| 1 | Representative Workman offered the following: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 | Amendment |
| 4 | Remove lines 3448-3485 and insert: |
| 5 | b. The proportionate-share contribution or construction is |
| 6 | sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements that |
| 7 | will benefit a regionally significant transportation facility. |
| 8 | c.(I) The local government has provided a means by which |
| 9 | the landowner will be assessed a proportionate share of the cost |
| 10 | of providing the transportation facilities necessary to serve |
| 11 | the proposed development. An applicant shall not be held |
| 12 | responsible for the additional cost of reducing or eliminating |
| 13 | deficiencies. |
| 14 | (II) When an applicant contributes or constructs its |
| 15 | proportionate share pursuant to this subparagraph, a local |
| 16 | government may not require payment or construction of |
| 17 | transportation facilities whose costs would be greater than a |
| 18 | development's proportionate share of the improvements necessary |
| 19 | to mitigate the development's impacts. |
| 20 | (A) The proportionate-share contribution shall be |
| 21 | calculated based upon the number of trips from the proposed |
| 22 | development expected to reach roadways during the peak hour from |
| 23 | the stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the |
| 24 | peak hour maximum service volume of roadways resulting from |
| 25 | construction of an improvement necessary to maintain or achieve |
| 26 | the adopted level of service, multiplied by the construction |
| 27 | cost, at the time of development payment, of the improvement |
| 28 | necessary to maintain or achieve the adopted level of service. |
| 29 | (B) In using the proportionate-share formula provided in |
| 30 | this subparagraph, the applicant, in its traffic analysis, shall |
| 31 | identify those roads or facilities that have a transportation |
| 32 | deficiency in accordance with the transportation deficiency as |
| 33 | defined in sub-subparagraph e. The proportionate-share formula |
| 34 | provided in this subparagraph shall be applied only to those |
| 35 | facilities that are determined to be significantly impacted by |
| 36 | the project traffic under review. If any road is determined to |
| 37 | be transportation deficient without the project traffic under |
| 38 | review, the costs of correcting that deficiency shall be removed |
| 39 | from the project's proportionate-share calculation and the |
| 40 | necessary transportation improvements to correct that deficiency |
| 41 | shall be considered to be in place for purposes of the |
| 42 | proportionate-share calculation. The improvement necessary to |
| 43 | correct the transportation deficiency is the funding |
| 44 | responsibility of the entity that has maintenance responsibility |
| 45 | for the facility. The development's proportionate share shall be |
| 46 | calculated only for the needed transportation improvements that |
| 47 | are greater than the identified deficiency. |
| 48 | (C) When the provisions of this subparagraph have been |
| 49 | satisfied for a particular stage or phase of development, all |
| 50 | transportation impacts from that stage or phase for which |
| 51 | mitigation was required and provided shall be deemed fully |
| 52 | mitigated in any transportation analysis for a subsequent stage |
| 53 | or phase of development. Trips from a previous stage or phase |
| 54 | that did not result in impacts for which mitigation was required |
| 55 | or provided may be cumulatively analyzed with trips from a |
| 56 | subsequent stage or phase to determine whether an impact |
| 57 | requires mitigation for the subsequent stage or phase. |
| 58 | (D) In projecting the number of trips to be generated by |
| 59 | the development under review, any trips assigned to a toll- |
| 60 | financed facility shall be eliminated from the analysis. |
| 61 | (E) The applicant shall receive a credit on a dollar-for- |
| 62 | dollar basis for impact fees, mobility fees, and other |
| 63 | transportation concurrency mitigation requirements paid or |
| 64 | payable in the future for the project. The credit shall be |
| 65 | reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the |
| 66 | project's traffic represents of the added capacity of the |
| 67 | selected improvement, or by the amount specified by local |
| 68 | ordinance, whichever yields the greater credit. |
| 69 | d. This subsection does not require a local government to |
| 70 | approve a development that is not otherwise qualified for |
| 71 | approval pursuant to the applicable local comprehensive plan and |
| 72 | land development regulations. |
| 73 | e. As used in this subsection, the term "transportation |
| 74 | deficiency" means a facility or facilities on which the adopted |
| 75 | level-of-service standard is exceeded by the existing, |
| 76 | committed, and vested trips, plus additional projected |
| 77 | background trips from any source other than the development |
| 78 | project under review, and trips that are forecast by established |
| 79 | traffic standards, including traffic modeling, consistent with |
| 80 | the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business |
| 81 | Research medium population projections. Additional projected |
| 82 | background trips are to be coincident with the particular stage |
| 83 | or phase of development under review. |
| 84 |
|