Florida Senate - 2009 SB 1306
By Senator Bennett
21-00621B-09 20091306__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act relating to growth management; amending s.
3 163.3164, F.S.; redefining the term “financial
4 feasibility” to provide for school facilities that do
5 not meet concurrency requirements in a particular
6 year; amending s. 163.3177, F.S.; conforming a cross
7 reference; amending s. 163.3180, F.S.; revising
8 provisions relating to the concurrency requirements
9 for public facilities and transportation facilities;
10 providing for the designation of certain geographic
11 areas as transportation concurrency exception areas;
12 revising provisions relating to the level-of-service
13 standards for transportation; authorizing a local
14 government to adopt a lower level-of-service standard
15 under certain circumstances; revising provisions
16 relating to the calculation of the proportionate-share
17 contribution; providing definitions; providing for the
18 applicability and calculation of proportionate fair
19 share mitigation; providing incentives for landowners
20 or developers who contribute or pay proportionate
21 fair-share mitigation; amending s. 163.3182, F.S.;
22 revising provisions relating to the creation of
23 transportation concurrency backlog authorities;
24 requiring that each local government adopt
25 transportation concurrency backlog areas as part of
26 the capital improvements element of the local
27 comprehensive plan; amending s. 380.06, F.S.; revising
28 provisions relating to the preapplication procedures
29 for developments of regional impact; requiring that
30 the levels of service in the transportation
31 methodology be the same standards used to evaluate
32 concurrency and proportionate-share contributions;
33 providing for a transportation mobility fee; providing
34 legislative findings and intent; requiring that the
35 Department of Community Affairs and the Department of
36 Transportation coordinate their independent mobility
37 fees studies to develop a methodology for a mobility
38 fee system; providing guidelines for developing the
39 methodology; requiring that the Secretary of Community
40 Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation submit
41 joint interim reports to the Legislature by specified
42 dates; requiring that the Department of Community
43 Affairs develop proposed amendments to chapter 9J-5,
44 F.A.C., for incorporating the mobility fee
45 methodology; requiring that the department submit the
46 proposed amendments to the Legislature for review by a
47 specified date; providing for future repeal of s.
48 163.3180, F.S., relating to transportation concurrency
49 requirements; requiring that the Department of
50 Transportation establish a transportation methodology;
51 requiring that such methodology be completed and in
52 use by a specified date; providing an effective date.
53
54 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
55
56 Section 1. Subsection (32) of section 163.3164, Florida
57 Statutes, is amended to read:
58 163.3164 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
59 Development Regulation Act; definitions.—As used in this act:
60 (32) “Financial feasibility” means that sufficient revenues
61 are currently available or will be available from committed
62 funding sources for the first 3 years, or will be available from
63 committed or planned funding sources for years 4 and 5, of a 5
64 year capital improvement schedule for financing capital
65 improvements, including such as ad valorem taxes, bonds, state
66 and federal funds, tax revenues, impact fees, and developer
67 contributions, which are adequate to fund the projected costs of
68 the capital improvements identified in the comprehensive plan
69 and necessary to ensure that adopted level-of-service standards
70 are achieved and maintained within the period covered by the 5
71 year schedule of capital improvements. A comprehensive plan or
72 comprehensive plan amendment shall be deemed financially
73 feasible for transportation and school facilities throughout the
74 planning period addressed by the capital improvements schedule
75 if it can be demonstrated that the existing or adopted level-of
76 service, whichever has the greater maximum service volume,
77 standards will be achieved and maintained by the end of the
78 planning period even if in a particular year such improvements
79 are not concurrent as required by s. 163.3180. A comprehensive
80 plan shall be deemed financially feasible for school facilities
81 throughout the planning period addressed by the capital
82 improvements schedule if it can be demonstrated that the level
83 of-service standards will be achieved and maintained by the end
84 of the planning period even if in a particular year such
85 improvements are not concurrent as required in s. 163.3180.
86 Section 2. Paragraph (e) of subsection (3) of section
87 163.3177, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
88 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive
89 plan; studies and surveys.—
90 (3)
91 (e) At the discretion of the local government and
92 notwithstanding the requirements in of this subsection, a
93 comprehensive plan, as revised by an amendment to the plan's
94 future land use map, shall be deemed to be financially feasible
95 and to have achieved and maintained level-of-service standards
96 as required in by this section with respect to transportation
97 facilities if the amendment to the future land use map is
98 supported by a:
99 1. Condition in a development order for a development of
100 regional impact or binding agreement that addresses
101 proportionate-share mitigation consistent with s. 163.3180(12);
102 or
103 2. Binding agreement addressing proportionate fair-share
104 mitigation consistent with s. 163.3180(16)(h) s. 163.3180(16)(f)
105 and the property subject to the amendment to the future land use
106 map is located within an area designated in a comprehensive plan
107 for urban infill, urban redevelopment, downtown revitalization,
108 urban infill and redevelopment, or an urban service area. The
109 binding agreement must be based on the maximum amount of
110 development identified by the future land use map amendment or
111 as may be otherwise restricted through a special area plan
112 policy or map notation in the comprehensive plan.
113 Section 3. Subsections (1) through (12) and (14) through
114 (16) of section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, are amended, and
115 subsection (18) is added to that section, to read:
116 163.3180 Concurrency.—
117 (1) APPLICABILITY OF CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENT.—
118 (a) Public facility types.—Sanitary sewer, solid waste,
119 drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, schools, and
120 transportation facilities, including mass transit, where
121 applicable, are the only public facilities and services subject
122 to the concurrency requirement on a statewide basis. Additional
123 public facilities and services are may not be made subject to
124 concurrency on a statewide basis without appropriate study and
125 approval by the Legislature; however, any local government may
126 extend the concurrency requirement so that it applies to apply
127 to additional public facilities within its jurisdiction.
128 (b) Transportation methodologies.—Local governments shall
129 use professionally accepted techniques for measuring level of
130 service for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and
131 trucks. These techniques may be used to evaluate increased
132 accessibility by multiple modes and reductions in vehicle miles
133 of travel in an area or zone. The state land planning agency and
134 the Department of Transportation shall develop methodologies to
135 assist local governments in implementing this multimodal level
136 of-service analysis and. The Department of Community Affairs and
137 the Department of Transportation shall provide technical
138 assistance to local governments in applying the these
139 methodologies.
