e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e is this is meet can we call the meeting to order um we don't have any that's only for this thing it's live now yes live now can we call the meeting to order do we have minutes to approve no NOP no minutes then we'll go right into the staff report Clyde Duan good evening members of the local planning agency my name is Clyde duelan for the record I'm the comprehensive planning administrator with me is a new planner in our department Jenna Noby I'd like to introduce her to you all um she's done a lot of the work on chapter one even though my names on it U so I'm going to turn it over to her in just a second this is a perfect example of housekeeping this this chapter has very few changes the one major change we had to do was to recognize uh a new date in statute and the rest of it is really just minor housekeeping changes so our ear-based amendments are typically housekeeping and Florida statute driven and um so this is the first of three public hearings the last one won't occur until first quarter of next year Mr Duan can you just announce the title of this public hearing and what we are hearing today please sure this is NPH number one uh it is comprehensive plan Amendment 2401 Preamble uh this is uh chapter one of the comprehensive growth management plan thank you and with that I'll let Jenna go ahead and uh do a rundown on the changes good evening members of the local planning agency uh my name is jeni planner with the comprehensive or yeah comprehensive planning division of the growth Management Department as Clyde mentioned this is a proposed text amendment to chapter one of the comprehensive plan as part of the Year process which is evaluation and appraisal report so with uh the staff report that was made part of this agenda packet page three outlines the proposed changes to chapter 1 section 1.7 B housing unit demand projection is proposed for revision to remove the reference to the Indiantown urban service District And to clarify that Parcels within Incorporated municipalities are not included in the housing unit demand projection for unincorporated Martin County a similar revision is proposed for Section 1.7 C residential capacity calculations to also remove ref reference to the Indiantown urban service District And to clarify that Parcels within Incorporated municipalities are not included in residential capacity calculations for unincorporated Martin County also in section 1.7 C residential capacity calculations we are revising the existing 15-year planning period language to now specify a 20-year planning period and this change is consistent with Section 163 3. 3177 of Florida statute the remainder of the changes in chapter one are as Clyde mentioned housekeeping with renumbering sections for accuracy and ensuring that any references to those sections that are renumbered are updated accordingly so that concludes staff's presentation for chapter 1 and we are available to answer any questions uh I have a question can you tell me why to why bringing up the language of the secondary urban service boundary within Indian town is Germaine because it's my understanding that we took Indian Town off of our criteria many years ago certainly right around the time that new Fields was being approved that's that's absolutely true um and I'm going to go to the map here briefly and show you uh the village of Indiantown did uh consume the entire primary and secondary urban service District when they annexed I'm sorry when they Incorporated in uh 2017 what am I looking for here there we are but then they de annexed a portion of the secondary urban service District the the the residents in this subdivision called little Ranch Estates want it out so this area right here where you see the secondary urban service District hatching it's not in the village anymore it's in unincorporated Martin County and our plan policy calls for identifying everything in unincorporated primary and secondary urban service District what I'll do is I'll turn on the um oh Municipal boundaries and so you can see how the municipal boundary hatching the blue and white going this way covers everything else except this little sliver right here and little Ranch Estates so um it's appropriate to recognize that this needs to be picked up as part of our uh residential Capacity Analysis calculations and uh the rest and to reaffirm that the rest of it will not be included in our residential Capacity Analysis calculations the other question I have is about changing from 15 to 20 year go there while we while we're on Indian town so to the right what is that you mean this yeah that long strip um that is a strip of land that has an agricultural future land use designation that is uh not in the village and uh I can't tell you how that got secondary urban service District on it okay go ahead Jim I'm sorry no no I'm just I'm concerned and curious why go from 15 to 20 year uh Horizon for uh capacity it seems as though it's harder to predict further out and it also um makes controlling growth considerably more difficult I believe that the intent with that statute was to change the existing Horizons from 5 to 10 years to 10 to 20 years if that's correct or I believe Florida statute uh is the the driving force for this and it says 10 and 20 it says that we will use planning periods of 10 and 20 years and so that's where we're for a card to go that that bothers me it concerns me a lot it's it's a change that we're going to have to make in most of the chapters of the plan that we're dealing that we have um that we're bringing to you yeah well I mean we also can use a 10-year planning Horizon as well or instead of it it it does require a 10e okay but we're we're projecting out 20 years for our capacity which I think is you know a very long time out into the future and also provides a certain amount of residential capacity in the near term that may not actually be real that may be the case um that's I mean that's my opinion I I think that it's going to be uh utilized to expand our urban service boundary prematurely any other comments taking Jim's concerns what do we do with your concern go to tenure oh no I'm just saying so what do we do with his concern and how do we address it