Alachua County Planning Commission - Feb 25, 2026

Welcome to a new adventure, the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal-Based Amendments. And we are going to have a presentation, and you're going to help us to go through this. Yes. That's good. Commission ready? Mr. Chair, we should go ahead. You called the order. We should approve the agenda. I move to approve the agenda. Second. Good question. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? And, Mr. Chair, one thing I would like to point out for the commission is we do have it on here twice as a mandate from the county. We're going to have a conversation about it, but we do have on the agenda an element for public comments for items not on the agenda that's at this point in the agenda. So if you want to call for any members of the public who have comments that are not based on the agenda item. We can do that. Are there any comments from citizens that are not on the agenda? Anything else? We're good? I think we're good. Ready for the presentation. That was probably going to be the smoothest thing we've done all day. Please, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ben Chumley, Principal Planner with the Alachua County Growth Management Department. This item is a public hearing on the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal-Based Amendments. We know this is a fairly large item, and there was a lot of information to review, which is why we scheduled this for a special meeting. So we do appreciate you being here on a non-regular meeting day. My presentation will kind of focus on the update process and the timeline and also review the highlights of the proposed amendments to each element of the Comprehensive Plan. We do have a team of county staff people here from growth management and other departments who have worked on these amendments. So different people have special knowledge of different areas. So if you have questions on certain things, we can certainly call upon the appropriate person to come up here and help you address your questions. I would encourage you, as we go through the presentation, to ask questions as we go along. If you have any, that way we can try to address them while it's fresh in everybody's mind, or you can save them until the end, either one. But it's probably best to try to handle the questions as we go along. Are you going to go in some kind of order that the representative does? Yeah, the first several slides of my presentation are just reviewing the process and the timeline. But then after that point, we're just going to go element by element, which in a way that generally follows the sequence that those elements appear in your packets. So we'll start with future land use, then transportation, then housing, and so on, based on that table of contents that you have in your packet. Please proceed. So this item is number Z26-3. These are proposed amendments to multiple elements of the county's Comprehensive Plan based on the evaluation and appraisal as required by Florida statutes. The requested action tonight by the Planning Commission would be transmittal of the proposed evaluation and appraisal-based amendments to the state land planning agency for state coordinated review and comment. If there are things in this packet as we go along that you want to see revised or added or deleted, it's important sort of at the end of this to build those things into your eventual motion that we present to the county commission so that whatever changes that you want to see are reflected in your ultimate action at the end of this. So the reason why we're updating the comp plan right now is mainly driven by the comprehensive planning requirements and Florida statutes. The state sets out a schedule for all local governments to review their plans every seven years and, if necessary, amend them to be consistent with state statutes and to reflect changes in local conditions. Our deadline to let the state know whether any updates were necessary was April 1st of 2025. So in March of last year, the county notified the state that we reviewed the comp plan and that updates were necessary to reflect changes in the statutes. That letter then essentially started a clock where the county is then required to transmit any amendments to its plan within one year. So that would be by March 31st, 2026. I would note the only, there's not really a penalty for not meeting that deadline, but the one consequence of not meeting that deadline is that we cannot, the county cannot then transmit other amendments to its comprehensive plan until these particular amendments have been transmitted to the state. It would not affect privately initiated amendments to the comprehensive plan, just county initiated ones. So this batch of amendments focuses mainly on the updates that we are required to do by the statute as well as some technical updates that are intended to clarify or, in some cases, enhance what's already in the comprehensive plan. These proposed amendments are not really a, they're not a new comprehensive plan. Most of the existing plan would remain in place. This is essentially a continuation of the comprehensive plan that we have already, with some focused and issue-specific updates. And these amendments include things like adding new county commission-level strategies or policies that were not in the plan seven years ago, incorporating other county plans into the comp plan. You know, there's been a lot of different planning efforts that the county has engaged in over the last several years that we need to build into the comprehensive plan, removing or revising policy language that's either outdated or, for whatever reason, no longer relevant, adjusting policies that may not be working as intended, and adding policies based on state planning requirements, or, in some cases, even removing or revising policies