140 (2) PUBLIC FACILITY AVAILABILITY STANDARDS.—
141 (a) Sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, adequate water
142 supply, and potable water facilities.—Consistent with public
143 health and safety, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage,
144 adequate water supplies, and potable water facilities shall be
145 in place and available to serve new development no later than
146 the date on which issuance by the local government issues of a
147 certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. Before
148 approving Prior to approval of a building permit or its
149 functional equivalent, the local government shall consult with
150 the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate
151 water supplies to serve the new development will be available by
152 no later than the anticipated date of issuance by the local
153 government of the a certificate of occupancy or its functional
154 equivalent. A local government may meet the concurrency
155 requirement for sanitary sewer through the use of onsite sewage
156 treatment and disposal systems approved by the Department of
157 Health to serve new development.
158 (b) Parks and recreation facilities.—Consistent with the
159 public welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this
160 section, parks and recreation facilities to serve new
161 development shall be in place or under actual construction
162 within no later than 1 year after issuance by the local
163 government issues of a certificate of occupancy or its
164 functional equivalent. However, the acreage for such facilities
165 must shall be dedicated or be acquired by the local government
166 before it issues prior to issuance by the local government of
167 the a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, or
168 funds in the amount of the developer's fair share shall be
169 committed no later than the date on which the local government
170 approves commencement of government's approval to commence
171 construction.
172 (c) Transportation facilities.—Consistent with the public
173 welfare, and except as otherwise provided in this section,
174 transportation facilities needed to serve new development must
175 shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years
176 after the local government approves a building permit or its
177 functional equivalent that results in traffic generation.
178 (3) ESTABLISHING LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS.—Governmental
179 entities that are not responsible for providing, financing,
180 operating, or regulating public facilities needed to serve
181 development may not establish binding level-of-service standards
182 to apply to on governmental entities that do bear those
183 responsibilities. This subsection does not limit the authority
184 of any agency to recommend or make objections, recommendations,
185 comments, or determinations during reviews conducted under s.
186 163.3184.
187 (4) APPLICATION OF CONCURRENCY TO PUBLIC FACILITIES.—
188 (a) State and other public facilities.—The concurrency
189 requirement as implemented in local comprehensive plans applies
190 to state and other public facilities and development to the same
191 extent that it applies to all other facilities and development,
192 as provided by law.
193 (b) Public transit facilities.—The concurrency requirement
194 as implemented in local comprehensive plans does not apply to
195 public transit facilities. For the purposes of this paragraph,
196 public transit facilities include transit stations and
197 terminals; transit station parking; park-and-ride lots;
198 intermodal public transit connection or transfer facilities;
199 fixed bus, guideway, and rail stations; and airport passenger
200 terminals and concourses, air cargo facilities, and hangars for
201 the maintenance or storage of aircraft. As used in this
202 paragraph, the terms “terminals” and “transit facilities” do not
203 include seaports or commercial or residential development
204 constructed in conjunction with a public transit facility.
205 (c) Infill and redevelopment areas.—The concurrency
206 requirement, except as it relates to transportation facilities
207 and public schools, as implemented in local government
208 comprehensive plans, may be waived by a local government for
209 urban infill and redevelopment areas designated pursuant to s.
210 163.2517 if such a waiver does not endanger public health or
211 safety as defined by the local government in the its local
212 government's government comprehensive plan. The waiver must
213 shall be adopted as a plan amendment using pursuant to the
214 process set forth in s. 163.3187(3)(a). A local government may
215 grant a concurrency exception pursuant to subsection (5) for
216 transportation facilities located within these urban infill and
217 redevelopment areas.
218 (5) COUNTERVAILING PLANNING AND PUBLIC POLICY GOALS.—
219 (a) Legislative findings.—The Legislature finds that under
220 limited circumstances dealing with transportation facilities,
221 countervailing planning and public policy goals may come into
222 conflict with the requirement that adequate public
223 transportation facilities and services be available concurrent
224 with the impacts of such development. The Legislature further
225 finds that often the unintended result of the concurrency
226 requirement for transportation facilities is often the
227 discouragement of urban infill development, infill, and
228 redevelopment. Such unintended results directly conflict with
229 the goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan and the
230 intent of this part. The Legislature finds that in urban areas
231 transportation cannot be effectively managed and mobility cannot
232 be improved solely through the expansion of roadway capacity,
233 that in many urban areas the expansion of roadway capacity is
234 not always physically or financially possible, and that a range
235 of transportation alternatives are essential to satisfy mobility
236 needs, reduce congestion, and achieve healthy, vibrant areas.
237 Therefore, exceptions from the concurrency requirement for
238 transportation facilities may be granted as provided in by this
239 subsection.
240 (b) Geographic applicability of transportation concurrency
241 exception areas.—
242 1. Transportation concurrency exception areas are
243 established within geographic areas that are designated in a
244 local comprehensive plan for urban infill development, urban
245 redevelopment, downtown revitalization, or urban infill and
246 redevelopment under s. 163.2517. Areas that are designated as
247 such in a future local comprehensive plan shall be
248 transportation concurrency exception areas; however, the local
249 government shall implement long-term strategies to support and
250 fund mobility within the designated exception area, including
251 alternative modes of transportation.
252 2. A local government may grant an exception from the
253 concurrency requirement for transportation facilities if the
254 proposed development is otherwise consistent with the adopted
255 local government comprehensive plan and:
256 a. Is a project that promotes public transportation; or
257 b. Is located within an area designated in the
258 comprehensive plan as for:
259 1. Urban infill development;
260 2. Urban redevelopment;
261 3. Downtown revitalization;
262 4. Urban infill and redevelopment under s. 163.2517; or
263 5. an urban service area specifically designated as a
264 transportation concurrency exception area, which includes lands
265 appropriate for compact, contiguous urban development, which
266 does not exceed the amount of land needed to accommodate the
267 projected population growth at densities consistent with the
268 adopted comprehensive plan within the 10-year planning period,
269 and which is served or is planned to be served with public
270 facilities and services as provided by the capital improvements
271 element or;.
272 c. Is an agricultural enclave, as defined in s.
273 163.3164(33), which is located within a transportation
274 concurrency backlog area.