we're here for a reason I hope besides just making a concern known once in a while well uh the the 10-year planning period will still be a requirement and we'll be able to do that uh we'll we'll be continuing to do that that if you wish when we get to uh if you if you're if you're making a recommendation to change the residential Capacity Analysis to to in some way in the future no I think I you know I think that we have certain standards that the county has adopted for decades and we have in the last recent history done a pretty good job of of changing some of that planning capacity and and the urban service capacity residential capacity has been you know one of the strong legs that Martin County's growth management department has stood on and I think that it's being diminished it concerns me a lot um Mr Moore U go ahead leise I was just going to say we're required by Statute to include that 20-year plan we have to at least do the first 10-year and this and a 20-year plan we can do a 5-year plan and a 15-year plan add on to it but we have to do the 20-year plan per statute so Elise we do we will be doing a 10-year plan correct we're required to and we will be doing then a 20year plan because that's also part of that same statute it's a 20-year period planning period yes and the other alternative would be a 5-year plan and a 15-year plan no no it would be 5 10 15 20 like we have to do the 10 and 20 at least the 10 and 20 you can do more but we're required to do the 10 and 20 but but if the language that says that we will have a 15year horizon for our residential capacity doesn't change to conform with that and I have no evidence that it will then we're we're changing the numbers Midstream and it concerns me that this will be used as a another way to move the urban service boundary further out to agricultural lands where I want to go so what do you what what kind of language would suit you if we got to do 10 and we got to do a 20 I think a 5 10 and and 15 and 20 year plan is the best we can do but I think we need to change the language in there that says that our residential capacity is being reassessed every 5 years not at a you know not at a 20-year you know we have to do capacity well 20e but we have to do 5 10 15 20 well we don't have to do five and 15 no we don't but we can and we should well it gets to be kind of I mean I I don't care if it's five or 15 but it does get to be kind of expensive this this plan is due when this year will be due when by by must all the items must be Paul Shilling for the record growth management director so the um the transmittals of these the all chapters are due by November 27th I believe but but Clyde told us it wasn't going to be finished until January that's correct the transmitt hearing we have to transmit it to the state land planning agency before November 27 they will then have 60 days to review and provide uh comments or objections and then we will bring it back to the board of County Commissioners for adoption but my my point is it takes how many years to to put a residential Capacity Analysis together and what what's the expense uh it's certainly a complicated Endeavor um um that varies on the scale of we put one together in December of 2023 and and and produced it um how long did it take you to do that it took us the better part of 2023 so I think my point is not it would be nice if we had them more frequently but because of what what it takes to do them I also understand what you're trying to accomplish by not doing so many of them and I don't know how much information we get with a fi on a five-year window because it's actually a three-year window when you when you take a look at everything and just for some context I don't want to confuse matters but the transportation we're looking at 25e plans so well that's that's by uh that's FD isn't it mhm yes so yeah anyways I I was as cons not as concerned as Jim no one could be ever but I I I I picked up the same thing and now from Alisa's explanation and from what I see it takes to do these things it it's just would be one more report that nobody would read in my anal and it wouldn't be an accurate analysis well I I respectfully disagree think that it's been you know it was it was probably the reason newfields passed it's certainly going to be utilized by a lot of development interests to move our urban service boundary in the very near term well Newfield was passed because it was time and it was a good location and it was a good project and it's something the county needed well and that's why Newfield passed that's part of the reason Newfield pass well it's a big reason but if you if you want to prop a motion to say I want this in there we we'll be glad to entertain it and direct Clyde to I think we should we should know what our residential capacity is on a regular basis we should know what's been sold and what's available that's what I'm saying if you want to propose a motion to set tell Clyde to put five years in there we'll entertain it okay I will'll make a motion to put a five-year window for our residential capacity any seconds we need to ask for public comment before you vote okay well let's before we have a second on the motion you could you can second and then do public comment I just vote there no seconds the motion failed yeah I was just I was just W for the mo for the motion no I agree that's fine I just wanted to make sure you didn't vote like real quick after oh we we done with comments yeah motion and and failed so to get a second so public comment anybody in the public any any public comment I'll move that we recommend approval of this to the commission I'll second it all in favor I well now you need public comment before the eye no it's okay now you already ask for public comment I already asked for public comment I'm opposed okay motion car I mean is approved thank you very much thank you thank you it is and it is on slide deck on page [Music] 69 uh members of the local planning agency my name is Clyde duelan again for the record this is NPH number two this is is comprehensive plan Amendment 24-5 this is a transportation element chapter 5 of the comprehensive growth management plan and with me is Luke Lambert uh also uh is available is Lisa wixer for uh