. I DID WANT TO PLUG AGAIN WE WILL BE HERE IN A COUPLE WEEKS FOR THE OPEN HOUSE WITH TWO SESSIONS. MORNING AND EVENING SESSIONS , RIGHT HERE IN THIS BUILDING AND WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYBODY SHOW UP AND PROVIDE US WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON HOW WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THE VISION SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON. STRATEGIES TO TAKE THE VISION AND UPDATE THE PLAN. NOW QUESTIONS. >> >> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND I WILL TRY TO BE SUCCINCT AND TO THE POINT SO IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO SPEAK. >> WE WILL FOLLOW THE WAY WE USUALLY DO IT. GO AHEAD AND ASK QUESTIONS NOW. AND THEN WE CAN GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ABOUT THE EXPEDITED REVIEW, I THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS NOT REALLY EXPEDITED, IS THAT BY THE STATE SUPPOSED TO GET IT BY AUGUST 1, THE COUNTY AND TO THE STATE FOR REVIEW BY AUGUST 1? >> THIS WOULD BE EXPEDITED REVIEW. IF YOU SENT YOUR LETTER AUGUST 1 AND SAID WE HAVE ALL THESE CHANGES TO MAKE AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WHOLE PLAN AND WE HAVE REFERENCES THAT ARE WRONG. WE HAVE STATUTES WE HAVE GOT TO ADDRESS THEN YOU HAVE ONE YEAR TO COMPLETE THOSE AMENDMENTS AND IT IS STATE COORDINATED REVIEW, WHICH IS THE 60 DAY REVIEW AND THEY GET TO ISSUE THE REPORT COME THE OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS WHICH IS THE REPORT THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO ADDRESS AND THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN WHEN THE STATE GETS TO METAL WITH THE COMMUNITY VISION THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID. >> WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE LAST MEETING PRESENTATION ON THIS IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE AS COUNTY STAFF WITH PLACE MAKING, YOU HAVE DONE TO UPDATE OUR PLAN AND NOW BASICALLY COMPLIANT WITH 2035 BEING 2035 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, WHY IS THERE ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION OF THE NEW 50 VISIONING PROCESS LEADING TO THE 20/50 PLAN? >> RIGHT, SO, WHEN WE ARE THROUGH WITH THE VISIONING PROCESS WHICH WE ARE STILL GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THE GOAL IS TO UPDATE THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE VISION AND WE MAKE REFERENCES TO IT SO THE STATE RECOGNIZES WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE PLAN TO THE COMMUNITY. WHAT YOU ARE HEARING TODAY IS REALLY THE, YOU KNOW THE QUANTITATIVE , LET'S DO THE EVALUATION BASED ON STATE REQUIREMENTS, GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF THAT WAY THE MONKEY IS OFF YOUR BACK . TAKE CARE OF THAT MOVE ON TO THE VISION PLAN THAT WAY THE STATE , THEY CONTRIBUTE THEIR EXPEDITED REVIEW THE VISION PLAN AND THEY CANNOT ISSUE MORE. >> SO WHAT'S THE RUSH TO MOVE INTO A 20/50 PLAN SO QUICKLY? WE HAVE THE 2035 PLAN SET FROM THE BOARD COUNTY COMMISSION [00:15:03] ADOPTING THIS AND SENT TO THE STATE SO WHAT IS THE RUSH TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE 20/50 PLAN? TO ME IT SEEMS THE FRIEND GO LONG-RANGE THE MORE INACCURATE YOU ARE GOING TO IN TERMS OF POPULATION. EVEN THE STAFF WOULD ADMIT THE FURTHER OUT WE GO IN TIME THE LESS CERTAINLY ARE IN TERMS OF NUMBERS ON POPULATION PROJECTIONS , THE COUNTY WOULD BE LESS CERTAIN ON HOUSING PROJECTIONS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, IF WE HAVE THE 25 PLAN SAID WHY DON'T WE WAIT UNTIL 2034 AND THEN DO 2045 PLAN ? 2050 AT THAT TIME WHERE IT MIGHT BE MORE ACCURATE HAVING THE REAL DATA TO LOOK AT. >> SURE, GOOD QUESTIONS. SO WE ARE EVALUATING A PLAN EVERY SEVEN YEARS AS PART OF THE EAR PROCESS. >> RIGHT. >> EVERY SEVEN YEARS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROJECTIONS WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO NOW. IT USED TO NOT BE THE CASE, IT USED TO BE LOOK AT THE PLAN AND YOU SAY I THINK WE ARE OKAY AND THERE IS NO RECOURSE, NOW THE STATE HAS FOUND A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS HAVE NOT GONE IN TWO THOSE CHANGES, OR THE DATA ANALYSIS WAS SO OUT OF DATE THAT THE HORIZON HAS BEEN ECLIPSED BY 10, 15, 20 YEARS AND THEY HAVE NEVER GONE BACK AND HAVE DONE THE ANALYSIS. SO THAT'S WHY THE STATUTES CHANGE BECAUSE JURISDICTIONS WERE NOT DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND TAKING CARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE IN THE STATUTES TO BEGIN WITH. >> SO THERE ARE THAT COUNTIES THAT ARE OUT FOR THE COMPLAINTS? >> ABSOLUTELY. IN FACT, WE HAD A CLIENT WHO, FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS PROBABLY NONE OF WHICH WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THEY HAD NOT UPDATED DATA ANALYSIS IN 30 YEARS. SO THEY WERE ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE STATE CHANGED THE LAW. IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, IF YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THE EAR PROCESS, THE STATE WILL GO AHEAD AND CREATE PROJECTIONS FOR YOU AND SAY YOU NEED TO USE THESE PROJECTIONS. >> I THINK ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS DOING THE RIGHT THING DEFINITELY. HOW MANY OTHER COUNTIES ARE IN THE PROCESS , IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER OF UPDATING AND HOW MANY COUNTIES DO YOU KNOW OF DOING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY 2050, 25 YEARS FROM NOW. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT WEEK. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE WILL KNOW HOW TO MAKE ACCURATE PROJECTIONS AND PREDICTIONS 25 YEARS FROM NOW. I HOPE WE ARE STILL AROUND. >> GOOD QUESTION. WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO AND THIS IS A PRACTICE WE HAVE DONE MANY YEARS. TRY TO ALIGN YOUR PLAN WITH THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHICH IN THE STATUTES YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE CONSISTENCY ISSUES. WHEN YOU ARE TRENDING IN THAT DIRECTION AND THE TPO IS GETTING READY TO UPDATE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION , THEY'RE DOING THAT NOW. THERE CHANGING TO THE 2015 SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE 2050 HORIZON SO WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE LRTP AND AGAIN TO YOUR POINT, YES IT IS A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO FORECAST OUT YOU KNOW 25 OR 30 YEARS SO TO SPEAK. BUT WE DO HAVE A CHECK NOW ABOUT EVERY SEVEN YEARS TO RESET THE PROJECTIONS. >> YOU STATED SOMETHING THAT MADE ME THINK OF THIS QUESTION. ARE WE COMPLIANT NOW WITH THE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION? >> NO. >> WE ARE NOT? THAT'S BECAUSE? >> WELL, YOUR HORIZON YEAR IN THE PLAN WILL END IN 2025. SO YOU STILL HAVE, YOU HAVE TO EXTEND THAT OUT NOW YOU DO ALL COORDINATION AND ALL OF THAT IS FINE. SO THE TRANSPORTATION GROUP IS COORDINATING WITH TPO, GETTING THE INFORMATION AND [00:20:02] MAKING SURE THE ROADWAYS ARE BEING IMPROVED AND THE COUNTY HAS PRIORITY PROJECTS PUSHING TO THE TOP SO ALL OF THAT IS STILL HAPPENING, BUT FROM A COMPLEX STANDPOINT IT NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED. >> OKAY. WHAT I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT FOR SOME TIME IS THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COUNTY. IT APPEARS WE ARE SUMMER JUST ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE COMING FROM THE 2022 BOARD COUNTY COMMISSION DIRECTIVE THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SALES TAX REFERENDUM TO TRY TO RAISE OVER 10 YEARS TO $500 MILLION BECAUSE IT WAS DIRT REJECTED WE WOULD LIKE 80 MILLION BEHIND IN TRANSPORTATION AND ANOTHER 220 OR SO IN INFRASTRUCTURE. SO HOW WILL WE CATCH UP AND GETTING COMPLAINTS WHEN WE ARE THAT FAR BEHIND AND THE SALES TAX DID NOT PASS? WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER FOR US TO WORK ON IMPROVING A STRUCTURE AND GETTING INTO COMPLIANCE, RATHER THAN SPENDING TIME VISIONING FOR 2050 WITH MORE STRATEGIZING FOR WHAT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO DO IN ORDER TO RAISE FUNDS AND PLAN ADEQUATELY FOR IMPROVING ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE? I JUST DON'T GET, THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT. >> I THINK WE ARE DOING THAT AS HEART OF THE VISION. SO YOU WILL HEAR AND YOU'LL SEE MORE ABOUT WHAT'S COMING FORWARD WITH THAT PLAN , THIS AGAIN AS I MENTIONED TAKING CARE OF STATE REQUIREMENTS AND GETTING INTO THE VISION IMPLEMENTING THE LONG-TERM OR LONG-RANGE PLAN AND THE COUNTY IN THIS CASE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE ROAD SYSTEM? IS IT TIME TO CONSIDER A SALES TAX? WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS WE TALK ABOUT WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO FUND. IT'S NOT JUST ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE. CONTINUING TO FUND THE LAND PROGRAM. A LOT OF THINGS WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT SO WE ARE GOING TO GET THERE. TYPICALLY WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS YOU HAVE 10 AND 20 YEAR PLAN PERIOD REQUIRED AGAIN EAR REQUIRES A 10 YEAR PERIOD INCLUDED. SO WE HAVE TO GO OUT TO 20 YEARS ANYWAY. SO WE JUST EXTENDED THE ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS TO MEET UP WITH THE LRTP. >> THAT I ESCORTED YOU ANSWER? WHAT OTHER COUNTIES ARE DOING A 20/50 VISION THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF? I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL 67 COUNTIES IN THE STATE. >> FLAGLER COUNTY IS DOING 2050, PASCOE OUNTY IS DOING 2050. POLK COUNTY IS DOING A 2050 PLAN. AND A FEW OTHER CITIES IN AND AROUND CENTRAL FLORIDA ARE LOOKING AT A 2050 PLAN AS WELL. >> LET ME LOOK AT MY NOTES. I'M JUST GOING IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT AND I HAVE ALL THESE NOTES. SO I WILL TRY TO BE SUSSING. AND TODAY'S MY WEDDING ANNIVERSARY SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE HERE BUT I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TODAY. SO. I GUESS, WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE IN YOUR OPINION OF DOING A 2050 PLAN? HOW IS THIS GOING TO HELP US? RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF THE 2035 DONE AND APPROVE SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE A BREAK AND WAIT FOR MORE DATA TO COME IN WHICH I WILL ASK ABOUT SOME OF THE POPULATION DATA. WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE? >> 2035 PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EXCEPT FOR WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY. SO YOUR 2050 PLAN WILL INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY VISION AND THE VISION PROCESS. THE [00:25:07] 2035 PLAN AGAIN IS MORE OR LESS A QUANTITATIVE EXERCISE WITH THE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS. UPDATING, CHECK THE BOX WITH THE STATE AND PROVIDE DATA ANALYSIS SO THEY CAN SEE WE HAVE EXTENDE THE HORIZON. >> YOU THINK THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS? PEOPLE HAVE TALKING TO DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON IS A 2050 PLAN NOT A 2035. >> TODAY IS THE 2035, BUT THE VISION TAKES THAT OUT TO 2050. >> DOES THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND? THE AIM OF THE COUNTIES TO FORGE AHEAD WITH THE 2050? >> I WOULD HOPE SO BECAUSE THAT'S THE MESSAGING WE ARE GIVING WHEN WE ARE MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC AND PRESENTING AND PROVIDING COMMUNICATIONS. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A NUANCED SUBJECT. WE GET THIS EVERYWHERE WE GO NOW THAT STATUTES HAVE CHANGED SO WE DO RECOGNIZE IT'S NOT ENTIRELY STRAIGHTFORWARD. >> FROM WHAT I COULD TELL AND I DID LOOK AT EVERY PAGE IN THE COMP PLAN SO NOT GOING TO SAY I READ EVERY PAGE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DID A GOOD JOB CATCHING EVERYTHING IN GREEN FLORIDA STATUTE UPDATE SOME THINGS IN BLUE THAT WERE MORE SUBSTANTIVE. A LOT OF RED. ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE THE QUESTION THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME. TABLE 1 PROJECTING POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY IT STATES IN 2020, THE COUNTY WAS 273 AND THESE ARE PERMANENT. THE DATA WAS NOT GIVEN BACK TO 2020 AND THREE YEARS LATER, BEAVER AND OTHER COUNTIES REACH , SO I AM LOOKING AT 2023 AND THE PERMANENT AND THE SEASONAL, BUT LOOKING AT THAT, WHAT I COME UP WITH BETWEEN 2020, 2023 IS 20,000 INCREASE IN POPULATION. 2023-2025 ANOTHER 10,000 SO THAT'S A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD WITH 30,000 PEOPLE. COMING INTO THE COUNTY. 30,000÷5 YEARS YOU ARE GETTING ABOUT 6000 EVERY YEAR. AND THEN LOOKING FORWARD, 25 TO 2030 ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A 54,000 POPULATION INCREASE , MORE OR LESS. I HAVE THE EXACT FIGURES, BUT IT IS A 54,000 INCREASE WHICH IS ABOUT 11,000 PEOPLE PER YEAR SO WE WENT TO A HIGH-GROWTH PERIOD TO WITH COVID PEOPLE LEAVING JOBS MOVING TO FLORIDA. WE HAD A ASTRONOMICAL COUPLE OF YEARS IN FLORIDA POPULATION AND ST. JOHNS COUNTY. SO I AM LOOKING AT , WE GREW FROM 2020 THROUGH 2025 AT ABOUT 6000 PER YEAR AND THE NEXT FIVE YEARS GROWING 11,000 PEOPLE IN A YEAR AND THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AFTER THAT, UP TO 2035 WE ARE GROWING AT 10,000 A YEAR. ARE THOSE FIGURES ACCURATE? I KNOW THEY ARE PROJECTIONS AND I HAVE USED THIS BEFORE , BUT ARE THOSE FIGURES ACCURATE? AND WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS THIS DISPARITY WE ARE GROWING SO MUCH MORE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS LIKE DOUBLING THE RATE OF GROWTH? IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND THEN 10 YEARS AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT MORTGAGE RATES STAYING HIGH ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR WHAT MY MORTGAGE FIRST WAS. YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THE 70S WHEN MORTGAGES WERE AT 19%. PEOPLE ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 6% NOW, BUT ANYWAY, IT IS PUTTING A DAMPER ON HOME SALES WITH PRICES GOING [00:30:01] UP. INSURANCE IS INSANE, HOME INSURANCE RATES ARE THESE FIGURES ACCURATE AND CAN WE RELY ON THESE FIGURES AND WHY YOU THINK THERE IS THIS EVEN MORE RAPID INCREASE PROJECTED IN THE POPULATION ? >> WE DO HAVE A POPULATION PROJECTION MEMORANDUM WE HAVE PREPARED . WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH YOU AND WHAT I WILL SAY IS BEAVER WE USE AS THE INITIAL GUIDE. YOU GET A LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH PROJECTION. SO WHEN WE START TO LOOK AT YOUR HISTORIC TRENDS WE COMPARE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE FALLEN WITH RESPECT TO THE BEAVER PROJECTIONS. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE WITHIN A CLOSE TIMEFRAME THE COUNTY WAS EXCEEDING THOSE PROJECTIONS THAT WE HAD FOR YOU ALL AND WHEN WE PREPARED THE INITIAL DRAFT WITH THE ENGINEERING FROM WORKING ON THE UTILITIES PROJECTIONS AND A COUPLE OTHER DEPARTMENTS , THEY CAME UP WITH NEARLY THE IDENTICAL PROJECTIONS THAT WE CAME UP WITH. THIS IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT FROM WHAT , YOU KNOW WE DID NOT MEET UP AND SAY HEY WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO DO? WE PREPARED OURS AND PASTE IT ON HISTORIC TRENDS AND AGAIN, WE ARE NOT PREDICTING THE FUTURE WE ARE JUST FORECASTING. MAYBE IT SEEMS LIKE PREDICTION, BUT PLANNERS ARE NOT PREDICTING ANYTHING. AGAIN WE ARE FORECASTING WHAT WE THINK MIGHT HAPPEN. AGAIN COMING BACK IN THE SEVEN YEARS IS PROOF OF WHERE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE POPULATION EVERY SEVEN YEARS , IF WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE OVERESTIMATED, THEN WE CAN , WE CAN TEMPER THOSE PROJECTIONS. >> WENDED A REALIZATION COME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IN THE FUTURE OBVIOUSLY? >> YOU GET YOUR ESTIMATES EVERY YEAR FROM BEAVER. YOU CAN START TO LOOK AT YOU KNOW I BELIEVE APRIL 1 USUALLY IS WHEN THEY COME OUT. >> OKAY ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE SOME CONCERNS I HAVE WITH THAT TABLE. CARRYING CAPACITY. I'M AN ECOLOGIST AND CARRYING CAPACITY WHEN I READ THAT SOMETHING UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY CAPACITY ANALYSIS. SO, TO ME, I USE THE TERM CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE PAST IN BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL STUDIES. HERE'S THE OXFORD DICTIONARY DEFINITION . I HAD ONE FROM WIKIPEDIA BUT IT'S REALLY LONG. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS OR CROPS THAT A REGION CAN SUPPORT WITH AN OUT ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION. WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING AND WHAT'S BEEN DONE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF CARRYING CAPACITY AND I SEE YOUR ANALYSIS AND YOUR STEPS, BUT TO ME, THIS IS LOOKING AT HOW MUCH LAND THERE IS AND HOW MANY HOUSES WE CAN PUT ON THEM BECAUSE OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WE THINK ARE GOING TO BE HERE AND IT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CARRYING CAPACITY IN TERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURE, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OF A POPULATION. THAT'S WHAT CARRYING CAPACITY GETS TO, SUSTAINABILITY. SO, I QUESTION THIS. YOU SAID ONE COMMON PLANNING TOOL IS CARRYING CAPACITY, ARE THERE OTHERS THAT COULD'VE BEEN USED OR YOU HAVE USED IN THE PAST OR YOU THINK THIS IS THE BEST KIND? >> SO AGAIN THIS GOES BACK TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTES. SO YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A , ESSENTIALLY HOW MANY RESIDENTS YOU THINK THE FUTURE LAND USE CAN ACCOMMODATE. FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS WE UPDATE TODAY IS GOING [00:35:02] TO BE THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE MAP, DO WE THINK BASED ON THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE MAP, CAN IT ACCOMMODATE THE GROWTH THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING BASED ON THE PROJECTIONS? THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IT. PLANNERS HAVE ADOPTED NEW ECOLOGIST AND TERMINOLOGY WITH THE TRANSECT AND FORM-BASED CODE SO THERE IS ANOTHER CROSS POLLINATE STATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ECOLOGY. TO YOUR POINT CARRYING CAPACITY MIGHT NOT BE THE GREATEST TERMINOLOGY, BUT AGAIN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CAN ACCOMMODATE. >> OKAY I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT AGRICULTURE GOING AWAY IN THE COUNTY. THAT IS A CENTRAL TENET OF CARRYING CAPACITY. ARE YOU ABLE TO FEED THE POPULATION? NOT SAYING EVERYTHING YOU'RE NOT YOU BUY AT PUBLIX COMES FROM ST. JOHNS COUNTY . CHERRIES ARE COMING FROM WASHINGTON STATE ET CETERA SO YOU JUST STATED , THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE APPROVING A NEW MAP A FUTURE LAND USE MAP TODAY? >> NOT NEW. JUST THE TITLE , THE TITLE IS CHANGING. THE SAME MAP, BUT WE ARE EXTENDING THE HORIZON TO 2035. >> OKAY BECAUSE I UNDERSTOOD FROM READING THIS THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP >> OKAY, LET'S SEE. I HAVE BEAT THAT TO DEATH. OKAY. ANOTHER PAGE, SORRY. MY SCRIBBLING IS HARD TO READ. OKAY. OKAY I MADE THAT POINT, I THINK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS TAKEN WELL OR NOT. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE , THE FOURTH PAGE ON THE LONG TABLE WHERE YOU DID CARRYING CAPACITY ANALYSIS FRONT AND BACK COMES OUT 2035 CARRYING CAPACITY OF 181,500 RESIDENTS AND PROJECTED RESIDENTS 2035 111,000 111,300 WE HAVE A CARING CAPACITY SURPLUS NOT DEFICIT BUT SURPLUS OF 70,209 RESIDENTS WHAT IS EXACTLY MEANT BY A SURPLUS OF RESIDENTS? THAT WE CAN HANDLE EVERYTHING THROUGH 2035 AND HAVE 70,000 PLUS MORE PEOPLE THAT CAN FIT IN THE COUNTY? >> BASED ON ENTITLEMENTS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE IS THIS SURPLUS OF 70,000 209 AS SUCH ON PAGE 5 NO AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR SHOWN IN MAP TWO OR PREVIOUS PACKAGE. BUT, WHAT I HEARD AND MAYBE THIS WAS NOT IN THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC. I HEARD FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT IN AT LEAST ONE MEETING IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE MEETING WITH CONSULTANTS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THERE. BUT, THEY STARTED TALKING OUT OF THE GATE ON THESE FOCUS GROUPS. FOCUS GROUPS ABOUT EXPANDING THE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AREA , THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS STATED IN THOSE MEETINGS. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE HAVE THE FLU MAP, NOT EXPANDING , THE FIRST THING DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED WAS EXPANDING AND I HEARD YOU WERE AT ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WHERE THAT WAS STATED. THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. HOW ARE WE GOING TO EXPAND THE MAP? >> THAT IS FOR THE 20/50 HORIZON. IF YOU LOOK AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, BUT IF WE LOOK AT 2050 RUNNING THE NUMBERS , THERE WILL BE A DEFICIT. SO, IF WE ARE LOOKING EITHER TO INCREASE THE DENSITY WITHIN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY, THAT IS ONE OPPORTUNITY TO CAPTURE OR [00:40:01] TO ACCOMMODATE . THE OTHER WOULD BE TO PROACTIVELY EXPAND THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY, NOW IT'S NOT DONE PROACTIVELY IT IS DONE REACTIVE SOCIAL IT COMES UP AND SAYS I WANT TO CHANGE THE COLOR ON THE MAP FROM YELLOW TO PURPLE, WE HAVE TO MOVE THE LINE OR IF IT'S GREEN, IT NEEDS TO BE YELLOW. WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. AND IT BECOMES THIS HUGE DEBATE. LET'S DETERMINE WHERE GROWTH CAN, IF GROWTH CAN HAPPEN HERE AND WE KNOW THAT'S WHERE THE GROWTH IS GOING TO OCCUR IN THE COUNTY IN THE FUTURE, THAT WAS THE GIST OF THE CONVERSATION. AGAIN LOOKING OUT AT 2050, NOT NECESSARILY 2035. >> IT'S DICEY TO PREDICT 25 YEARS IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, EVERY TWO WEEKS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THINGS ARE APPROVED AND CHANGING SO THAT DOES HAPPEN. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. LET'S SEE. OKAY. PAGE 5 IMPACT ON HOUSING. THIS IS INCREASING OVER 111,000 NEW LEADERS WITH IMPACTS TO THE HOUSING MARKET. IF LEFT TO THE MARKET THE DEMAND GENERATED BY RESIDENTS WOULD LIKELY EXACERBATE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY , DON'T WE WANT THE FREE MARKET TO OPERATE IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY? >> SURE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T WANT THE FREE MARKET TO OPERATE. BECAUSE IT GOES ON TO SAY ALTERNATIVELY FOR THE COUNTY PARTICULARLY THE 2035 PLAN SUFFICIENTLY PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE AND DIVERSE HOUSING, SO THIS COULD IMPROVE THE LIVING CONDITIONS AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE RESIDENTS. SO IT SEEMS LIKE AND I GUESS ST. JOHNS COUNTY DOES THIS. EVERY DAY. PUTS HIS HAND ON THE SCALE IN TERMS OF REGULATORY EFFORT AND ALL THAT. TO CHANGE THE FREE MARKET OPERATION. BUT I WOULD ALSO QUIBBLE THAT ADDING 111,000 NEW RESIDENTS IS GOING TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE? THAT STATEMENT TO ME AND ANYBODY HAVE TALKED TO JUST DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT. UNLESS WE INCLUDE AGRICULTURE, OPEN-SPACE, TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOLS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR. I DON'T SEE THEM BEING ACCOUNTED FOR, FOR EXAMPLE IN THIS WHOLE EAR PLAN THERE IS NO MENTION OF AGRICULTURE. WE WORKED EARLY ON, BUT AGRICULTURE WAS NOT THERE. CONSERVATION EXCEPT FOR PARKS , COMMUNITY PARKS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, NOT THE BIG CHUNKS LIKE THE STATE FOREST OR MOSES CREEK OR IGUANAS AND ALL OF THAT. SO THOSE ARE BIG CHUNKS. AND WE HAVE A DEFICIT THERE AND IT WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. ANYWAY, TO GET TO TABLE 3 PROJECTED HOUSING DEMAND. I WISH WE HAD IT UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT I'M GOING 2025 TO 2035 IT SHOWS INCREASE IN HOUSING NEEDED FOR PERMANENT POPULATION OF 33,000. UNITS, HOUSING UNITS. AND THE PROJECTED RESIDENTS GO UP FROM 29,000 TO NEARLY 38,000. SEASONAL POPULATION. THE HOUSING NEEDS GO UP FROM 107 TO 140, SORRY. THAT'S 33,000 MORE HOMES. AND THEN SEASONAL POPULATION AND I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE SEASONAL AND THEY DON'T NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR CONDOS AT THE BEACH OR A GATED COMMUNITY , BUT I GUESS WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THEM. THEY ARE ONLY GROWING BY 3000 IN THE SAME 10 YEAR PERIOD APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER 3000. BOTTOM LINE, TOTAL PROJECTED RESIDENTS AND POPULATION 10 YEARS FROM 2025 TO 2035 GOING UP 100,000 RESIDENTS. IN THE COUNTY. AND YOU HAVE HOUSING UNITS NEEDED [00:45:01] IN THE LAST COLUMN, 218,000 , 218 AND 2025 AND 153,000 , 218 AND 2025 AND 153,028 AND 2035. AND THEN YOU STAY DOWN BELOW HOUSING SUPPLY ACCORDING TO THE LATEST COMMUNITY SURVEY DATA ST. JOHNS COUNTY HOUSING SUPPLY INCLUDED 203,088 UNITS OF 2021 FACILITATING CONSTRUCTION OF 50,000 ADDITIONAL UNITS BY THE YEAR 2035. TWO THINGS. THE COUNTY WILL NEED TO FACILITATE , THAT IS INTERESTING. AND THEN IT SAYS 50,000 ADDITIONAL UNITS. SO ACTUALLY WHAT THE TABLE SHOWS IS TALKING ABOUT IS NOT 50,000 ADDITIONAL UNITS. IT IS 35,710. SO THAT IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. ESPECIALLY IF YOU DO THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD THAT YOU USED AT 2.81. NOW 35710 YOU COME OUT WITH ABOUT , WHERE IS THAT FIGURE ON HERE? I GUESS I DIDN'T HAVE THAT. IF WE USE 36,000 , THAT COMES OUT , I WILL HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. 