275 (c) Projects that have special part-time demands.—The
276 Legislature also finds that developments located within urban
277 infill, urban redevelopment, existing urban service areas, or
278 downtown revitalization areas or areas designated as urban
279 infill and redevelopment areas under s. 163.2517, which pose
280 only special part-time demands on the transportation system, are
281 exempt should be excepted from the concurrency requirement for
282 transportation facilities. A special part-time demand is one
283 that does not have more than 200 scheduled events during any
284 calendar year and does not affect the 100 highest traffic volume
285 hours.
286 (d) Establishment of transportation concurrency exception
287 areas.—A local government that adopts transportation concurrency
288 exception areas under subparagraph (b)2. shall:
289 1. A local government shall Establish guidelines in the
290 comprehensive plan for granting transportation concurrency
291 exceptions, the exceptions authorized in paragraphs (b) and (c)
292 and subsections (7) and (15) which must be consistent with and
293 support a comprehensive strategy adopted in the plan to promote
294 and facilitate development consistent with the planning and
295 public policy goals upon which the establishment of the
296 concurrency exception areas was predicated the purpose of the
297 exceptions.
298 2.(e) The local government shall Adopt into the plan and
299 Implement long-term strategies to support and fund mobility
300 within the designated exception area, including alternative
301 modes of transportation. The plan amendment must also
302 demonstrate how strategies will support the purpose of the
303 exception and how mobility within the designated exception area
304 will be provided. In addition, the strategies must address urban
305 design; appropriate land use mixes, including intensity and
306 density; and network connectivity plans needed to promote urban
307 infill, redevelopment, or downtown revitalization. The
308 comprehensive plan amendment designating the concurrency
309 exception area must be accompanied by data and analysis
310 justifying the size of the area.
311 3.(f) Before designating Prior to the designation of a
312 transportation concurrency exception area pursuant to
313 subparagraph (b)2., consult with the state land planning agency
314 and the Department of Transportation shall be consulted by the
315 local government to assess the impact that the proposed
316 exception area is expected to have on the adopted level-of
317 service standards established for Strategic Intermodal System
318 facilities, as defined in s. 339.64, and roadway facilities
319 funded in accordance with s. 339.2819 and. Further, the local
320 government shall, in consultation with the state land planning
321 agency and the Department of Transportation, develop a plan to
322 mitigate any impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System.
323 4. Meet with adjacent jurisdictions that may be impacted by
324 the designation and discuss strategies for minimizing the
325 impacts., including, if appropriate, the development of a long
326 term concurrency management system pursuant to subsection (9)
327 and s. 163.3177(3)(d). The exceptions may be available only
328 within the specific geographic area of the jurisdiction
329 designated in the plan. Pursuant to s. 163.3184, any affected
330 person may challenge a plan amendment establishing these
331 guidelines and the areas within which an exception could be
332 granted.
333 (g) Transportation concurrency exception areas existing
334 prior to July 1, 2005, must, at a minimum, meet the provisions
335 of this section by July 1, 2006, or at the time of the
336 comprehensive plan update pursuant to the evaluation and
337 appraisal report, whichever occurs last.
338 (6) DE MINIMIS IMPACT.—The Legislature finds that a de
339 minimis impact is consistent with this part. A de minimis impact
340 is an impact that does would not affect more than 1 percent of
341 the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of the
342 affected transportation facility as determined by the local
343 government. An No impact is not will be de minimis if the sum of
344 existing roadway volumes and the projected volumes from approved
345 projects on a transportation facility exceeds would exceed 110
346 percent of the maximum volume at the adopted level of service of
347 the affected transportation facility; provided however, the that
348 an impact of a single family home on an existing lot is will
349 constitute a de minimis impact on all roadways regardless of the
350 level of the deficiency of the roadway. Further, an no impact is
351 not will be de minimis if it exceeds would exceed the adopted
352 level-of-service standard of any affected designated hurricane
353 evacuation routes. Each local government shall maintain
354 sufficient records to ensure that the 110-percent criterion is
355 not exceeded. Each local government shall submit annually, with
356 its updated capital improvements element, a summary of the de
357 minimis records. If the state land planning agency determines
358 that the 110-percent criterion has been exceeded, the state land
359 planning agency shall notify the local government of the
360 exceedance and that no further de minimis exceptions for the
361 applicable roadway may be granted until such time as the volume
362 is reduced below the 110 percent. The local government shall
363 provide proof of this reduction to the state land planning
364 agency before issuing further de minimis exceptions.
365 (7) CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS.—In order to promote urban
366 development and infill development and redevelopment, one or
367 more transportation concurrency management areas may be
368 designated in a local government comprehensive plan. A
369 transportation concurrency management area must be a compact
370 geographic area that has with an existing network of roads where
371 multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available
372 for common trips. A local government may establish an areawide
373 level-of-service standard for such a transportation concurrency
374 management area based upon an analysis that provides for a
375 justification for the areawide level of service, how urban
376 infill development, infill, and or redevelopment will be
377 promoted, and how mobility will be accomplished within the
378 transportation concurrency management area. Before Prior to the
379 designation of a concurrency management area is designated, the
380 local government shall consult with the state land planning
381 agency and the Department of Transportation shall be consulted
382 by the local government to assess the impact that the proposed
383 concurrency management area is expected to have on the adopted
384 level-of-service standards established for Strategic Intermodal
385 System facilities, as defined in s. 339.64, and roadway
386 facilities funded in accordance with s. 339.2819. Further, the
387 local government shall, in cooperation with the state land
388 planning agency and the Department of Transportation, develop a
389 plan to mitigate any impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System,
390 including, if appropriate, the development of a long-term
391 concurrency management system pursuant to subsection (9) and s.
392 163.3177(3)(d). Transportation concurrency management areas
393 existing prior to July 1, 2005, shall meet, at a minimum, the
394 provisions of this section by July 1, 2006, or at the time of
395 the comprehensive plan update pursuant to the evaluation and
396 appraisal report, whichever occurs last. The state land planning
397 agency shall amend chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to
398 be consistent with this subsection.
399 (8) URBAN REDEVELOPMENT.—When assessing the transportation
400 impacts of proposed urban redevelopment within an established
401 existing urban service area, 150 110 percent of the actual
402 transportation impact caused by the previously existing
403 development must be reserved for the redevelopment, even if the
404 previously existing development had has a lesser or nonexisting
405 impact pursuant to the calculations of the local government.