questions uh and I'm going to go to the slide deck and turn it over to Luke uh to go through the details but I will say that like like the last one this is largely housekeeping this is rearranging text for organization purposes this is compliance with State Statute uh you see a lot of things happening in this chapter but not a lot of con not a lot of change in policy so um I'll let Luke give you the the details and the specifics good evening I am definitely not Samantha love [Laughter] lady I don't know your vo is it as [Laughter] deep that's weird yeah okay so you guys have a very thorough um staff summary in front of you all and I'm going to run through a couple of slides and we could go back and forth to try and help everybody um as Clyde pointed out this was like largely a reorganization um a passion project of of Public Works staff on making this as easily digestible as possible and so um the features were reordered consistently across it so if you looked um basically the existing conditions and future needs were updated for consistency with statutes and studies and guidance and um the big thing is I'm going to go back to this Matrix so Clyde can we go to you're looking at uh the issues and it's page three page three perfect so 79 is our slideshow okay and go down one more so this is a matrix showing the existing structure of chapter 5 on the left and the proposed on the right and um some of the titles might have slightly changed to to be more consistent with what's going on so for instance 5.3 B used to be called public transportation um we've nailed that down to now being like existing Transit um we reorg airports so that would fit through but the uh The Matrix that you see here was drafted to try and be the easiest method of digesting this document so um Railroad and SE ports those are still there and then when you get into section 5.4 on the existing we've now moved that to it's still future Transportation needs so slight rename and then you know we have them following so I'm going to go back to 79 or's 80 not 80 okay so as I just mentioned um the background we move the purpose and intent to the beginning and we added an emphasis on our multimodal system so I'm not sure if you are all aware but uh the board of County Commissioners adopted you know safe Street STW action plan so they're moving towards that multimodal Network that multimodal system um and another big thing that's a new goal here is they added a resiliency objective and so our environmental Resource Management division has kind of been heading that resiliency charge for us and so these are just kind of new things that have been added into chapter 5 explicitly so this there we go do that there we go okay so in roadways one of the new things for for this chapter is and really an annual basis we produce the roadway needs assessment and that's where we look at our transportation Network I believe we talked about that last time we were discussing a project in the roadways and the quality level of service concept has been updated um we could go deeper into that but essentially the big picture is we moved to what's called context classifications and the vulnerability assessment that I mentioned this is a graphic of what context classification means this is done largely by the Florida Department of Transportation and their goal was to kind of be more um have like a Statewide look at this and really it's kind of like what do motorists expect on the roadways and so the sentence is really the key thing when you're in a rural environment you expect less congestion and when you're in an urban environment you kind of expect that type of situation and so if you look through their C1 which is our natural areas that's like completely untouched um think of like the Everglades when you're out there and then moving down a C6 would be like a downtown Miami Martin County does not have any c6s we don't have any c5s I believe C4 is the is the most Urban context that we have and we assigned that during our 20123 roadway level of service inventory report so so 5.1 is the existing roadway needs 5.5 or sorry 5.5 is the roadway needs where we clear ify our short and long-term forecasting methods so when I mentioned that rowy needs assessment we do that's where we actually doing transportation we do our fiveyear Outlook so we're we're capturing CS in 2023 and then we're projecting those out five years and then 10 years for that and that's really our short range analysis that traffic that Public Works does um and then I whispered in pause a year earlier the longrange transportation plan is a 25-year Horizon document that's really our long range forecasting for traffic um goal three was updated one of the big things is they're used to be called level service um no stand standards they were level service standards excuse me and the States move to targets as they call them so each year the Florida Department of Transportation they issue this memo and they update their level of service Target and uh generally in an urban area it's level of service D and certain Cy facilities certain uh State Highway facilities um could be a c so for instance Warfield Boulevard out in Indiantown is a level service C it's a little slightly different so whereas when you're in downtown the city of Stewart sets their own level of service on their roadways so I believe their level of service F so so Pathways um you know we wanted to reor we have a very good um transportation Network asset inventory and so our sidewalks really what create our existing Pathways and uh when we get to the figures I don't know if you've all looked at those but um we've taken a look at those we've scaled back if the previous figures had in you know 10t wide multimodal path we've re we we changed the graphic to show 8f Footers we kind of had more of those we got some of those um constructed with various development projects but um that that shows you also our bike lanes and our um paved shoulder facilities so um so the pathways you know they reflect the current fa facilities and our crash mitigation strategies chapter 5 is really that document that is what instructs Public Works to do on those annual basis so it instructs us to do the roadway needs assessment it instructs us biannually