STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Concurrency Management System Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) was most recently updated on October 22, 2008. Shortly after implementation began, it became apparent to staff that there were some unintended consequences associated with the new Manual that were hindering redevelopment and expansions to existing development. The proposed changes are designed to encourage increased densities and intensities through redevelopment of existing developed sites.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve recommended changes to the Manual as shown in Attachment 1.
FISCAL IMPACT
These changes will result in the collection of fewer mitigation dollars for projects that had a development component previously approved for concurrency. However, given the economic downturn, it appears that redevelopment will only occur if a different review process, which gives credit for trips associated with previously approved development, is established. These changes will encourage higher densities and intensities, thus minimizing the costs associated with urban sprawl.
Robert L. Herman, Director, Growth Management Department
Anita Favors Thompson, Growth Management Department
For information, please contact: Dwight Arnold (850) 891-7100
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL/ISSUE ANALYSIS
HISTORY/FACTS & ISSUES
When the Concurrency Manual
was last revised on October 22, 2008, staff did not anticipate that under certain
circumstances mitigation costs associated with expansions to existing developments
would be excessive. However, upon implementation of the new Manual provisions,
it became apparent that concurrency mitigation assessments associated with small
project expansions could be inordinately high because of the method in which
new impacts are required to be aggregated ("considered cumulatively")
with existing developments. The purpose of this agenda item is to propose revisions
to concurrency aggregation criteria, which will result in small expansion projects
with a prior approved component being treated in a more equitable manner.
Specifically, the proposed revisions would aggregate all development for purposes
of determining project traffic analysis impact areas and whether significance
thresholds have been exceeded, but would give credit in the proportionate share
formula for the trips associated with all previously approved development. In
other words, the trips associated with the existing (approved) development will
not apply directly toward calculation of the proportionate share payment but
they will be included in the calculation of the size of the project impact area,
and whether significance thresholds have been exceeded. In addition, the proposal
would revise current criteria so that development, which has existed for 5,
or more years, would not be subject to aggregation at all (existing criteria
uses a 10-year cut-off). The full details of the changes to the Manual are shown
in Attachments 1 and 2. We have also included, in Attachment 3, copies of approvals
of a development that has been amended several times and which shows how confusing
and complex implementation of the old rules can become.
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Approve recommended changes to the Manual as shown in Attachment 1.
• Pros: Encourages redevelopment to occur.
• Cons: Collects less mitigation dollars.
2. Approve recommended changes to the Manual as shown in Attachment 2.
• Pros: Encourages redevelopment to occur.
• Cons: Collects less mitigation dollars but more than under Attachment 1.
3. Do not approve the recommended changes.
• Pros: Larger mitigation dollars would be collected.
• Cons: Redevelopment will be slower.
4. Provide alternative direction to staff.
ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES
1. Proposed
Concurrency Manual Language with 5-Year Threshold
2. Proposed Concurrency Manual Language with 10-Year Threshold
3. Example of a Development That Illustrates the Problems
Associated with the Existing Concurrency Manual