406 Redevelopment requiring less than 150 110 percent of the
407 previously existing capacity shall not be prohibited due to the
408 reduction of transportation levels of service below the adopted
409 standards. This does not preclude the appropriate assessment of
410 fees or accounting for the impacts within the concurrency
411 management system and capital improvements program of the
412 affected local government. This subsection paragraph does not
413 affect local government requirements for appropriate development
414 permits.
415 (9)(a) LONG-TERM CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT.—Each local
416 government may adopt, as a part of its plan, long-term
417 transportation and school concurrency management systems that
418 have with a planning period of up to 10 years for specially
419 designated districts or areas where significant backlogs exist.
420 The plan may include interim level-of-service standards on
421 certain facilities and must shall rely on the local government's
422 schedule of capital improvements for up to 10 years as a basis
423 for issuing development orders authorizing the that authorize
424 commencement of construction in the these designated districts
425 or areas. The concurrency management system must be designed to
426 correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing
427 backlogged facilities. The concurrency management system must be
428 financially feasible and consistent with other portions of the
429 adopted local plan, including the future land use map.
430 (b) If a local government has a transportation or school
431 facility backlog for existing development which cannot be
432 adequately addressed in a 10-year plan, the state land planning
433 agency may allow the local government it to develop a plan and
434 long-term schedule of capital improvements covering up to 15
435 years for good and sufficient cause. The state land planning
436 agency's determination must be, based on a general comparison
437 between the that local government and all other similarly
438 situated local jurisdictions, using the following factors:
439 1. The extent of the backlog.
440 2. For roads, whether the backlog is on local or state
441 roads.
442 3. The cost of eliminating the backlog.
443 4. The local government's tax and other revenue-raising
444 efforts.
445 (c) The local government may issue approvals to commence
446 construction notwithstanding this section, consistent with and
447 in areas that are subject to a long-term concurrency management
448 system.
449 (d) If the local government adopts a long-term concurrency
450 management system, it must evaluate the system periodically. At
451 a minimum, the local government must assess its progress toward
452 improving levels of service within the long-term concurrency
453 management district or area in the evaluation and appraisal
454 report and determine any changes that are necessary to
455 accelerate progress in meeting acceptable levels of service.
456 (10) TRANSPORTATION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS.—With regard
457 to roadway facilities on the Strategic Intermodal System which
458 are designated in accordance with s. 339.63 ss. 339.61, 339.62,
459 339.63, and 339.64, the Florida Intrastate Highway System as
460 defined in s. 338.001, and roadway facilities funded in
461 accordance with s. 339.2819, local governments shall adopt the
462 level-of-service standard established by the Department of
463 Transportation by rule; however, if a project involves qualified
464 jobs created and certified by the Office of Tourism, Trade, and
465 Economic Development or if the project is a nonresidential
466 project located within an area designated by the Governor as a
467 rural area of critical economic concern under s. 288.0656(7),
468 the affected local government, after consulting with the
469 Department of Transportation, may adopt into its comprehensive
470 plan a lower level-of-service standard than the standard adopted
471 by the Department of Transportation. The lower level-of-service
472 standard shall apply only to a project conducted under the
473 Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development. For all
474 other roads on the State Highway System, local governments shall
475 establish an adequate level-of-service standard that need not be
476 consistent with any level-of-service standard established by the
477 Department of Transportation. In establishing adequate level-of
478 service standards for any arterial roads, or collector roads as
479 appropriate, which traverse multiple jurisdictions, local
480 governments shall consider compatibility with the roadway
481 facility's adopted level-of-service standards in adjacent
482 jurisdictions. Each local government within a county shall use a
483 professionally accepted methodology for measuring impacts on
484 transportation facilities for the purposes of implementing its
485 concurrency management system. Counties are encouraged to
486 coordinate with adjacent counties, and local governments within
487 a county are encouraged to coordinate, for the purpose of using
488 common methodologies for measuring impacts on transportation
489 facilities and for the purpose of implementing their concurrency
490 management systems.
491 (11) LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—In order to limit a local
492 government's the liability of local governments, the a local
493 government shall may allow a landowner to proceed with the
494 development of a specific parcel of land notwithstanding a
495 failure of the development to satisfy transportation
496 concurrency, if when all the following factors are shown to
497 exist:
498 (a) The local government having with jurisdiction over the
499 property has adopted a local comprehensive plan that is in
500 compliance.
501 (b) The proposed development is would be consistent with
502 the future land use designation for the specific property and
503 with pertinent portions of the adopted local plan, as determined
504 by the local government.
505 (c) The local plan includes a financially feasible capital
506 improvements element that provides for transportation facilities
507 adequate to serve the proposed development, and the local
508 government has not implemented that element.
509 (d) The local government has provided a means for assessing
510 by which the landowner for will be assessed a fair share of the
511 cost of providing the transportation facilities necessary to
512 serve the proposed development.
513 (e) The landowner has made a binding commitment to the
514 local government to pay the fair share of the cost of providing
515 the transportation facilities to serve the proposed development.
516 (12) REGIONAL IMPACT PROPORTIONATE-SHARE CONTRIBUTION.—
517 (a) A development of regional impact satisfies may satisfy
518 the transportation concurrency requirements of the local
519 comprehensive plan, the local government's concurrency
520 management system, and s. 380.06 by paying payment of a
521 proportionate-share contribution for local and regionally
522 significant traffic impacts, if:
523 1.(a) The development of regional impact which, based on
524 its location or mix of land uses, is designed to encourage
525 pedestrian or other nonautomotive modes of transportation;
526 2.(b) The proportionate-share contribution for local and
527 regionally significant traffic impacts is sufficient to pay for
528 one or more required mobility improvements that will benefit the
529 network of a regionally significant transportation facilities
530 facility;
531 3.(c) The owner and developer of the development of
532 regional impact pays or assures payment of the proportionate
533 share contribution; and
534 4.(d) If The regionally significant transportation facility
535 to be constructed or improved is under the maintenance authority
536 of a governmental entity, as defined by s. 334.03(12), other
537 than the local government having with jurisdiction over the
538 development of regional impact, the developer must is required
539 to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to
540 transfer funds to the governmental entity having maintenance
541 authority or to otherwise assure construction or improvement of
542 the facility.