to do um the crash surveillance report so this is just kind of mentioning those things that we do and then for pathway needs I mean it describes the efforts of how we prioritize our future projects um be it through our County CIP through the transportation Improvement program through the mo so and all that gets into the fdot work program our CIP doesn't exactly but um and the newest thing here for Pathways which is something new that we haven't done yet is um with Pathways there's what's called um level traffic level stress conflicts and that's basically this graphic here um when you have people of all ages feeling comfortable using a facility so when usually when you think about the separated Pathways like the one we got built on willab be Boulevard recently that's offset from the roadway you know generous 15 plus 20 ft and the facility itself is 10t wide so that would be furthest to the left on the graphic here like a level service one and level service 4 is more of your on-road bike facilities with no buffer where you're you know you have the most level stress if you will so not everyone uses those facilities so what's the acronym for level of stress it's a new one I mean it says LTS on the graphic but LTS it's a LTS Los essentially yeah now they're Lots though they're targets not service yeah and this one is yeah traffic so traffic stress um goal 4.5 clarifies jurisdiction the state highway system um we transfer roadways um back and forth sometimes and so um that's the major thing there moving into Transit so Ash beer is our Transit a Transit administrator up in public works um they just completed their Transit development plan and uh the board has weighed in on that and so we're moving forward with some different directions from the board but this really just is house cleaning that kind of updates that the big thing that's new with that is the transit capacity quality of service and the M escapes me I wrote it down here man manual manual manual sorry and um what that goes over is essentially when you're a Transit user you're looking for frequency of service your coverage of network the hours of operation um your perceived travel time access and reliability so those are the big targets there in TC qsm new eadm for me so those Target haven't been established yet by like Martin County so moving into airports um really just a reorg um the Andrew McBean the airport administrator he just uh updated their 2023 master plan and that talks about their operational forecast date and stuff like that and uh the goals were just upgrade updated to you know reflect current facilities so Railroad um as you know the FEC tracks were double tracked throughout the large majority of the of the area here um the St Lucy river is still the single track um you know State legislatur um I think done some Appropriations to work on that facility and uh really we're just describing some of our future needs and you know provide for a transportation Network that's effectively coordinated railroad operations so today there was definitely some not some uncoordination we had some gate issues at Florida and ml okay and that was a rail strictly a rail issue although the signals are obviously impacted because of the rail preemption but we're working with with bright line and FC on all those facilities all the time moving in the waterways um this is largely like an Mo effort the Metropolitan plane organization um the facilities here obviously the St Lucy Inlet the intercal Waterway and the St Lucy River um the mo has done their own waterways plan and identified some of these and uh you know SE port is a big component with fdot um and yeah it recognizes Sports and maintains Marine Transportation as a driver of local economics Recreation enjoyment really enjoyment is what I think of in this this region we don't quite have that deep sea port that the Port of Palm Beach has and the port of Fort Pierce has and then if interested I could go over the figures um but if I have no further presentation open for questions uh a couple questions um one of the points made was that you were looking for proportional contributions for um um oh I'm forgetting the phrase [Music] um basically paying for a roadway construction um in a proportional I've forgotten the language that was used proportional share share thank youel um I I the only experience that I can recall that we have with that was not terribly successful on Cove Road and um caner Highway and I I just think that this sets us up for uh development not paying for the roadway that actually deserves and needs to be upgraded um when we talk about level of service being qualitative now um it concerns me that without having sort of a matrix for when a roadway starts to fail um we do something about it because you know I think we need to have a trigger that is clearly defined as a level of service that is unacceptable um do we have any definition of what constitutes a motorized vehicle um it concerns me because it seems to be changing a lot I mean we have a lot more electrified Vehicles now on both M multimodal and sidewalks okay any um we'll start with those so I'm not sure if there's an explicit definition in the comp plan on that but what Transportation folks generally call like a single occupancy vehicle is anything kind of with four wheels that's that's able to drive on the roadways and so like just this is a for instance just off the top of my head normally when you access the interstate highway like I95 you'll see that sign on the side of the road that says no motor vehicles with less than like 35 horsepower so that might be defined in stfe statute for inable to to post that but with regards to like electric bicycles those are bicycles those are two wheel bicycles in the mind of I believe the state um I don't what about scooters and other two whe vehicles that are not Vehicles so it might equal it might need to equal up to that 35 horsepower equivalent right like so electric vehicles have large masses of torque they have large the sheriff's department has a definition of what a vehicle is and what can come on the highway and what can come on the road so we worked with the shiff Department on that definition so that's like that's golf carts low speed Vehicles so