50,000 TIMES THE 2.81 IS 140,500 PEOPLE. THAT ARE LOOKING TO BE ACCOMMODATED WITH 50,000 HOUSES WHEN WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT ACCOMMODATING 100,000. PEOPLE. BUT THE PROJECTIONS ARE 140,500 PEOPLE. NOT THAT HUGE NUMBER OF 50,000 HOUSING UNITS. I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THAT TABLE AND MAYBE CHANGE THAT BECAUSE THE HOUSING NEEDS ARE 35,710 NOT 50,000. AND THEN AGAIN, THIS IS IGNORING , AND I DON'T KNOW WITH THE MOST RECENT FIGURE IS FOR THE COUNTY, BUT THE COUNTY , I TRY TO GET THESE FIGURES DOWN AGAIN . WE ALREADY HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF APPROVED, YET UNBILLED HOUSES. THESE WERE A LOT IF YOU'RE READING HENRY DEANS EDITORIAL YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF THESE THINGS APPROVED BEFORE 2008 AND THE CRASH THAT OCCURRED. AND, THAT THOSE ARE VESTED, BUT WE HAVE A HUGE NUMBER VESTED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 50,000 AND 60,000. I'M SURE MIKE KNOWS OF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD, BUT I USED 55,000. IF WE HAVE 55,000 APPROVED YET UNBILLED HOUSING UNITS RIGHT THIS SECOND, TIMES 2.81 THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE 154,550 RESIDENTS WHICH IS WAY MORE THAN THE 100,000 THAT IS PROJECTED. SO, THERE'S SOMETHING OUT OF KILTER WITH THESE NUMBERS WHEN YOU ARE HALF OVER IN THE PROJECTIONS. IF YOU FIGURE THESE OUT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I THINK SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS ON THE TABLE. IT CONCERNS ME THAT THE FIGURES ARE ALSO. >> WE WILL DOUBLE CHCK THE MATH. >> I WOULD QUADRUPLE CHECK THESE THINGS. SOMEHOW I DID NOT ADD THOSE THINGS AND MULTIPLY BECAUSE I CANNOT FIND IT THERE. OKAY LET'S SEE. I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. AND I'M SORRY THIS IS TAKING SO LONG. BELIEVE ME. I REALLY AM NOT HAPPY TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO MYSELF TALK ABOUT THIS. ON TABLE 5, HOUSING TYPES BY UNIT. YOU SHOW THE UNIT COUNT OF 1003 88 THAT WOULD HOLD 332,000 RESIDENTS. BY 2035 YOU HAVE THE FIGURE WE TALKED ABOUT. WHAT YOU SAY WE NEED WOULD HOLD BASICALLY , WE HAVE 154,000 PEOPLE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE RIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE VESTED, THOSE CANNOT GO AWAY. HENRY DEAN MADE THAT POINT CLEAR, THE COUNTY WOULD BE SUED IF ANYONE TRIED TO STRIP THOSE VESTED RIGHTS OUT FROM A LANDOWNER. SO WE HAVE GOT THOSE AND WHY NOT DEVELOP [00:50:03] THOSE BEFORE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER GIANT INCREASE OF THE COUNTY FACILITATING 50,000 MORE , WE ALREADY HAVE APPROXIMATELY 55,000 OR MORE ON THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW. SO THAT IS A MAJOR CONCERN TO ME , THAT WE ARE WAY OVERESTIMATING. LET ME JUST GO TO TRANSPORTATION RIGHT NOW QUICKLY. I WAS MYSTIFIED ABOUT THIS. I GUESS THIS IS MY IGNORANCE OF THE COMP PLAN WHICH I TRY TO READ THE WHOLE THING INITIALLY. ON PAGE 10 TALKING ABOUT ROADWAY SEGMENTS IN RURAL AREAS ASSIGNED LEVEL OF SERVICE AND PROCESS OF TRANSITION TO MORE URBAN COMMUNITIES. SERVICE D , ROADWAY SEGMENTS IN URBANIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE D AND I HAD NEVER HEARD OF THOSE THINGS BEFORE. THEY HAD NEVER BEEN PRESENTED HERE THAT I KNOW OF IN MY TIME . I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYONE TALK ABOUT LEVEL OF SERVICE SEED OR D, LEVEL OF SERVICE F OR E. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE. THEN IT STARTS ON PAGE 10 THE THINGS I KNOW ABOUT AND THE WAY THEY ARE PRESENTED. IT SAYS ST. JOHNS COUNTY COMPARES SEGMENTS IN A LIGHT PINK ARROW TRAFFICVERSUS SERVICE CAPACITY. ROADWAY SEGMENTS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC LESS THAN 90% SEGMENTS CLASSIFIED OKAY. COUNTY SEGMENTS BETWEEN 90 AND 100, CRITICAL. SEGMENTS WITH PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC C 100% CAPACITY DEFICIENT. THOSE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE DEAL WITH THOSE EVERY TWO WEEKS AND WE SEE THOSE IN THE TRANSPORTATION REPORT AND AGENDA ITEMS WE GET AND IT IS ALL WELL DONE BY THE STAFF. I LOOK THROUGH THE WHOLE TABLE SO WHAT IS PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE F? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN IT'S FAILING OR DEFICIENT? >> RIGHT, IT IS EXCEEDING THE CAPACITY BASED ON THE ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE. >> NOTHING IN HERE THAT I READ WITH FOOTNOTES ANYWHERE THAT STATED THAT. F MEANS DEFICIENT AND I LOOKED AND LOOKED FOR IT. MAYBE IT'S THERE AND I OVERLOOKED IT, BUT I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANT SO THAT IS SUFFICIENT. I COUNTED UP ALL OF THESE AND WE HAVE 74 LINKS THAT ARE DEFICIENT. I DO NOT COUNT THE TOTAL NUMBER. WE HAVE 74 LINKS THAT ARE DEFICIENT. AND THEN YOU SHOW ON ANOTHER PAGE , I DID NOT PRINT THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE IT WAS MY PRINTER. YOU SHOWED ROAD SEGMENTS THAT WILL BE IMPROVED BY 2035, YOU WENT THROUGH IT AND THAT'S GOING TO BE 22 OF THOSE F SEGMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPROVED. DID NOT SAY IT WOULD ALLEVIATE STATUS JUST APPROVED TO BE WIDENED OR FACILITATE TRAFFIC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT STILL LEAVES 52 LINKS SHORT OF WHAT'S NEEDED ALREADY RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE 74 LINKS THAT ARE DEFICIENT WE WILL IMPROVE 22 AND IT DOES NOT SAY IT WILL ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC. WE HAVE 52 THAT ARE ALREADY SHORT , IF NOT DOING ANYTHING APPARENTLY BY 2035. ON THE 52 WHICH IS OVER 2/3 OF THOSE. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THIS IN THE WEEDS QUESTION ABOUT HOW MANY MILES OF ROADS DO THOUGH 74 F RATED LINKS INCLUDE AND WHAT COST AND HOW MANY MILES OF ROAD THE 22 IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE BUT I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THAT. JUST THOUGHT I WOULD PUT ON THE RECORD I COULD'VE ASKED, BUT THERE'S A HUGE SHORTFALL. >> JUST WANT TO POINT OUT STAFF PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE STILL RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HISTORIC TREND PROJECTION AND THE STRAIGHT RAW MODEL PROJECTION. WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY VETTED AND VALIDATED SO IT IS STILL BEING VALIDATED WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPARISON OF THE HISTORIC TRENDS AND THERE SHOULD BE A [00:55:04] NOTE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. SO THAT IS STILL IN PROCESS. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE THE FINAL FIGURES. >> BRIGHT AND THAT IS BEING WORKED ON AND WILL BE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE 2050 UPDATE. >> WE DID NOT GET TO SEE THE POPULATION PROJECTION MEMORANDUM. >> RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS, I WANT TO COUNTY TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THINGS WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED. I AM CONCERNED. OKAY I AM NEARLY FINISHED. IT STATES HERE, LET ME READ THIS. OKAY. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES. COUNTY HAS DETERMINED ONLY THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS IN NEED OF UPDATING AT THIS TIME. SO YOU DETERMINE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED YET NO SPECIFIC CHANGES TO FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES OR DESIGNATIONS ON THE MAP REMAIN PROPOSED. SO APPARENTLY DETERMINED IT IS IN NEED OF UPDATING, BUT NOTHING IS PROPOSED FOR 2035 I DON'T GET IT. >> IN TERMS OF THE DATA JUST CHANGING THE HORIZON YEAR. THAT'S THE UPDATING OF THE MAP. >> THE TITLE. OKAY. I DID NOT GET THAT. I'VE BEEN SCRATCHING MY HEAD OVER THAT FOR QUITE A WHILE. PURPOSE OF THE MAP UPDATE IS TO INCLUDE THE NEW HORIZON DATE , THAT'S THE PURPOSE. ADDITIONAL CHANGES FOLLOWING THE 2025 VISION UPDATE. NONE OF THE MAPS PRESENTED IN THE DATE OF MEMORANDUM ARE PROPOSED TO BE ADOPTED WITH SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR THE PREPARATION OF ANALYSIS. SO WE ARE NOT SUBMITTING ANY MAPS TO THE STATE, CORRECT? >> THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THE MAPS. THEY JUST DO NOT HAVE THE 2035 FUTURE LAND USE. >> I PRINTED OUT SOME OF THE MAPS. I THINK I HAVE ASKED ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO SHOW I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. I THINK YOU'LL DID A GOOD JOB, I KNOW YOUR COMPANY HAS A GREAT REPUTATION. YOU ARE OUT OF GAINESVILLE AND I THINK I KNOW YOU FROM ANOTHER LIFE SOMEWHERE. THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT. ANYWAY. I HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. SORRY. MAYBE I ASKED SOME OF THESE ALREADY. SO WAS IT DECIDED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THE STAFF WHO DECIDED WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY ADOPT THIS AND GO TO THE 2050? IS THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? >> I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. >> THIS SUGGESTION WAS BY THE CONSULTANT TO DO THIS, INDICATING CONCURRENTLY THEY ARE DOING THIS WITH THREE OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND HAVE DONE IT WITH OTHERS WITH REASONS WHY. I AGREED WITH THAT AND I BRIEFED ADMINISTRATION AS I MENTIONED . AT THE END OF THE DAY I MADE THE DECISION ALONG WITH CONCURRENT ADMINISTRATION. >> NICE WE ARE GOING ALONG WITH FLAGLER UPDATING, TOO. PERHAPS AN ADJOINING COUNTY WOULD BE NICE IF PUTNAM, CLAY, EWALD COULD OF GOT TOGETHER. I NOTICED IN FLORIDA TREND YESTERDAY THAT DADE COUNTY WHEN I WAS BORN THERE IT WAS NOT MIAMI-DADE. IT WAS MIAMI CITY AND DADE COUNTY. ANYWAY THEY'RE DOING A 30 ANYWAY THEY'RE DOING A 3030 VISION PLAN. I READ THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY, SENT IT TO MYSELF, THEY WILL HAVE A PANEL OF 30 PEOPLE DOING A THIRTY-YEAR VISIONING PROCESS. THE WHOLE ARTICLE THAT I READ DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS ACCURATE, EVERYTHING YOU READ HAD SOME ERROR IN IT. IT NEVER MENTIONS THE COMP PLAN. THIS WAS PART OF THE COMP PLAN SO YOU COULD HAVE A VISIONING PROCESS THAT IS NOT GOING TO FEED DIRECTLY INTO A 2050 COMP [01:00:05] PLAN. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING APPARENTLY. I DID FIND THAT INTERESTING. DADE COUNTY IS DOING THAT. I DID NOT SEE ANY MENTION OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S LDC HANDLED THAT WAY? MAYBE IT WAS THERE AND I MISSED IT BECAUSE I WENT TO THAT STUFF FAST. THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WAS NOT DISCUSSED. IS THAT IN THERE AND I MISSED IT? >> IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMP PLAN ITSELF, THE ACT ALREADY EXISTS. WE KNOW IT IS THERE AND IT IS GOING TO HELP WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN TERMS OF I GUESS IN A PREEMPTIVE KIND OF WAY, FORCING THE SUBJECT. BUT, YEAH. IT IS NOT REALLY MEET A SPECIFIC MENTION IN TERMS OF THE LONG-TERM HORIZON BECAUSE WE CANNOT REALLY PREDICT WHAT THAT'S GOING, HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT. >> IF THIS EAR WAS AN UPDATE INCORPORATING ALL THE STATUTORY CHANGES OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, THAT WAS ONE, CORRECT? >> NOT TO CHANGE THE PLAN. SO IT WAS A PREEMPTION ON INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL. SO IT WAS NOT REALLY A CHANGE YOU NEED TO MAKE IN YOUR ACTUAL FUTURE LAND USE. >> OKAY. I WAS CONCERNED AND I THINK I SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WAS NO REAL, YOU HAD SECTIONS ON DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE WAS NO REAL SECTION ON CONSERVATION. YOU HAD PARKS BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I CALL CONSERVATION, THAT'S OPEN SPACE. THERE WAS NOTHING ON CONSERVATION OR AGRICULTURE. WHICH REALLY CONCERNS ME ALSO. I THINK AGRICULTURE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. >> I WILL SAY BOTH OF THOSE ARE VERY BIG TOPIC AREAS THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING SO STAY TUNED FOR THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I WISH I WAS MORE ORGANIZED. OKAY THAT'S IT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> HI AND THANK YOU. IT WAS NICE GOING TO THE COMP PLAN. I LEARNED SOME THINGS I DID NOT KNOW. I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, A COUPLE OF THESE DOVETAIL INTO WHAT HE ASKED, MAYBE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. HE DID ASK ABOUT THE OTHER COUNTIES SUBMITTING, DO THEY SUBMIT THE SAME DEADLINE OR ARE THEY STAGGERED? >> THE DATES ARE ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. >> I WAS LIKE HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO 67 COUNTIES AND GET BACK IN 30 DAYS SO THAT'S A QUESTION. AND THEN AS MENTIONED ARE WE COORDINATING WITH OTHER COUNTIES IN OUR VISION AND COMP PLAN TO DOVETAIL? I LIVE DOWN BY SOUTH U.S. 1 SO WE ARE NEXT TO FLAGLER COUNTY AND HOW DIFFERENT THE DEVELOPMENT IS, THE PATTERN COMPARED TO OURS. IS THAT SOMETHING WE ARE DOING? >> WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY REACH OUT TO EACH ONE OF THE COUNTIES BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRETTY BIG AREA TO DEAL WITH, BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE EDGES OF THE COUNTY AND HOW DO VOLLAND FLAGLER MAY IMPACT THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH WITH RESPECT TO DEVOL AND TO THE WEST. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THOSE, USUALLY LOOKING AT TRANSPORTATION CONNECTIONS , IN SOME CASES WITH FLAGLER COUNTY, WE HAVE FLAGLER ESTATES WHICH EXPANDS THE TWO JURISDICTIONS. SO YES WE ARE LOOKING AT THOSE THINGS AS PART OF THE COURT NEEDED EFFORT. >> I DID NOTICE IN THE COMP PLAN THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO KIND OF INTERFACE WITH COUNTIES AROUND US AND I NEVER HEARD THAT. OKAY, THESE POPULATION PROJECTIONS . WE ARE KIND OF SHOOTING TOWARD HIGH AND MEDIUM? >> RIGHT, IN BETWEEN HIGH AND MID-MEDIUM. >> WITH PUBLISHING NUMBERS LOWER, THEN WE TWEAK THE ADJUSTMENTS. THE HOUSING AND INSURANCE AND ALL THE THINGS MAKING FLORIDA NOT THE VERY BEST PLACE TO LIVE IN THE NATION LIKE IT USED TO BE, MAYBE THE NUMBERS DO DECREASE [01:05:02] AND WE TWEAK THAT. >> EVERY SEVEN YEARS WE WILL LOOK AT THE PROJECTIONS TO SEE IF THOSE MAKE SENSE. >> A QUESTION I GOT AN EMAIL FROM SOMEBODY ASKING HAVE ALL THE STATUTES BEEN ADDRESSED AND I DID CHECK AND ALL THE NEW STATUTES OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THEY ARE INCLUDED AND WE ARE UP TO CODE I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY. JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. THAT WAS OKAY. AND IN RESPONSE . I HAD HEARD THE LEVEL C, D AND F ACCEPT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW IF I READ IT ANYWHERE, BUT I DID REMEMBER HEARING IT JUST FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING, ON THE ENTITLEMENTS, THESE 55 OR 59,000 APPROVED LOTS THAT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP , THERE ARE A LOT THAT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED. THERE'S A LOT THAT WON'T BE DEVELOPED AND I GUESS THE GOLF COURSE THEY ARE WORKING ON MARS LANDING, THERE IS A LOT THAT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED. MAYBE IT WOULD BE NICE AT SOME POINT IF STAFF COULD LOOK AT THAT AND GIVE US A NUMBER THAT HAS A POTENTIAL TO BE DEVELOPED LIKE OUT BY ME WE HAVE A FEW LOTS THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR SOME REASONS BUT CAN'T FOR OTHERS . THEY ARE TITLED A CERTAIN LEVEL AND WILL BE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT MORE. IT WAS REALLY INTERESTING. I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PLACEHOLDER TO KEEP THE STATE FROM BREATHING DOWN OUR NEXT SO WE CAN TAKE OUR TIME AND DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WANT AND LET THEM SPEAK TO THIS. I WAS IN ONE OF THE FOCUS GROUPS AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND I'VE GONE BACK TO LISTEN TO THE OTHER ONES AND THERE SOME OF THE GOOD INFORMATION AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPEN HOUSE TO SEE HOW THAT WILL COALESCE DOWN INTO OUR VISION FOR ST. JOHNS COUNTY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK. REALLY APPRECIATE WORKING WITH YOU. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO THE PROCESS. THAT YOU STARTED WITH TALKING ABOUT 2035 VERSES 2050 AND SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE TOUCHED ON. OBVIOUSLY, THE STATE REQUIRES THIS CHECKPOINT AND UPDATE TO THE PLAN TO TAKE TO 2035. SO IS THAT MANDATED, THE TERM 25 TO 35? IS THAT A MANDATE OR CHOICE? >> THAT'S CORRECT, IT IS MANDATED SO THAT WAS THE CHANGE IN 2023 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. NOW YOU ARE MANDATED TO PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE STATE SAYING THAT YOUR PLAN MEETS A 10 YEAR HORIZON AT A MINIMUM. >> ON THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR MEMO , YOU KNOW YOU REFERENCE THE VISIONING PROCESS FOR 2050. SO IS THAT MANDATED BY THE STATE, THE ADDITIONAL 15 YEARS? >> SO THE STATUTES REQUIRE 10 YEARS. IT IS TO BE FIVE AND TENURE PLANNING PERIOD. >> RIGHT SO THE NEXT 15 IS MANDATED? >> A 10 YEAR PERIOD AND 20 YEAR PERIOD. THE 20 IS MANDATED , NOT 25. SO WE ARE GOING THE ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS TO MATCH UP WITH THE LRTP. >> SO ONCE YOU BEGIN THAT AND YOU HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS , ONCE 2035 GETS ADOPTED BY THE STATE YOU AUTOMATICALLY ROLL INTO THE 2050 PROCESS? CORRECT? >> RIGHT, WE ARE ALREADY IN IT. >> RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I SAID. SO WELL THAT PROCESS, WILL THAT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RIGOROUS EVALUATION AND REVIEW BY THIS BOARD, BY THE COUNTY AND STATE? >> SAME PROCESS AS WE GO THROUGH WITH 2035 IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW. >> THAT ADDITIONAL 15 YEARS, THE 2050 BY THE STATE ? >> THAT IS SLATED FOR WINTER OF THIS COMING YEAR. >> SO THE FIRST QUARTER OF 25. >> YES. >> SO, IN MY MIND IT KIND OF [01:10:09] BEGS THE QUESTION IF YOU'RE ALREADY GOING TO CHANGE THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT BY AUGUST 1, YOU MUST HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE IN THE PLAN SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU PUT THOSE FORTH AT THIS TIME? YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT CHANGING DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES AND OTHER THINGS, BUT IF THERE WERE THINGS BEING TALKED ABOUT THEORETICALLY RATIFIED AUGUST 1 ANY CHANGE THEM FIRST QUARTER OF 25 IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE SOMEWHAT BAKED. >> NOT ENTIRELY. THAT'S WHY THESE OPEN HOUSES ARE REALLY CRITICAL. THE HOUSE ON THE 23RD AND COMING BACK WITH A SECOND OPEN HOUSE, WE ARE TAKING THAT VISION THAT WE HAVE CULTIVATED THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES WHICH BECOME THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. THOSE ARE NOT QUITE BAKED IN THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY IS BUILDING THE PLAN AS WE WORK TO THE PROCESS AND THAT'S A THE VISIONING PROCESS WORKS. >> UNDERSTAND THAT. I DOUBT THE PUBLIC KNOWS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUANCE YOU'RE DESCRIBING. >> SURE, SURE. THE STATUTE STUFF IS COMPLICATED AND I GET THAT, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE VISIONING, TRUST ME THE COMMUNITY WILL NO HOW TO RESPOND. WE HAVE DONE THIS A TIME OR TWO SO IT WILL BE A VERY BENEFICIAL EXERCISE. >> SO, THE OTHER HAS TO DO WITH THE FUTURE LAND MAP DISCUSSION WE HAVE ALREADY HAD. 22 THROUGH 24. AGAIN, IT SAYS ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE MAP SERIES ANTICIPATED FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS. SO IT'S KIND OF THE SAME QUESTION. IF YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING MOVING AREAS NOW BE BETTER OFF GETTING THOSE ON THE TABLE OR NOT? I MEAN IF YOU ALREADY KNOW THEM THERE SEEMS TO BE TRANSPARENCY ISSUES. >> WE DON'T KNOW. QUITE FRANKLY THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH TIME. PROBABLY LOOKING AT MONTHS OVERVIEW ON THESE THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE A LOT OF COMPLICATED ISSUES THAT WE ARE GOING TO WORK THROUGH AND WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH THE OPEN HOUSE AND START TO TALK ABOUT THESE TOPIC AREAS THAT COME UP WITH THROUGH VISIONING AND THOSE NEED TO BE VETTED WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH THE BOARDS, THE STAKEHOLDERS AND FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS. THERE IS A LOT LEFT TO DO AND TRULY TAKING THIS TO THE NEXT LEVEL. >> I AGREE. IT SEEMS THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME THAT YOU HAVE ALLOCATED . GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY. BECAUSE THIS PLAN STARTED , HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ON THIS CASE? >> THIS WILL BE ABOUT 10 MONTHS IN. >> BETWEEN AUGUST 1 OR SEPTEMBER WHENEVER THIS GETS RATIFIED YOU ONLY HAVE SIX MONTHS AND AGAIN IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT TO BITE OFF IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME FOR SUCH A COMPLEX SET OF ISSUES. >> WHICH MAKES IT ALL THAT IMPORTANT TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE FLEXIBILITY OF TIME ONCE YOU SUBMIT THE LETTER. >> IS THERE A HARD DATE? >> THERE IS NOT A HARD DATE FOR 2050. THE HARD DATE FOR THE CONTRACT TO GET COMPLETED, BUT THERE IS NOT A HARD DATE FOR THE COUNTY TO ADOPT THE 2050. THERE WOULD BE IF YOU SUBMITTED A LETTER AND SAID YOU NEEDED TO MAKE CHANGES, YOU HAVE 12 MONTHS ONCE YOU SUBMIT THE LETTER. >> DOES THAT LETTER THAT WE SUBMIT TO THE STATE, WHICH COMPANIES IN THE PLAN MAKE REFERENCE TO THE 2050 PLAN? >> IT SHOULD, YES. >> WILL IT? >> WE HAVE NOT DRAFTED IT YET, BUT I UNDERSTAND. >> WILL IT CONTAIN A DATE? TRYING TO FIND OUT IF YOU'RE BACKING YOURSELF INTO A DATE. >> WE WILL NOT BE BACKING OURSELVES INTO A DATE. THE LETTER SAYS WE MAKE THE STATUTES, WE CERTIFY THAT THE PLAN GOES OUT 10 YEARS BASED ON THE STATUTES AND WE ARE GOOD TO GO. >> OKAY. THE OTHER , THE MAP YOU HAVE REFERENCED IN YOUR [01:15:11] DOCUMENT. IT IS THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP. IT IS NOT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT IS ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE. YOU KNOW, THE LEGENDS ARE ON THERE AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE ONLY CHANGING THE DATE FROM , BUT MIGHT EDITORIAL BRAIN SAYS YOU NEED TO KEEP APPLES TO APPLES. HERE IS 2025 FUTURE LAND USE MAP, HERE IS 2035 EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME. >> ARE YOU REFERENCING THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP? >> REFERENCING THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP YOU'VE GOT ON PAGE 22. >> EXISTING LAND USE IS WHAT'S BUILT AND ON THE GROUND BASED ON DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CODES. SO, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE SAME, NOT CATEGORIZING BASED ON FUTURE LAND USE. IT IS BASED ON WHAT'S ACTUALLY BUILT. >> UNDERSTAND, THEN YOU NEED TO ADD EXISTING PLAN 25 FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IN ADDITION TO THAT. >> SO, >> 2035, IF YOU COMPARE AND TELL PEOPLE THERE ARE CHANGES . >> I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. SURE. >> I TOLD YOU IT WAS A NITPICK. >> BRIGHT, I UNDERSTAND NOW SORRY. >> WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, NOT LESS. HAVE ANOTHER AND THIS IS REALLY , I JUST THINK THAT YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE PHRASE AND I LOVE THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT AND THEY DO AN AMAZING JOB BUT WE DON'T HAVE PARKS AND REC PROGRAMMING WE HAVE 750 ACRES TOTAL JUST ON THE COUNTY ACREAGE. I THINK THE COUNTY NEEDS TO PRIORITIZE , THEY SHOULD GET TO THE VISION, PRIORITIZE MORE PARKS AND REC AND GREEN SPACE. IT IS HARDLY ROBUST. AND THE LAST WHICH COMES UNDER SOME COMEDIC RELIEF FOR YOU BECAUSE I KNOW YOU BEEN STANDING THERE A LONG TIME. PAGE 90 IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION. I'M NOT SURE IT'S FAIR TO SAY DUE TO THE ADVENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE. I THINK WE HAVE COME A LONG WAY SINCE HORSE AND BUGGY. YOU KNOW IT'S NOT THE AUTOMOBILE'S FAULT. JUST TO BE CLEAR. I'M DONE. >> YES I WILL TRY TO MAKE IT REALLY QUICK. WE MENTIONED MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. THINK THERE'S 30 PLUS INCORPORATED CITIES WITHIN THAT COUNTY. WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE, WE HAVE TWO. HOW DO YOU COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE? AND SING AUGUSTINE BEACH, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TOURIST THAT BRINGING A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR ASSISTING MORE OF THE WORLD COUNTIES. >> THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. PART OF MEETING WITH THOSE STAFF TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE FOR THEIR FUTURE PLANS AND MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING ISN'T GOING TO STYMIE THEM OR HAMPER WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. WHICH WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IN TERMS OF THE 2050 VISION IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SO WORKING IN CONCERT WITH THEIR PLANS. >> I HAVE SEEN THERE UNDER THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS THE COUNTY AND CITIES I KNOW THEY HAVE A NEW COMP PLAN AS THE CITY OF SAME AUGUSTINE DOES THE VISION LINEUP? I DID NOT KNOW HOW YOUR COMMUNICATION GOES AND YOU KNOW IF THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON WHAT THE COUNTY HAS SEEN. TO SEE WHAT THESE ARE IN NEED OF BECAUSE I AM A CITY RESIDENT SO I PAY TAXES COUNTY AND CITY. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. >> RIGHT AND OF COURSE THIS PLAN ONLY ADDRESSES THE UNINCORPORATED AREA , THAT'S WHAT , THAT'S THE PURVIEW THAT YOU HAVE, BUT YEAH. AS PART OF [01:20:01] THIS PROCESS, REACHING OUT TO THOSE GROUPS AND MAKING SURE WHAT WE ARE DOING IS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM. >> JUST SORT OF CURIOUS AS A CITY RESIDENT. THE OTHER THING I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THE HOUSING POPULATION AND RESIDENTS. DO WE BREAKDOWN TO WHO IS MOVING HERE , IS IT MORE OF A RETIRED PERSON OR SCHOOLS OR MEDICAL FACILITIES OR IS IT YOUNGER FAMILIES , THE YOUNGER COUPLES NOT HAVING AS MANY CHILDREN SO BASICALLY WE HAVE DECREASED SCHOOLS NEEDED. HOW DO YOU ALL CRYSTAL BALL THAT? >> SO WE DON'T BREAK IT DOWN BY COHORTS WAR BY AGE. WE DO, AGAIN WE LOOK AT THE TRENDS. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES. MAYBE IT'S CHANGES IN THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE IN THE U.S. YOU KNOW AGAIN FROM A MACRO LEVEL. WHEN WE'RE DOING, PLANNING WE ARE NOT DIGGING INTO THE WEEDS TOO MUCH WITH RESPECT TO WHO ARE THE FOLKS COMING IN. WE DO LOOK AT A SNAPSHOT OF THE FOLKS TODAY , BUT YES, IN FACT , WE DO LOOK AT THE TRENDS, BUT NOT AS PART OF THE POPULATION PROJECTION. >> THAT ALSO CREATES RECREATION. WHAT A YOUNGER FAMILY WOULD NEED VERSUS MORE OF A RETIREE. >> SURE, SURE. >> THE OTHER QUESTION IS , YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE DEFINITION OF FLOATED SALT RISK. >> SURE COMING UP. SO SOLAR PANELS THAT ARE LITERALLY FLOATING IN STORM WATER PONDS. >> I DID NOT KNOW IF HE WAS ON MOVABLE WHEELS OR IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY FLOATING. OKAY. I HAVE TO ASK. I WANT TO GIVE THE CORRECT ANSWER. APPRECIATE IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> TAKE ANYMORE SWIPES. RECOGNIZING IS MOVING TO THE 2050 PROCESS WHEN THEY START TALKING ABOUT LAND-USE AND DEVELOPMENT COUNTRIES THERE IS THREE CRITICAL THINGS. THE GROWTH PROTECTIONS OBVIOUSLY AND THEN THERE IS EXISTING ENTITLED UNITS AND LAND FOR POTENTIAL ENTITLEMENT. SO I AGREE THAT I STRUGGLE WITH THESE POPULATION PROJECTIONS , PERHAPS I'M LOOKING FROM A DIFFERENT STANDPOINT. THE COUNTY ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS IN 2023 ACCORDING TO SOMETHING I LOOKED AT 5173 NEW HOMES. IN 22, 5387 HOMES AND IN 21 6222 HOMES. THAT IS ABOUT 16,800 HOMES OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS WHICH BY MY MATH IS 5600 PER YEAR. IF THE POPULATION IS 2.81 PERSONS PER HOUSE, MY MATH SAYS THAT THE POPULATION IS GOING UP BY 15,700 PEOPLE. SO THERE IS AN INCONGRUENT SITUATION. I DON'T THINK THERE'S 2000 HOUSES A YEAR SITTING VACANT, PRETTY CONFIDENT THEY ARE NOT. PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU WILL NEED TO LOOK AT TO SEE WHY THERE IS THE INCONGRUITY AS YOU ROLL INTO THE NEXT BIT OF WORK. AND THEN I NOTICED FOR THE LAND THAT HAS LAND USE , FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USED 100% CONSIDER 100% DEVELOPMENT PORTION USING ABOUT 70% WHICH IS FINE. IF YOU USE 100% PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE , 100% WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED IN THAT TIME FRAME. AND THEN I NOTICED YOU USED 50% FOR MIXED-USE AND THE ASSUMPTION IS 100% GETS DEVELOPED AND 50% IS RESIDENTIAL. THOSE ARE SOME CRITICAL THINGS I THINK AS WE MOVE INTO THE NEXT PHASE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SCRUTINIZED . >> OKAY WE'RE MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYBODY IS [01:25:02] HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. >> SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> YES MA'AM AUSTIN NICHOLAS, REPRESENTING THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA BUILDER ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING SOME OF THE DATA USED IN THIS EAR SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE COUNTING OF LOTS AS OPPOSED TO NOTABLE LOTS. SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ENTITLED THE COUNTY COUNTS ARE GHOST LOTS . THIS MEANS MANY OF THE REMAINING LOTS BEING COUNTED ARE COMBINATION OF EXPIRED PED'S AND BUILT OUT NEIGHBORHOODS WITH TOTAL TO NO AVAILABLE LAND. BOTH OF WHICH ARE COMPLETELY NON-BUILDABLE. ONE OF THE MORE EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES IS THE CLUB. THE COUNTY COUNTS AS 4400 LOTS REMAINING WHEN IN REALITY THEY ONLY HAVE LAND TO BUILD 100 MORE HOMES, THAT IS 2300 HOME DIFFERENCE AND ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES WE FOUND. TWO DIFFERENT PRIVATE COMPANIES TO STUDY THIS LOT DISCREPANCY ISSUE. BOTH REPORTS CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THE NUMBER OF REMAINING LOTS BEING COUNTED BY THE COUNTY IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE BUILDABLE LOTS. ONE REPORT FOUND OF THE 60,000 THAT THE COUNTY SAYS ARE REMAINING THE TOTAL PROBABLE YIELD WOULD BE 45,000 WHICH REPRESENTS A 25% DECREASE. YIELD IS A FANCY WORD FOR THE REAL NUMBER OF BUILDABLE LOTS AS OPPOSED TO ENTITLED. THEN QUICKLY THE PROBABLE YIELD SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OUT OF THE 60,000 REMAINING LOTS, PER SINGLE-FAMILY YOU WOULD GET 30,000 BUILDABLE LOTS, A 50% INCREASE IN THE NUMBER USED. IT IS WORTH NOTING THESE REPORTS WERE FROM TWO YEARS AGO, SINCE THEN ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS REDUCED RATE OF APPROVAL FOR NEW PROJECTS WHILE BUILDING ON THE REMAINING LOTS FASTER THEREFORE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE LOTS IS LIKELY LOWER. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COUNTY NOT MEETING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO PLAN APPROPRIATELY FOR FUTURE GROWTH CONSIDERING THE LOT DISCREPANCY. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU REGARDLESS TO ST. JOHNS COUNTY STAFF, AND THE CONSULTANT FOR ALL OF YOU FOR WORKING ON THIS ISSUE. SO THANK YOU. >> CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ANALYSIS AND MEMORANDUM AND I BELIEVE IT IS A CONCERN THAT SHOULD BE SHARED BY THE BOARD AND CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY. REPORT STATES PURPOSE IS TO DEMONSTRATE ST. JOHNS COUNTY HAS SUCCESSFULLY ACCOUNTED FOR POPULATION GROWTH WITHIN THE COMPANY AND TO PLAN. PERFORMED THE ANALYSIS THE COUNTY UTILIZED A FOUR STEP APPROACH TO CALCULATE CARRYING CAPACITY OF LEFT OVER VACANT LAND. AND , I WAS EXCITED TO READ LEFT OVER VACANT LAND THAT'S BEEN THE HEART OF MANY DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO RECENT LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM TABLE 2 DISCUSSED TODAY THE LEFT OVER VACANT LAND HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THE CALCULATION TO DETERMINE CARRYING CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE PROJECTED FUTURE GROWTH. NOW MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES STILL HAS THE 4400 UNITS THAT'S BECAUSE WE ARE GOING THIS CALCULATION OF THE AVAILABLE VACANT LAND. I BELIEVE EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH KNOCK A TEA AND THE REPORT SUGGESTS ANOTHER 3000 HOMES TO BE BUILT IN KNOCK A TEA COMING FEBRUARY THE LAST REMAINING LOTS WERE CONTRACTED IN THE LOT COUNT TOTAL CLOSER TO 1/10 OF THAT NUMBER. THE ST. JOHN'S DRI IS ON HERE, WORLD GOLF VILLAGE AND THE NUMBER IS INFLATED FOR A FIVE TIMES IF YOU CONSIDER THE LEFT OVER VACANT LAND. I COULD CARRY ON WITH EXAMPLES, THE COUNTY PUBLISHES REMAINING UNITS, THE FACT THIS REPORT IS FROM LAST YEAR, SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR AND IT COVERS EVERY COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTY AND SUGGESTS THIS MEMO TODAY IS OVERSTATING THE LOT COUNT BECAUSE THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE DELMAR SILL AT 4423, KNOCK A TEA AT 3046, ST. JOHN'S AT 2021 AND LAST YEAR SILVERLAKE WAS STILL 1300 WAS STILL 1309 22 TODAY [01:30:05] RIVERTOWN AT 2355. I DON'T THINK WE ARE PROBABLY REMOVING THESE LOT . SO, IF THE COUNTY CONTINUES TO ALSO COUNT THE COMPLETED AND EXPIRED PROJECTS WITHIN THEIR LIST AS PART OF THE CAPACITY CALCULATION. WHY DO I SAY THE BOARD SHOULD BE CONCERNED? IF WE CONTINUE TO COUNT ENTITLED LOTS ON PAPER WITHOUT CONSIDERING REMAINING VACANT LAND WE WILL BE LIKE THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE BANK ACCOUNT IS EMPTY BECAUSE THERE COUNTING CHECKS IN THE CHECKBOOK. WHY SHOULD CITIZENS BE CONCERNED? IF WE OVERSTATE CARRYING CAPACITY TODAY WILL BE AT THE RISK OF UNDER PLANNING VISION FOR THE FUTURE THAT WILL LEAD TO SPORADIC AND REACTIONARY GROWTH RATHER THAN SMART GROWTH, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. DUDLEY. BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. HOW CAN WE GET A HANDLE ON THE PRUDE BUT UNBUILT LOTS? WHAT'S TO BE DONE? WE HAVE THE COUNTY FIGURES, THE NORTHEAST BUILDER ASSOCIATION FIGURES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK OR BELIEVE , WHAT CAN BE DONE TO SORT THIS OUT? I DON'T KNOW WHO I AM EVEN ASKING. MIKE IS COMING UP. OKAY. >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THIS, WHAT I CAN SAY, TO BE CLEAR I'M NOT COMING UP TO DISPUTE THOSE COMMENTS BECAUSE WE CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TENEMENTS AND THEN IT BUILDS YOU DON'T HAVE THE SPACE. FROM THE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE YOU HAVE THE ORDINANCE WITH MAX ENTITLEMENTS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRACKING SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COME UP WITH A WAY TO IDENTIFY THE DEVELOPMENT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL BUILD. MAYBE SOME ARE CRYSTAL CLEAR, AGAIN I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT POINT. SO I THINK THAT HAS BEEN A COMMENT NORTHEAST BROUGHT UP A YEAR OR TWO AGO , HEY, BECAUSE WE'RE PROJECTING OUT THE REPORT IT'S 50 TO 60,000, WHATEVER THE COUNT IS AND LOOKING AT THE POPULATION HAVE CONCERNS WITH HAVING ENOUGH POTENTIALLY NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH UNITS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE THAT THE COUNTY TRACKS THE ORDINANCE WITH THE MAX ENTITLEMENT. >> OKAY THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A WAY TO RECONCILE THE TWO? >> THAT WOULD BE FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT ANALYZE AND THEY ALSO HAVE TO SAY LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE REALISTIC. IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL AND THEY HAVE SO MANY ENTITLEMENTS AND ONLY A LITTLE LAND IF THEY COME IN TO MODIFY IT TO DO MULTIFAMILY AND THEY WANT TO GO VERTICAL. THERE'S A LOT OF SCENARIOS THAT COULD COME UP AND IT'S HARD TO PICK. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD DO AN ANALYSIS. I KNOW THEY DID SOME ANALYSIS. BUT SOMETHING THE COUNTY DOES THAT WOULD BE AN EVEN LARGER UNDERTAKING. >> FOLLOW-UP ON THAT, AS WELL. PART OF THE, YOU GUYS ARE THE ARBITER OF WHAT FACTS AND EVIDENCE ARE BROUGHT HERE. SO WHEN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY OTHER ENTITIES OTHER THAN CONSULTANTS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CREATE AND BE JUDGE AND DECIDE WHICH FACTS ARE ACCURATE, WHAT'S THE BEST FACTS WE CAN OR SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. MIKE IS VERY CORRECT THAT IT'S NOT AN EASY JOB TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH ENTITLEMENTS ARE REALISTICALLY DEVELOPED VERSUS THEY WENT BACK TO START FROM SCRATCH COULD THEY REDEVELOP THE WHOLE THING AND MAX OUT ENTITLEMENTS EVEN THOUGH THAT WOULD PROBABLY NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. ON PAPER IT'S FEASIBLE. ULTIMATELY YOU CAN DIRECT US TO GO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT THAT IS YOUR JOB TO SORT THROUGH THE DIFFERENT FACTS AND IF YOU NEED HELP, REQUEST THAT FROM STAFF OR CONSULTANTS. >> THANK YOU. >> WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT LOTS, YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT [01:35:03] OF OLD PLATS, SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH MOST OF THEM ARE NONCONFORMING, IN THE WETLANDS AND THEY WILL NEVER BE BUILT ON. IT IS COUNTABLE. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU COUNT IT, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOUWILL BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT. SO YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL WITH THESE NUMBERS. WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE WE MAY THINK ARE NOT BUILDABLE OR IT TAKES TWO LOT TO BE CONFORMING SO WE COUNT TWO BUT YOU ONLY PUT ONE HOUSE ON. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE GOT TO CONSIDER, I GUESS. ON LOTS. THE OTHER THING IS, USE UP YOUR LOTS NOW THE COMPETITION GETS LESS AND LESS. NOW WE GET HIGHER AND HIGHER PRICES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BALANCE OF YES WE HAVE INVENTORY THAT MAY NOT BE A BAD THING FOR PRICING. START DOING AWAY WITH LOTS THEN YOUR OPTIONS ARE WHERE YOU GO SO I DON'T SEE IT AS SOMETHING LIKE WE'VE GOT ALL THESE LOTS THAT DOES NOT BOTHER ME THAT MUCH. JUST MY THOUGHTS. COMMENT. >> YES, I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS BACK TO CHRIS. ON B 1 IN THE COMP PLAN DISADVANTAGE TRANSIT SURFACE CROSSED OUT AND I WONDERED WHY THAT WAS. WAS THAT BECAUSE THE SUNSHINE BUS OUR ONLY TRANSIT WE REALLY HAVE PROVIDES THE DISADVANTAGE AS WELL, I WONDERED WHY THAT VERBIAGE WAS OUT OF THE COMP PLAN. >> I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND. >> DOES ANYBODY KNOW? BECAUSE NOW IT IS GONE, TAKEN OUT IN A COUPLE PLACES. >> WE WILL DOUBLE CHECK.'S WORK B 1 .8 .4 UNDER PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE. THANK YOU. >> OKAY MR. PETER. >> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE DISCREPANCY. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, IT HAS COME UP SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE. YOU KNOW WHAT'S APPROVED, WHAT'S BUILT AND WHAT'S NOT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DISCREPANCY IN THE FUTURE POPULATION GROWTH AND IN THE ENTITLEMENTS VERSUS NON-ENTITLEMENTS, THESE ARE WHY WE NEED TO DO THE WORK. I DON'T ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IT'S HARD TO FIGURE OUT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. THE COUNTY , THE PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING US TO DO THE HOMEWORK. AND I RESPECT MIKE AND THE STAFF AND THE CHALLENGE OF THAT AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT HENRY IS SAYING. AT THE END OF THE DAY TO MAKE A REAL INFORMED DECISION WE NEED MORE INFORMATION. WITHIN A MARGIN OF ERROR IS ONE THING. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 20%, 30%, 50% , WHAT ARE WE DOING? IT'S HARD TO VOTE FOR THAT. >> IS THERE ANY WAY TO HAVE THAT THOSE REPORTS PROVIDED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE 2050 VISION ? TO HAVE THE CONSULTANT AT LEAST LOOK AT THAT SO WE HAVE SOME RECONCILIATION. STRUCTURE, WE CAN LOOK FOR THE UPDATED REPORT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE DONE ANYTHING SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL REPORT, BUT YOU STILL HAVE THAT. LET ME REITERATE I'M NOT SHYING AWAY. IF WE GET ANY DIRECTION YOU WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK INTO THAT. THAT'S AMAZING THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR US AND IF IT'S AN ISSUE FOR YOU THEN IT'S AN ISSUE FOR US TO LOOK INTO AND DO RESEARCH TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE LOOK INTO THIS. I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY TO DO IT. IT'S A PRETTY COMP LOCATED PROCESS, SO IF THAT SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO THIS AGENCY BY ALL MEANS THE DIRECTOR WILL PUT IN A STAFF REPORT WE WILL BRIEF THE COMMISSION AND THEY CAN GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO. >> EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE. >> WILL MAKE SURE THAT IN THE REPORT AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TRANSMITTAL OF THE CARRANZA PLAN AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. >> APPROVAL OF TRANSMITTAL IS THERE A SECOND? ANY FURTHER [Staff Reports] DISCUSSION? WITH NON-LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. I CAN'T [01:40:15] TELL WHO VOTED. OKAY THAT MOTION PASSES 6-1. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR VISITATION. THANK YOU . [Agency Reports] >> ON TO THE STAFF REPORTS. >> NO MAJOR STAFF REPORTS BUT WE HAVE AN UPCOMING MEETING NEXT WEEK ON JULY 18 REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. AGAIN THERE IS AN OPEN HOUSE FOR THE CONFERENCE PLAN JULY 23 STARTING ABOUT 10:00 YOU MORNING SESSION ANTI-VICTORY P.M. FOR THE EVENING SESSION. >> ANY AGENCY REPORTS? SEEING NONE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ANY RESOLUTION WITH THE QUESTION BETWEEN ST. JOHN'S LAW GROUP ? >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS COME TO FINAL RESOLUTION. IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT, JACOB MIGHT KNOW BETTER BECAUSE THAT ITEM IS FROM OR WITH YOU. IT HAS BEEN RESUBMITTED AND AMENDED. >> FROM THE APPLICATION? THE APPLICATION STANDPOINT MARSH LANDING HAS AN APPLICATION THAT WILL GO BEFORE THIS BOARD AUGUST 1 PZA MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ADD ONE LOT TO A GOLF COURSE AREA AND THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A SMALL ADJUSTMENT. FOR ANOTHER AREA. I DON'T KNOW THAT ADDRESSES THE LEGAL QUESTION. >> TO ENTER THE REST OF IT BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT UP-TO-DATE. AS OF YESTERDAY THERE WAS BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S FULLY SETTLED. STAFF POSITION IS PRETTY SET, BUT THERE COULD BE CHALLENGES AND THERE IS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS THAT MAY HAPPEN AND POTENTIALLY THERE IS ALSO CIVIL LAWSUITS THAT COULD HAPPEN. AT THIS POINT THAT SO WE ARE MOVING HROUGH WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED. >> WELL I GUESS WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE BOARD IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE LEGALLY MOOT LATER. SO AGAIN I'M NOT UP TO SPEED HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYBODY RECENTLY. THE LAST CORRESPONDENCE WE ALL GOT IN EMAIL POSED LEGAL QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE EVEN ALLOWED TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT. >> I THINK WE ARE PAST THAT POINT SO WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF LEGAL QUESTIONS WITH US NOW. I DO BELIEVE WE FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THE PLAT ISSUES ARE NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS THEY WERE BEFORE. A DATE THE ATTORNEYS THEY MAY FIGHT IT OUT, BUT AT THIS POINT WE THINK WE HAVE COME TO A NEW UNDERSTANDING. WE MIGHT GET A NEW UPDATED LETTER FROM ATTORNEYS IN OPPOSITION. WE HAVE NOT GOT THAT YET , BUT I'M NOT CONCERNED WE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.