543 (b) The proportionate-share contribution may be applied to
544 any transportation facility to satisfy the provisions of this
545 subsection and the local comprehensive plan., but, for the
546 purposes of this subsection,
547 1. The amount of the proportionate-share contribution shall
548 be calculated as follows:
549 a. The determination of significantly affected roadways
550 shall be based upon the cumulative number of trips from the
551 previously approved stage or phase of development and the
552 proposed new stage or phase of development expected to reach
553 roadways during the peak hour at from the complete buildout of a
554 stage or phase being approved.
555 b. For significantly affected roadways, the developer's
556 proportionate share shall be based solely upon the number of
557 trips from the proposed new stage or phase being approved which
558 would exceed the peak hour maximum service volume of the roadway
559 at the adopted or existing level of service, whichever has the
560 greater maximum service volume, divided by the change in the
561 peak hour maximum service volume of the roadways resulting from
562 the construction of an improvement necessary to maintain the
563 adopted or existing level of service, whichever has the greater
564 maximum service volume.
565 2. The calculated proportionate-share contribution shall be
566 multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of developer
567 payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the adopted or
568 existing level of service, whichever has the greater maximum
569 service volume, in order to determine the proportionate-share
570 contribution. For purposes of this subparagraph subsection, the
571 term “construction cost” includes all associated costs of the
572 improvement.
573 3. Proportionate-share mitigation shall be limited to
574 ensure that a development of regional impact meeting the
575 requirements of this subsection mitigates its impact on the
576 transportation system but is not responsible for the additional
577 cost of reducing or eliminating backlogs.
578 4. A developer shall not be required to fund or construct
579 proportionate-share mitigation that is more extensive than
580 mitigation necessary to offset the impact of the development
581 project under review.
582 5. Proportionate-share mitigation shall be applied as a
583 credit against any transportation impact fees or exactions
584 assessed for the traffic impacts of a development.
585 6. Proportionate-share mitigation may be directed toward
586 one or more specific transportation improvements reasonably
587 related to the mobility demands created by the development and
588 such improvements may address one or more modes of
589 transportation.
590 7. The payment for such improvements that significantly
591 benefit the impacted transportation system satisfies concurrency
592 requirements as a mitigation of the development’s stage or phase
593 impacts upon the overall transportation system even if there
594 remains a failure of concurrency on other impacted facilities.
595 (c) As used in this subsection, the term:
596 1. “Backlogged” or “backlogged transportation facility”
597 means a facility on which the adopted level-of-service standard
598 is exceeded by the existing trips plus background trips,
599 including transportation facilities that have exceeded their
600 useful life.
601 2. “Background trips” means forecasted trips from sources
602 other than the development project under review. The forecasted
603 trips shall be based on established traffic modeling standards.
604 This subsection also applies to Florida Quality Developments
605 pursuant to s. 380.061 and to detailed specific area plans
606 implementing optional sector plans pursuant to s. 163.3245.
607 (14) RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.—The state land planning agency
608 shall, by October 1, 1998, adopt by rule minimum criteria for
609 the review and determination of compliance of a public school
610 facilities element adopted by a local government for purposes of
611 the imposition of school concurrency.
612 (15)(a) MULTIMODAL DISTRICTS.—Multimodal transportation
613 districts may be established under a local government
614 comprehensive plan in areas delineated on the future land use
615 map for which the local comprehensive plan assigns secondary
616 priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to assuring a
617 safe, comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment, with
618 convenient interconnection to transit. Such districts must
619 incorporate community design features that will reduce the
620 number of automobile trips or vehicle miles of travel and will
621 support an integrated, multimodal transportation system. Before
622 Prior to the designation of multimodal transportation districts,
623 the Department of Transportation shall, in consultation with be
624 consulted by the local government, to assess the impact that the
625 proposed multimodal district area is expected to have on the
626 adopted level-of-service standards established for Strategic
627 Intermodal System facilities, as provided in s. 339.63 defined
628 in s. 339.64, and roadway facilities funded in accordance with
629 s. 339.2819. Further, the local government shall, in cooperation
630 with the Department of Transportation, develop a plan to
631 mitigate any impacts to the Strategic Intermodal System,
632 including the development of a long-term concurrency management
633 system pursuant to subsection (9) and s. 163.3177(3)(d).
634 Multimodal transportation districts existing prior to July 1,
635 2005, shall meet, at a minimum, the provisions of this section
636 by July 1, 2006, or at the time of the comprehensive plan update
637 pursuant to the evaluation and appraisal report, whichever
638 occurs last.
639 (b) Community design elements of such a multimodal
640 transportation district include:
641 1. A complementary mix and range of land uses, including
642 educational, recreational, and cultural uses;
643 2. Interconnected networks of streets designed to encourage
644 walking and bicycling, with traffic-calming where desirable;
645 3. Appropriate densities and intensities of use within
646 walking distance of transit stops;
647 4. Daily activities within walking distance of residences,
648 allowing independence to persons who do not drive; and
649 5. Public uses, streets, and squares that are safe,
650 comfortable, and attractive for the pedestrian, with adjoining
651 buildings open to the street and with parking not interfering
652 with pedestrian, transit, automobile, and truck travel modes.
653 (c) Local governments may establish multimodal level-of
654 service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes of
655 transportation within the district, if when justified by an
656 analysis demonstrating that the existing and planned community
657 design will provide an adequate level of mobility within the
658 district based upon professionally accepted multimodal level-of
659 service methodologies. The analysis must also demonstrate that
660 the capital improvements required to promote community design
661 are financially feasible over the development or redevelopment
662 timeframe for the district and that community design features
663 within the district provide convenient interconnection for a
664 multimodal transportation system. Local governments may issue
665 development permits in reliance upon all planned community
666 design capital improvements that are financially feasible over
667 the development or redevelopment timeframe for the district,
668 regardless of without regard to the period of time between
669 development or redevelopment and the scheduled construction of
670 the capital improvements. A determination of financial
671 feasibility shall be based upon currently available funding or
672 funding sources that could reasonably be expected to become
673 available over the planning period.
674 (d) Local governments may reduce impact fees or local
675 access fees for development within multimodal transportation
676 districts based on the reduction of vehicle trips per household
677 or vehicle miles of travel expected from the development pattern
678 planned for the district.