low speed vehicles that are allowed on Martin County streets have to become registered vehicles with a DMV you have to have you know mirrors turn lights any vehicle on the county on the on any any road I'm sorry Lisa wixer I'm the um Chief project manager I think Chief project engineer for Public Works um any vehicle that's on a on a thorough Fair of whether it be County or state or federal has to be registered okay um the and and your point about the standard versus the target the the the handbook that we're using that I think was attached to the agenda item as well does have tables like they we've always just referred to the table in here um we use those things so there are triggers of what what changes the the the Capac or the the capacity of the road is set so that if the the um the measured traffic that's carried on the road exceeds that Target then it would go into an e and what we put in here is that if that continues over several years then we will call it a failing roadway the trouble is that we have seasonal use and without having sort of the the calculation in front of us we allow it to slide no we we do this every year um and we use those tables to and we we verify and analyze using we count traffic on a lot of our roads 247 and there was what's called a peak seasonal Factor so during the month of June and July usually at our lowest counts we apply a factor when we do studies and do projections but when you C when you collect that data we're doing it in yeah like four times a year we do have constant data where we're collecting traffic volumes 247 365 we're doing it at least four times a year if not consistently and is that in the manual is that reference in the manual that that shall be done no so no so Martin County we collect our traffic volumes here and the the Department of Transportation they obviously collect a lot of traffic um vehicle data and so there's not it's not really specified so that's why peak season factors are created so when so the the Florida Department of transportations they're 24/7 365 count station is towards the base of the Roosevelt Bridge they have multiples and so do we and so that's your constant survey correct like you're you're doing that every single day of the year Christmas we know that that's inflated actually so we apply an adjustment factor to when we do any projections so we know when our high months are we know when our low months are and when we need to apply those factors so those are commonly used for like a traffic signal warrant right so if if we go out say we need to go out tomorrow and collect account we we've find an appropriate close local with 365 days of accounts and we will apply that seasonal seasonal factor to our short count if you will okay so and I guess my concern is that there's a lot of detail in in the comp plan and especially in this element why aren't we saying that to the public who reads the comp I know that was a reach the comp plan is this big overarching guide that tells us to do things and the public works department produces reports that dive deeper into those issues and so that roadway needs assessment gives you the details on that thing it doesn't say it doesn't tell you that we count four years or four times a year basically on most of our roadways but we can like staff can and that's how we truth these things and when a developer submits a traffic impact analysis we look at the time of year and we we com we constantly get that right oh they counted over the weekend and we're aware of all events that happened so roadways get skewed right if there's a a a crash on Turnpike or I95 near High Meadow traffic diverts we're aware of those and we throw out those anomalies if we need to so we're pretty much aware of most of that stuff so along the same lines we've got now levels of stress we've got we've got we've got levels of service in targets um and and it's seems as though we're we're really just changing language um to mean the same thing I mean there are levels of service there are roadways that are not at I mean that are at capacity and number but obviously condition and or circumstances make them much more stressful and much less useful um you know from a pathway perspective I'll tell you that the roadway condition is a major issue um and if there's not a bike path if there's not a large shoulder and the road is in terrible shape as a bicyclist it's a pain literally that would be well of traffic stress is actually like it's a fairly New Concept it was really just published in the 2023 ftq manual and so um it's not new but it's kind of new in this context so um that's an exercise that I happen to do down in Palm Beach County if you could have imagine so if you're riding a bicycle along okobe Boulevard that's a much different experience than riding along like um Central Parkway in Jupiter right like so that's what this kind of gets to and the do I've heard you know key figures there often say would I let my grandma or my six-year-old ride a bike there like that's where this is kind of trying to get to right so we want to strive to have a majority of L lts1 facilities so that they're just available they're alternative trans you know mode of transportation where everyone feels comfortable and knowing that sometimes you do need to provide an LTS 4 for some of those commuters who who have to get to work who are doing that I mean certain times rights of way are constrained um the building envelope kind of constrains our rights away so we're going to you know set a target of what we try to strive for and I don't know if we're going to measure it linearly but well I was just going to say I think this the the the revision to this chapter sets it up so that is it's in there before it just said we rely on the longrange plan so this kind of says here's what we do here's what's here the de today and here's what we we'll be doing in the future in order to get us there so this is the first time it's been in there to set it up for the future as a plan um and then there's a goal for it as well which wasn't there before right and then the board will adopt that and then Public Works will and you know we all strive to reach that for Martin County okay um and I guess you know this is a a comment from a water