based on recent state preemptions. Yes, we can. Yes, we can. When you indicate a change to the comp plan, could you say which one of those instituted the change, if it was a state requirement, a change elsewhere in the plan? Yes, and actually, I have a slide coming up that will list all the ones that are required by statute. Okay, thank you. So just to review the timeline quickly, I talked about it a little bit at the beginning, but this began almost a year ago when we submitted our required notification letter to the state. And then from about April through October of last year, we focused on scoping local issues and identifying areas where we needed to update the plan. And from about November of last year through January of this year, we've focused on drafting the necessary amendments to the plan, and now we're at the stage of considering transmittal of the plan amendments to the state for review. Once those are transmitted, there's a 60-day review process with the state, and then those amendments will come back to the county for final adoption around probably the middle of this year. Our scoping process where we tried to identify the amendments that were needed in the comp plan included several different methods. Staff reviewed changes to Florida statutes from the last seven years. We had internal review of elements with different county departments that have operational responsibility relating to different elements of the plan. We held four Board of County Commissioners issue-based public workshops to discuss different elements of the plan. There were different presentations, updates, and discussions at county advisory committees. We had a project webpage and an email list. Notice of this meeting went out to about 400 people who had signed up on that email list. There was a public questionnaire on that page. We also reviewed other county planning efforts that are either currently going on or that have recently completed, things like the Climate Action Plan, the Parks Master Plan, the Bike, Ped, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Safe Streets and Roads for All, and the Affordable Housing Plan. So there's a lot of parallel planning efforts that have been going on that we're trying to build into the comprehensive plan. There were a lot of issues that we looked at. You'll see on the multicolored spreadsheet that was included in the packet, I think there were 100 and some odd issues that were identified as needing to be addressed. And I think we addressed most of those. However, there were a few that we have not addressed in this particular packet, either just due to time constraints or state limitations and things like that. So the things that are not included in the current amendment package are things relating to the Climate Action Plan. Again, there are some parts of that that have been worked into the comprehensive plan, but we are going to be going through a more rigorous process to see how we can best incorporate the cap into the comprehensive plan. AI data center policies, that was an issue the board wanted us to look at. That's one I think it's going to need a little more vetting and stakeholder involvement. Missing middle affordable housing strategies, that's another one that we've been looking at for a number of years, and we'll need a little bit more vetting before we can come forward with anything. Some updates are needed to the environmental resources maps for the Idlewild, Serenola, and the Cross Creek Special Area Studies. Those maps are out of date, so there's just some technical updates to those that are needed that we'll need a little bit more time on. The economic element, we are in the process of taking a deep dive look at that. We're going to be bringing forward a full rewrite and reorganization of that element as a separate item. We do have a draft of that out there, but it's in the process of being vetted among different advisory committees and stakeholders. And also the community health element, there are some changes to that element in this package. However, we need a little bit more time for some continued coordination with the health care advisory board and other health-related stakeholders, and I would anticipate we'll be coming forward with some more robust changes to the community health element. There was last week, the week before, we had the National Home Builders meeting, the International Builder Show, and for the first time in a long time, I saw a lot of attention to the missing middle. It was good to see. Yeah, we're going to be looking at that in more detail going forward, for sure. I want to just make a couple remarks about Senate Bill 180. The Senate Bill 180 from last legislative session essentially prohibits local governments that are located within certain federal disaster declaration areas for hurricanes from adopting amendments to the comprehensive plan or land development regulations that are considered more restrictive or burdensome, and that prohibition for Alachua County and other counties applies from August 1 of 2024 through October 1 of 2027. And the Florida Department of Commerce is implementing the language of that bill through their review of proposed comprehensive plan amendments. And so local government comp plan amendments that are deemed to be or deemed to violate Senate Bill 180 may be declared null and void ab initio, and I'm not going to attempt to explain what that means, but our attorney can explain that if we need a further explanation. Go ahead. S.B. 180 is something that I meant to look more into, but does it reactivate after a new federal declaration of disaster, of a new hurricane? Yeah. If we're included in a new federal disaster declaration area, yes, it reactivates, I think, for an additional one year. However, there is what I'll call a glitch bill that's working its way through the state legislature right now, which