679 (e) By December 1, 2007, The Department of Transportation,
680 in consultation with the state land planning agency and
681 interested local governments, may designate a study area for
682 conducting a pilot project to determine the benefits of and
683 barriers to establishing a regional multimodal transportation
684 concurrency district that extends over more than one local
685 government jurisdiction. If designated:
686 1. The study area must be in a county that has a population
687 of at least 1,000 persons per square mile, be within an urban
688 service area, and have the consent of the local governments
689 within the study area. The Department of Transportation and the
690 state land planning agency shall provide technical assistance.
691 2. The local governments within the study area and the
692 Department of Transportation, in consultation with the state
693 land planning agency, shall cooperatively create a multimodal
694 transportation plan that meets the requirements in of this
695 section. The multimodal transportation plan must include viable
696 local funding options and incorporate community design features,
697 including a range of mixed land uses and densities and
698 intensities, which will reduce the number of automobile trips or
699 vehicle miles of travel while supporting an integrated,
700 multimodal transportation system.
701 3. In order to effectuate the multimodal transportation
702 concurrency district, participating local governments may adopt
703 appropriate comprehensive plan amendments.
704 4. The Department of Transportation, in consultation with
705 the state land planning agency, shall submit a report by March
706 1, 2009, to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the
707 Speaker of the House of Representatives on the status of the
708 pilot project. The report must identify any factors that support
709 or limit the creation and success of a regional multimodal
710 transportation district including intergovernmental
711 coordination.
712 (16) PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE MITIGATION.—It is the intent
713 of the Legislature to provide a method by which the impacts of
714 development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the
715 cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors. The
716 methodology used to calculate proportionate fair-share
717 mitigation shall be calculated as follows: mitigation under this
718 section shall be as provided for in subsection (12).
719 (a) The determination of significantly affected roadways
720 shall be based upon the cumulative number of trips from the
721 previously approved stage or phase of development and the
722 proposed new stage or phase of development expected to reach
723 roadways during the peak hour at the complete buildout of a
724 stage or phase being approved.
725 (b) For significantly affected roadways, the developer’s
726 proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be based solely upon
727 the number of trips from the proposed new stage or phase being
728 approved which would exceed the peak hour maximum service volume
729 of the roadway at the adopted or existing level of service,
730 whichever has the greater maximum service volume, divided by the
731 change in the peak hour maximum service volume of the roadways
732 resulting from the construction of an improvement necessary to
733 maintain the adopted or existing level of service, whichever has
734 the greater maximum service volume.
735 (c)(a) By December 1, 2006, Each local government shall
736 adopt by ordinance a methodology for assessing proportionate
737 fair-share mitigation options consistent with this section. By
738 December 1, 2005, the Department of Transportation shall develop
739 a model transportation concurrency management ordinance with
740 methodologies for assessing proportionate fair-share mitigation
741 options.
742 (d)(b)1. In its transportation concurrency management
743 system, a local government shall, by December 1, 2006, include
744 methodologies that will be applied to calculate proportionate
745 fair-share mitigation. A developer may choose to satisfy all
746 transportation concurrency requirements by contributing or
747 paying proportionate fair-share mitigation if transportation
748 facilities or facility segments identified as mitigation for
749 traffic impacts are specifically identified for funding in the
750 5-year schedule of capital improvements in the capital
751 improvements element of the local plan or the long-term
752 concurrency management system or if such contributions or
753 payments to such facilities or segments are reflected in the 5
754 year schedule of capital improvements in the next regularly
755 scheduled update of the capital improvements element. Updates to
756 the 5-year capital improvements element which reflect
757 proportionate fair-share contributions may not be found not in
758 compliance based on ss. 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3) if
759 additional contributions, payments or funding sources are
760 reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed 10 years to
761 fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities.
762 2. Proportionate fair-share mitigation shall be applied as
763 a credit against all transportation impact fees or any exactions
764 assessed for the traffic impacts of a development to the extent
765 that all or a portion of the proportionate fair-share mitigation
766 is used to address the same capital infrastructure improvements
767 contemplated by the local government's impact fee ordinance.
768 (e)(c) Proportionate fair-share mitigation includes,
769 without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds,
770 contributions of land, or and construction and contribution of
771 facilities and may include public funds as determined by the
772 local government. Proportionate fair-share mitigation may be
773 directed toward one or more specific transportation improvements
774 reasonably related to the mobility demands created by the
775 development and such improvements may address one or more modes
776 of travel. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share
777 mitigation may shall not differ based on the form of mitigation.
778 A local government may not require a development to pay more
779 than its proportionate fair-share contribution regardless of the
780 method of mitigation. Proportionate fair-share mitigation shall
781 be limited to ensure that a development meeting the requirements
782 of this section mitigates its impact on the transportation
783 system but is not responsible for the additional cost of
784 reducing or eliminating backlogs.
785 (f)(d) This subsection does not require a local government
786 to approve a development that is not otherwise qualified for
787 approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and
788 land development regulations; however, a development that
789 satisfies the requirements of s. 163.3180 shall not be denied on
790 the basis of a failure to mitigate its transportation impacts
791 under the local comprehensive plan or land development
792 regulations. This paragraph does not limit a local government
793 from imposing lawfully adopted transportation impact fees.
794 (g)(e) Mitigation for development impacts to facilities on
795 the Strategic Intermodal System made pursuant to this subsection
796 requires the concurrence of the Department of Transportation.
797 (h)(f) If the funds in an adopted 5-year capital
798 improvements element are insufficient to fully fund construction
799 of a transportation improvement required by the local
800 government's concurrency management system, a local government
801 and a developer may still enter into a binding proportionate
802 share agreement authorizing the developer to construct that
803 amount of development on which the proportionate share is
804 calculated if the proportionate-share amount in such agreement
805 is sufficient to pay for one or more improvements which will, in
806 the opinion of the governmental entity or entities maintaining
807 the transportation facilities, significantly benefit the
808 impacted transportation system. The improvements funded by the
809 proportionate-share component must be adopted into the 5-year
810 capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive plan at the
811 next annual capital improvements element update. The funding of
812 any improvements that significantly benefit the impacted
813 transportation system satisfies concurrency requirements as a
814 mitigation of the development's impact upon the overall
815 transportation system even if there remains a failure of
816 concurrency on other impacted facilities.