quality perspective um the Mo's recommendations for dredging everywhere are not going to be good for water quality and um they are not going to be good for Habitat health and I have a really hard time supporting tring everywhere in the St Louis Estuary to make Recreation more easy um you know it does not make it a healthier Estuary to keep dredging operations going um it does not make it a healthier Estuary to to pretend that cerno is is a seport again um I I I'm very concerned that that is included sort of as our our our wishful thinking for this Estuary um the idea of of passeng dri areas from Fort Pierce to Stewart is pretty pie in the sky um it would be you know directly competing with our recreational industry here if we were to have high-speed fairies you know moving from from uh for Pius to Stewart I I would I would disagree with you on dredging everywhere yeah there's places not to dredge but the manatee pocket if you dredge it and get all the silt and the mud out of it if it's an environmental dredging project the water quality is going to be better there are plenty of places that dredging should be done to make the water quality better so don't let's not put a blank statement I think if you don't say things like environmental dredging it won't get done what do you mean it won't get done it won't be environmentally dredging it'll be just another spoil and and uh pipe operation and that will have negative effects on their water usually if you clean up the the mud and the silt anywhere in the St Lucy River you're going to improve the water quality I I think that there's an enormous amount of suspended solids in the water column as it is sure there is but if you pump off off the bottom so when it sloshes you don't get that Silk released if you can go back to sand and get get the cleaner you get that bottom the less when when has an environmental dredging operation in in the Martin County actually gone down to clean sand well it's a lot cleaner in the manatee pocket than it used to be before before we're we off course here I think do you want to say something someone um Mr Lambert's going to pull up the text exactly but I Leisa can paraphrase um so the reason this is in here is because it struck me that we didn't have anything in this chapter that talked about Marine Transportation it talked about the fact that there was a sea port in Fort Pierce and one in West Palm and I was like what does that have to do with Martin County and how much money do we spend every year dredging the inlet to keep it open so I went back to the Waterway plan and that's where this came from and that Waterway plan was it was a a plan that was done with Martin and St Lucy County um and so those things about the the fairies that came in there that's in the text but it's not part of the goal the goal was to keep the inlet open and to keep the the manatee pocket and then to develop a group that would identify other areas that need to be dredged and I think that's where that group would identify the environmental dredging for you so just as a I mean if you want to propose different language in the future plan portion of it so the way it was set up before there was just a paragraph that talked about railroads and sea ports and it was it this is I mean it's aspirational language here's what's existing here's what we're proposing and here's a goal that goes with it and most of the most of the comp plan is aspirational word no I don't and so this one right here is giving us a really road map but here's what's important to the county keeping the inlet open making recreational boating safer cleaning the river the best we can and those are all good things then then use that as the as the goal I mean I think that deepen channel in manate Pocket the county considered deepening a channel to enable deeper draft vessels has said nothing about environmental impact if you do one you going get the other no not more often not would disagree this came from the N yes so what's the experts say so this this language came from an adopted plan from the Metropolitan planning organization that Lisa mentioned mention that was done in conjunction with st lcy County so that plan itself would have gone through the whole no public process there would have been advisory committees and so it's just definitely a document that if you're interested please review it and if there are certain things that we could address with the text this is the time but we need to look at that explicit plan itself so well I mean if you wanted to add language or tweak the language certainly you could propose something you know I think that that environmental dredging and and I'll use Bard County soral program as an example of environmental dredging for the health of the Estuary as its primary purpose is an important difference between what we're talking about here which is maintenance dredging and or deepening channels for vessel traffic so J take a boat out right now you go to coming out of the manatee pocket and if you look at where the Hellgate is if you see what's happened with the Shing there it's really bad well that's because the Channel's in the wrong place but go guys guys let's get back to what we're here for not anything else I I think those that discussion is in a different element that's in the coastal element not in the trans Transportation element this talking about Transportation boating and and if they want to have a highspeed ferry from Fort Pierce down to here keep the channel open where they can do that and it's Pie in the Sky I agree with Jim on that one of the few things I agree that's pie in the sky that ain't happening but that's okay if they want to somebody wants to try it and that's what you know the transportation element really supports the County's goals it's important to maybe know like what the purpose of the mo is the Metropolitan planarization like they're for they allow us to receive federal funding St funding and so their portion of that plan was to do that and so in large urban areas they really prioritize their SE ports because that's how they receive federal funding and so we didn't say that we want that that's why that wasn't put in there Fort Pierce and Palm Beach are the deep water ports you know Martin County