Board takes unexpected action on Quad Parcels

The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners today considered its Miami consultant's recommendation that parcel #3 be rezoned industrial and sold to a private end user. County staff did not recommend the proposal from Lambert Advisory, the consultant that did the assessment.

Herald Tribune story here.

After hearing from the consultant, Board discussion took many twists and turns, bringing in members' thoughts on parcels 1 and 2. All said they wished to share ideas while they could -- sunshine laws preventing discussion outside of the public eye.

Upshot: At Commissioner Caragiulo's recommendation, the Board voted unanimously to direct planning staff to look at possible modifications of the Critical Area Plan (CAP) which currently controls changes to the area -- for example, to the roads. The roads have been the limiting factor as they cannot be widened under the current CAP.

Planning staff are to return after Jan. 1 after looking at what can be done if the CAP is modified. This could open a new spectrum of possibilities: If the county wishes, it could integrate our public lands into a larger area coordinated to highlight and support the Celery Fields (a possibility that Fresh Start has raised in its "visioning"). On the other hand, the County could also make the roads more robust, then justify industry on one or more quad parcel.

We'll keep an eye on things. The election is coming, and the results will be crucial for the Celery Fields area.

Fresh Start's latest input to the Board is linked below:

• Statement presented 10.10.18 in "open to the public"

• Letter to the Board regarding the Lambert recommendation for industrial use

Finally, thanks to all -- sincerely -- who have remained staunchly supportive of Fresh Start's efforts, over the past 10 months.

Glenna Blomquist, Carlos Correa, Tom Matrullo, Gary Walsh
Fresh Start Executive Council

Statement to Board at discussion of Lambert industrial recommendation at Celery Fields

Quad parcel #3 is near the Celery Fields, not far from an elementary school, surrounded by thousands of new housing units you have recently approved. It’s owned by the public.

Last year, when two developers tried to buy and industrialize these public lands, you saw -- and heard -- heartfelt public opposition.

Now that the Board itself is playing the role of industrial developer, people will naturally ask why. They’ll want you to show that the proposed intensification will not endanger persons, property values, roads, or the community. None is in your paperwork for this discussion.

Does the lack of analysis mean that the public, who own this land, should not expect accountability, but instead just give you our trust?

Perhaps it’s difficult for you to offer a reason because this plan is not reasonable.

You have a letter from Fresh Start that summarizes numerous reasons why this plan and the study it’s based on are inadequate.

I have time for just one factor: You’ve approved six housing projects -- Worthington, Artistry, Sylvan Lea, Garden Village, Live Oak, and the Fruitville Initiative - a total of 3,470 new homes within a short walk or drive from parcel 3 and the Celery Fields.

At the same time, you’re seeking to allow an 80,000-square-foot industrial facility on parcel #3.

It’s as if you are seeing two completely incompatible versions of the same place at the same time. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Waechter told you these fragile roads are already too full of dangerous large trucks to allow for a simple public park. Well how much more dangerous will they be after all the new homes are built, along with the 80,000-square-foot industrial facility?

What you in fact are planning is a slow motion car wreck -- a collision of industry and human lives that will imperil people, property, and community.

This can happen when you blind yourself to the larger picture.

At the same time, you’ve made no provision for the Celery Fields. It’s a pretty magnificent place, which many counties would consider themselves lucky to have. It needs some simple things -- parking, a shaded cafe, an exercise area.

Last month Fresh Start respectfully proposed that the Board dedicate the Celery Fields Quads to beneficial public uses in perpetuity

It’s a good plan. Stop this effort to put industry that no one wants in a place it no longer belongs. Stop it today, forever. Your communities, tourists, our children and 225 species of highly discriminating birds will thank you.

-- Tom Matrullo

After hearing from the consultant and considerable discussion, the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners agreed to direct staff to study reopening the Critical Area Plan for the Quad Parcels for possible modifications, and to come back after Jan. 1, 2019.

Why sell our public land?

Parcel #3: The Northwest Quad at Apex Rd. and Palmer Blvd.

On Oct. 10, the Board will consider its consultant's recommendation to rezone parcel #3 for industrial use and sale, although there is no buyer at the present time. Below are key documents and a comment from Fresh Start.

• Agenda for Board meeting Oct. 10 
• The County staff briefing on the rezoning of Quad Parcel #3 can be found here.
• The 49-page Lambert Advisory Report in full is here.

• Note: the Lambert item is first after proclamations, so approximate time is 9:30-10 a.m. To speak, plan to arrive by 9:15 and fill out a speaker's card for Open to the Public, which allows 3 minutes per speaker.

In its briefing, the planning staff goes into detail about the complexities of rezoning a parcel for industry in this location, because a critical area plan (CAP) is in effect. The CAP requires a binding site plan. But here, there is no end user -- the county is seeking the rezoning.

This leads to a complication noted by staff:

Rezoning the property without an end user or developer would require adopting a generalized binding plan that may not suit possible end users or developers. The binding development concept plan is not one of the characteristics of the PCD zoning district that can be modified. More specifically, the development concept plan’s binding nature cannot be waived as part of the rezone. 

Having examined the Lambert Advisory assessment, Fresh Start has pointed out that it is based upon minimal actual data about our roads, traffic, community, or environment. It was designed to compare spreadsheet valuations of land uses without regard to the specific locality of parcel #3, to come up with a hypothetical sales price. More on this here.

Fresh Start presented a host of possibilities for the Quad parcels. However, Parcel #3 was removed from consideration because Mr. Maio desired to rezone and sell it. Mr. Maio did not cite any public support for his proposal to sell.

Comment:

Why is the county even considering this rezone of public land? Last November when Commissioner Al Maio instigated this idea, he justified it with the claim of budget shortfalls. But since November, the county's understanding of its actual fiscal condition has changed. Maio himself now says the county is in terrific financial shape (3 1/2 min. audio), and that "there is no shortfall" (17 sec. audio). 

Former County Commissioner Jon Thaxton recently said at a public meeting that Florida counties have always set "a very high bar" before considering the sale of public lands. 

Given that the county has no budget crisis, what reason has the Board cited for selling our public land near the Celery Fields? Why this rush to rezone parcel #3 for sale to an unknown private industrial developer at some point in the future? What is compelling us to cannibalize and cash in our public lands to meet any financial need before every other alternative? Could Mr. Maio be fearful that voters or backers would be unhappy if the Board looked at an increase in millage or impact fees to provide a sustainable revenue stream, rather than a one-time irrevocable cash for land deal?

When did selling our public land become the go-to means of dealing with short-term cash flow?

Fresh Start recommends the Board adopt a clear, straightforward policy: 

Before designating public land as surplus, the County shall consider all possible options and uses it might have -- now or in the future. When proposing to rezone and sell our public land, this policy would require the County to include a clear statement of reasons for doing so. 

Returning to parcel #3: 

If there is

• no end user, 
• no financial pressure to sell, 
• no good reason to sell, 
• no support from the community to sell, and there are
• positive alternative uses proposed by the community,

Why sell?

Once sold, public land is gone forever.