817 (i)(g) Except as provided in subparagraph (d)1. (b)1., this
818 section does may not prohibit the state land planning agency
819 Department of Community Affairs from finding other portions of
820 the capital improvements element amendments not in compliance as
821 provided in this chapter.
822 (j)(h) The provisions of This subsection does do not apply
823 to a development of regional impact satisfying the requirements
824 in of subsection (12).
825 (k) A developer shall not be required to fund or construct
826 proportionate share mitigation that is more extensive than
827 mitigation necessary to offset the impact of the development
828 project under review.
829 (l) The payment for such improvements that significantly
830 benefit the impacted transportation system satisfies concurrency
831 requirements as a mitigation of the development’s stage or phase
832 impacts upon the overall transportation system even if there
833 remains a failure of concurrency on other impacted facilities.
834 (m) As used in this subsection, the term:
835 1. “Backlogged” or “backlogged transportation facility”
836 means a facility on which the adopted level-of-service standard
837 is exceeded by the existing trips, plus background trips,
838 including transportation facilities that have exceeded their
839 useful life.
840 2. “Background trips” means forecasted trips from sources
841 other than the development project under review. Forecasted
842 trips shall be based on established traffic modeling standards.
843 (18) INCENTIVES FOR CONTRIBUTIONS.—Landowners or
844 developers, including landowners or developers of developments
845 of regional impact, who propose a large-scale development of 500
846 cumulative acres or more may satisfy all of the transportation
847 concurrency requirements by contributing or paying proportionate
848 share or proportionate fair-share mitigation. If such
849 contribution is made, a local government shall:
850 (a) Designate the traffic impacts for transportation
851 facilities or facility segments as mitigated for funding in the
852 5-year schedule of capital improvements in the capital
853 improvements element of the local comprehensive plan or the
854 long-term concurrency management system; or
855 (b) Reflect that the traffic impacts for transportation
856 facilities or facility segments are mitigated in the 5-year
857 schedule of capital improvements in the next regularly scheduled
858 update of the capital improvements element.
859 Updates to the 5-year capital improvements element which reflect
860 proportionate share or proportionate fair-share contributions
861 are deemed compliant with s. 163.3164(32) or s. 163.3177(3) if
862 additional contributions, payments, or funding sources are
863 reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed 10 years
864 and would fully mitigate impacts on the transportation
865 facilities and facility segments.
866 Section 4. Subsection (2) of section 163.3182, Florida
867 Statutes, is amended to read:
868 163.3182 Transportation concurrency backlogs.—
869 (2) CREATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY BACKLOG
870 AUTHORITIES.—
871 (a) A county or municipality may create a transportation
872 concurrency backlog authority if it has an identified
873 transportation concurrency backlog.
874 (b) No later than 2012, each local government that has an
875 identified transportation concurrency backlog shall adopt one or
876 more transportation concurrency backlog areas as part of its
877 capital improvements element update to its financially feasible
878 submission to the state land planning agency. On a biannual
879 basis, the creation of additional areas shall be submitted to
880 the state land planning agency until the local government has
881 demonstrated by no later than 2027 that the backlog existing in
882 2012 has been mitigated through construction or planned
883 construction of the necessary transportation mobility
884 improvements. If, because of economic conditions, the local
885 government cannot meet the biannual requirements of the capital
886 improvements update for new areas, it may request from the state
887 land planning agency a one-time waiver of the requirement to
888 file the biannual creation of new transportation concurrency
889 backlog authority areas.
890 (c) Landowners or developers within a large-scale
891 development area of 500 cumulative acres or more may request the
892 local government to create a transportation concurrency backlog
893 area coterminous with the boundaries of the development area. If
894 a development permit is issued or a comprehensive plan amendment
895 is approved within the development area, the local government
896 shall designate the transportation concurrency backlog area if
897 the funding is sufficient to address one or more transportation
898 capacity improvements necessary to satisfy the additional
899 deficiencies coexisting or anticipated with the new development.
900 The transportation concurrency backlog area shall be created by
901 ordinance and shall be used to satisfy all fair share or
902 proportionate fair-share transportation concurrency
903 contributions of the development which are not otherwise
904 satisfied by impact fees. The local government shall manage the
905 area acting as a transportation concurrency backlog authority
906 and all applicable provisions of this section apply, except that
907 the tax increment shall be used to satisfy transportation
908 concurrency requirements not otherwise satisfied by impact fees.
909 (d)(b) Acting as the transportation concurrency backlog
910 authority within the authority's jurisdictional boundary, the
911 governing body of a county or municipality shall adopt and
912 implement a plan to eliminate all identified transportation
913 concurrency backlogs within the authority's jurisdiction using
914 funds provided pursuant to subsection (5) and as otherwise
915 provided pursuant to this section.
916 (e) Notwithstanding any general law, special act, or
917 ordinance to the contrary, a local government shall not require
918 any payments for transportation concurrency beyond a subject
919 development’s traffic impacts as identified pursuant to impact
920 fees or s. 163.3180(12) or (16) nor shall a condition of a
921 development order or permit require such payments. If payments
922 required to satisfy a development’s share of transportation
923 concurrency costs do not mitigate all traffic impacts of the
924 planned development area because of existing or future backlog
925 conditions, the landowner or developer shall be entitled to
926 petition the local government for designation of a
927 transportation concurrency backlog area pursuant to this
928 section, which shall satisfy any remaining concurrency backlog
929 requirements in the impacted area.
930 Section 5. Paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of section
931 380.06, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:
932 380.06 Developments of regional impact.—
933 (7) PREAPPLICATION PROCEDURES.—
934 (a) Before filing an application for development approval,
935 the developer shall contact the regional planning agency having
936 with jurisdiction over the proposed development to arrange a
937 preapplication conference. Upon the request of the developer or
938 the regional planning agency, other affected state and regional
939 agencies shall participate in the this conference and shall
940 identify the types of permits issued by the agencies, the level
941 of information required, and the permit issuance procedures as
942 applied to the proposed development. The levels of service
943 required in the transportation methodology must be the same
944 levels of service used to evaluate concurrency and proportionate
945 share pursuant to s. 163.3180. The regional planning agency
946 shall provide the developer information to the developer
947 regarding about the development-of-regional-impact process and
948 the use of preapplication conferences to identify issues,
949 coordinate appropriate state and local agency requirements, and
950 otherwise promote a proper and efficient review of the proposed
951 development. If an agreement is reached regarding assumptions
952 and methodology to be used in the application for development
953 approval, the reviewing agencies may not subsequently object to
954 those assumptions and methodologies, unless subsequent changes
955 to the project or information obtained during the review make
956 those assumptions and methodologies inappropriate.