was is more and we're actually part of St Lucy County's plan exactly in all so anyways uh any more comment yeah I mean I have a I have too and I and I'm not going to say what I'm moving not going to move forward with it but I think our public transportation is completely ridiculous even to put it in here is crazy because we don't have public transportation and I know one commissioner listens to these meetings I know no one else none of the others really do but I will tell you that it's a shame to spend Millions millions of dollars on on the Marty system and and spend $36 a ride to have nobody ride it so if if we're going to continue that way gee that's really a problem for me as a taxpayer and if I would never be able to use the Marty system because it doesn't work and this is just another example of why this comprehensive plan or any comprehensive plan is really sort of a useless thing as far as I'm concerned second thing we had a a letter from uh Morris Kady what is all that about a email uh Mr Kady is uh suggesting and this is really I think geared as much for chapter four as for chapter five as he's suggesting that the um comprehensive plan recognize the fact that there are sometimes two future land use designations on a piece of property residential and non-residential and that the uh the infrastructure such as the roads the water the sewer the storm water Etc be allowed to occur on both land use designations and not not have to be segregated so that only the roads go to the residential for residential and only the roads go to the commercial for the commercial that you can kind of that you can mix it because we do have much more mixed juice happening and we can anticipate that there may be some live local uh that occurs on a commercial future land use designation doesn't doesn't it have to go to the higher intensity use regardless uh the the plan has been implemented in the past to to put an emphasis on saying that these support facilities these infrastructure features have to support this land use and you can't use the land the support features on one land use to support the land use to support another land use and uh it's been a bit of a difficulty at times with with site planning and so on like that so I think that's what Morris is getting at in in his public comment is this something we should take up at a later date uh we'll definitely we we anticipate that we'll we probably will bring forward some language and for some discussion on chapter 4 later this year wouldn't it be smart to be able if you if you're going to run water and sewer in there to have a loop rather than going into a residential facility and that's only what it serves and then a commercial facility and that's only what it serves time them together and tie the road system together and keep people off the main Highway that make sense that's part of the the discussion yes okay I just wanted to sort of uh add on to what Tom was speaking about it didn't seem to me as though there was much reference to a future train station in Stewart and that's going to become a major issue um with public transportation in Martin County and I think that it may even deserve a sub chapter well if I I'm not I don't want to get in front of Lisa and Luke on this but there's a diff there's a fine line we walk with all of these plan amendments we know certain things are going to happen but we don't know all the particulars and so we try not to get too far ahead of ourselves with plan amendments we try to identify and document things that are Act you know where we have a lot of detail and specificity and we know a lot about it if it's not fully baked we may not want to even put something in and it's part of wouldn't that be part of city of Stewart's plan not what since it's well we we have to we have to plan for infrastructure to help to the goal there's a goal for the supporting the replacement and doing the second track of the bridge right but that's that's as far as we get put a goal in there I mean I think that upgrading public trans transportation in and out of a future train station is what we really should be planning for and and it's not even in there I mean if we're going to be aspirational I don't have a problem adding that is no a problem with adding that there's no problem I mean we don't have a contract or everything's not signed sealed and delivered we can add it in there or suggest to the board to add it in there but it looks like you know they accepted our proposal motion to approve this let's I'm having some real hard time second that motion goad it's like a little carrot I know it's a carrot I I I you know I I I think that as as it's written it it's hard to support um and I certainly don't think the proportional contributions is a good idea the proportional contribution I just want to clar that's that was I put that in there because it's in the state statute that if you have so this the statute's written you don't have to have transportation concurrency which is but we do and we've chosen not to repeal it and so because we do we have to have that in there and it just and we have a whole chapter in the Land Development regulations or a division in the Land Development regulations that talks about proportionate fair share and we did accomplish a very successful um interchange modification with proportional flare share prior to the 20 11 growth management rule change so the the statute requires that you put it in there but only if you're if you're in a project I'll now use Newfield as an example so if your project generates enough trips to cause the the need to widen a road then you have to pay the proportionate fair share if it exceeds the amount of your impact fees so if it as long as it exceeds the impact fee yes if it if your impact fees you've collected will support the widening of that that road then then you can't charge prop share so the statutes are guiding it but the statute was clear that if you do have transportation concurrency that language needs to be in there so that's why it's being proposed because it concerns me that it may not be very clear and it may not be utilized in the future that this has to be above and beyond impact fees which are woefully low anyway but the statute is our hands are tied because of the statute okay I can use yeah I going to make the motion CH I I'll make the motion that we move this forward for serious consideration of of um some of the Marine elements as well as some of the other elements that have been sticky let let me let me try Okay I might even second it go for it Tom let me try being sticky I don't think is I didn't understand sticky staff to take care of all right I'll move this I'll move the approval with the mention of the train of the of how the train station is tied into the plan and Al and also uh uh when it comes to dredging that if possible it be done in an environmentally friendly manner the yeah most environmentally sensitive way possible okay with that I would second your motion so we can comment now yes do we supposed to get public I'm sorry well we can we need public comment but you can comment if you first and we're not voting on this yet we're just voting on the motion I mean this no well you're no my motion it's it's yeah it's his motion so we're going to have public comment you can comment and then you'll vote on that motion which is voting on this plan amendment to recommend or not recommend approval it's it gets kind of redundant because to get a a vegging permit you've got to go to EPA D fishing Wildlife you you you go through a whole list of stuff with all the environmental regulations and so I don't think anybody can find somebody we've had a dredging project that was not vetted by at least five different five different environmental groups so it gets kind of silly to put something in there that is already there well I mean there's there's a general public perception that dredging is fine well it and sometimes it's not but it's fine because it's looked at my D EPA fishing Wildlife I'm not sure the EPA has anything to do with it but EPA probably but the EP does uh the core of engineers there's a whole plethora have you ever tried to get a dock permit even sure yeah and how many how many people did you have to go to to get that done two so then if you going to go go that on steroids and you want to do the dredging it gets blown up from there well I mean and Regulation and oversight is a good thing yeah you're don't have to pay for it so what what vote on the most to um public comment any any Public public comment I to speak but I do want to say Can Can you please come up to the microphone and state your name thank you uh my name is Carol an Leonard and um a comment about Marty people cannot get from their homes to the bus stops to make enable them to ride the bus and there's a lot of people I see now riding electric bikes bikes trying to get places because of this there's older folks that might need a a bus to get somewhere my car is old might break down I could use a bus maybe once in a while why don't you I suggest maybe putting some bike racks next to the to the bus stop so people could lock ride up there lock their bike ride the bus West Palm Beach has some kind of vehicle you can call and then they will come and get you it's within a certain area mostly the downtown area but you might consider something like that and then um I do agree with Jim as far as the dredging it needs to be done on an environmental consideration and I am glad you are considering putting that in thanks carolan if you call United Way they have a they have what's called ride United they will pick you up at your home they will send the lift to your home pick you up and take you to where you're going so it's ride United United Way it'd be nice to the public knew but thank you for telling me staff could also help provide information with regards to the systems that are already in place with I'm sorry who staff public work staff so like the Marty system they also are required to provide ADH PA Transit which is within 3/4 of a mile of the route and then there are also another supplementary system called the community transportation coordinator they also provide rides in Martin County so we send that information along okay well it's right out there there's a whole poster yes and ride United is about $23 a ride door too Community coaches how much a ride door too $44 yeah so it doesn't what you guys provide Now does not work it's not economically feasible Mr Mr Moore uh for clarification the discussion earlier about the train station was your concern about arrivals and departures having transportation from that station in other words a bus or some type of Transportation in order to be effect effective as public transportation it needs to be integrated and so you know from a from a planning perspective integrating public transportation and a new train station only sense thank you and for your knowledge city of Stewart has already said they will provide trams at the station to bring you either to the hotels or to downtown if wherever you that's how I remember yeah okay so so we're going to call for a vote on on the amendment if there's no more discussion you can call for a vote all for a vote all those in favor I I all okay motion passes thank you very much members of the local planning agency thank you U members of the LPA may I just um remind you of our schedule coming up the um we have several items on the 15th of August we have several items on the 12th you you will remember that we canceled the meeting prior to that and have instituted the September 12th meeting we have items for September 19th and items for October 3 and um I just wanted to reiterate we're at times kind of struggling to get a consensus or a quorum call but with your help I think we can get there I will not be here for the two September the two early September meetings yeah can you can you repeat those September dates again I have the 12th and the 19th I will be here for the 19th okay you I will as well but not the TW well I might be for the 12th I think I will be for the 12th we're hoping to bring forward the utility elements on the 12th the 19th that won't be here 10 11 12 13 so the next one is August 15th correct correct and I will be here for that I will as well I will as well I will as well I'll be here for both of them wonderful I appreciate it we appreciate it the meeting motion to adjourn no move I all in favor I yes ma'am did you said your grw was awesome