957 Section 6. Transportation mobility fee.—
958 (1) The Legislature finds that the existing transportation
959 concurrency system has not adequately addressed Florida’s
960 transportation needs in an effective, predictable, and equitable
961 manner and is not producing a sustainable transportation system
962 for the state. The current system is complex, lacks uniformity
963 among jurisdictions, is too focused on roadways to the detriment
964 of desired land use patterns and transportation alternatives,
965 results in unjustified financial inequities between comparable
966 applicants, and frequently prevents the attainment of important
967 growth management goals. Therefore, the Legislature has
968 determined that the state shall evaluate and, as deemed
969 feasible, implement a different adequate public facility
970 requirement for transportation which would utilize a mobility
971 fee based either on net external trip volume generated or
972 vehicle and people miles traveled. The mobility fee shall be
973 designed to provide for mobility needs, ensure that development
974 provides mitigation for its impacts on the transportation system
975 in approximate proportionality to those impacts, fairly
976 distribute financial burdens among all applicants for
977 development permits, and promote compact, mixed-use, and energy
978 efficient development. Therefore, the Legislature directs the
979 Department of Community Affairs and the Department of
980 Transportation, both of whom are currently performing
981 independent mobility fee studies, to coordinate and use those
982 studies in developing a methodology for a mobility fee system as
983 follows:
984 (a) The uniform mobility fee methodology for statewide
985 application shall replace the existing transportation
986 concurrency management systems adopted and implemented by local
987 governments. The independent, yet coordinated, studies shall
988 focus upon developing a methodology as follows:
989 1. The amount, distribution, and timing of vehicular and
990 people miles traveled shall be determined by applying
991 professionally accepted standards and practices in the
992 disciplines of land use and transportation planning, including
993 requirements of constitutional and statutory law;
994 2. The development of an equitable mobility fee which
995 provides funding for future mobility needs whereby new
996 development mitigates in approximate proportionality for its
997 impacts on the transportation system, yet is not delayed or held
998 accountable for system backlogs or failures that are not
999 directly attributable to the proposed development;
1000 3. The replacement of transportation financial feasibility
1001 obligations, proportionate share contributions for developments
1002 of regional impacts, proportionate fair-share contributions, and
1003 locally adopted transportation impact fees, with the mobility
1004 fee such that a single transportation fee, whether based on
1005 number of trips or vehicle miles traveled, may be applied
1006 uniformly on a statewide basis by application of the mobility
1007 fee formula developed by these studies;
1008 4. Applicability of the mobility fee on a statewide or more
1009 limited geographic basis and, if the latter, the preferred
1010 methodology in lieu of the existing concurrency or impact fee
1011 system for equitably mitigating transportation impacts from new
1012 development in those geographic areas where the mobility fee is
1013 not recommended;
1014 5. The ability for developer contributions of land for
1015 right-of-way or developer-funded improvements to the
1016 transportation network, to be recognized as credits against the
1017 mobility fee via mutually acceptable agreements reached with the
1018 impacted jurisdiction; and
1019 6. An equitable methodology for distribution of the
1020 mobility fee proceeds among those jurisdictions responsible for
1021 construction and maintenance of the impacted roadways, such that
1022 100 percent of the collected mobility fees are utilized for
1023 improvements to the overall transportation network of the
1024 impacted jurisdiction.
1025 (b) No later than February 15, 2010, the Secretary of
1026 Community Affairs and the Secretary of Transportation shall
1027 provide an interim joint report to the President of the Senate
1028 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives which contains
1029 the status of the mobility fee methodology study. A second
1030 interim joint report shall be provided on or before February 15,
1031 2011. On or before December 1, 2010, the Department of Community
1032 Affairs, with input from the Department of Transportation, shall
1033 develop and submit to the Legislature proposed amendments to
1034 chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, incorporating the
1035 mobility fee methodology developed from the studies. The 2011
1036 Legislature shall consider the amendments and approve as
1037 submitted, approve with revisions, or reject. If approved as
1038 submitted, the amendments shall go into effect on July 1, 2011.
1039 If approved with revisions, the Department of Community Affairs
1040 shall adopt the amendments as revised such that they will become
1041 effective not later than July 1, 2011. The Legislature declares
1042 that changes made to chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code,
1043 pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to rule
1044 challenges under s. 120.56(2), Florida Statutes, or to drawout
1045 proceedings under s. 120.54(3)(c)2., Florida Statutes.
1046 (2) In order to facilitate the replacement of the current
1047 dysfunctional transportation concurrency system, the Legislature
1048 directs that s. 163.3180, Florida Statutes, relating to
1049 transportation, be repealed effective October 1, 2012, unless
1050 the amendments to chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, are
1051 rejected and s. 163.3180, Florida Statutes, is reenacted by the
1052 Legislature.
1053 Section 7. The Legislature directs the Department of
1054 Transportation to establish an approved transportation
1055 methodology which recognizes that a planned, sustainable, or
1056 self-sufficient development area will likely achieve a community
1057 internal capture rate in excess of 30 percent when fully
1058 developed. A sustainable or self-sufficient development area
1059 consists of 500 acres or more of large-scale developments
1060 individually or collectively designed to achieve self
1061 containment by providing a balance of land uses to fulfill a
1062 majority of the community’s needs. The adopted transportation
1063 methodology shall use a regional transportation model that
1064 incorporates professionally accepted modeling techniques
1065 applicable to well-planned, sustainable communities of the size,
1066 location, mix of uses, and design features consistent with such
1067 communities. The adopted transportation methodology shall serve
1068 as the basis for sustainable or self-sufficient development’s
1069 traffic impact assessments by the department. The methodology
1070 review must be completed and in use no later than July 1, 2009.
1071 Section 8. This act shall take effect July 1, 2009.