would kind of loosen up that more restrictive or burdensome language so that it's a little more targeted to the need to rebuild or reconstruct after a hurricane and not be so broad so as to just say anything more restrictive or burdensome. So that fix, if it goes through, would help with this. Although with the timing, that would not go into effect until, I think, July. So we're kind of still in the current S.B. 180 environment. And tangentially, so a new amendment to, or an additional amendment to the comp plan initiated with the county beyond these updated, this package of updated plans won't, can't be transmitted until this is transmitted, is what you were saying earlier? That's essentially correct, yes. Until we have transmitted our EAR amendments, we cannot transmit any other county-initiated amendments. Now, I don't believe we have any that are immediately in the pipeline. We have some privately-initiated ones, but those don't, the rule does not apply to privately-initiated amendments. What is the timeline of, so it's not a strict deadline, but could it go on until 2027? I would probably not recommend that. You know, I think we want to get these in as close to the deadline as possible. I mean, if they're a little bit beyond the deadline, I think we're okay, but I don't know that we want to, I don't think staff would recommend letting them drag out until 2027. Thank you. Just a quick remark on the comprehensive plan in general and what it is. It is the county's long-range planning document. It covers a period of about 20 years. It is essentially an expression of the community's values and vision in terms of goals, objectives, policies, and strategies. And I think probably most important, it's a guide for local government decision-making. So as decisions come before this board or the county commission, the comprehensive plan is kind of a touchstone. Let's look at that and see what the comprehensive plan says about this particular decision. It's a living document. It's periodically updated based on evolving community needs and changing conditions. And it is required by statute for all local governments, so it does have some legal status under the statute. And it is adopted by the county commission by ordinance. So eventually this will get to the county commission and they will consider an ordinance to adopt the changes. There are 16 elements currently within the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Those are listed here. All of them except three of the elements have at least some changes that are included in your packet. The ones that do not have changes are the public school facilities element, the historic preservation element, and the property rights element. But all the others have at least some amount of change in them. Okay. So moving on to the actual proposed amendments to the plan. I mentioned there are certain updates that are needed to comply with state statutes, and those are listed on this slide. So the first one, and I'll just go through them real quick, has to do with EV charging stations for vehicles. That regulation is now preempted to the state. We had a couple of existing policies in the plan that require EV charging stations and new developments. So those have either been removed or revised to say that they're encouraged rather than required. Workforce housing. We have added new policies and a definition in the housing element to reference workforce housing. And workforce housing, essentially, it's a term that it's kind of an umbrella term that covers other affordable housing categories that we already have in our comprehensive plan. And so I think it's 120% of area median income or lower is considered workforce housing, and that essentially encompasses all of the other categories of affordable housing that we already address in the housing element. But we've made a point to just reference workforce housing specifically. Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP capital projects, there is a new Table 4 in the Capital Improvements element, which shows BMAP-related water quality capital projects. That is a relatively new requirement of statute that was instituted under House Bill 1379 in 2023. So we've worked with our water resources folks to identify the capital projects associated with water quality improvements within BMAP areas, and those have been added into the capital improvements element. Enhanced nutrient-reducing septic requirements. There are, as part of House Bill 1379, there were some new laws put in place, which require the enhanced septic systems for lots less than one acre that are located within BMAP areas. And so we have reflected that new state requirement in the county's comprehensive plan. Home-based businesses was another one. Home-based businesses, so policy 118 in the economic element was revised to be in line with state statutes. Farm worker housing was another one. This is another state preemption item. It limited local regulation of housing for agricultural workers on land that is classified as agriculture and operated as a bona fide farm. The local government can only regulate the specific things that the statute lists that we can regulate. So there are some changes to reflect that requirement. And finally, on the statutory compliance, the tobacco retail licensing program, that was another state preemption. And we had a policy that talked about having a tobacco retail licensing program, and the county actually had one for a period of time. But we deleted that policy from the community health element. Yes. I didn't want to stop you in the middle of a slide. Okay. But I'm a little confused. The documents that I got and, sorry, my, I was at the International Builder Show, as I said, and my computer died. So I have a gap. But I was working on the documents that was presented, that was given to me by staff, and, which is, you know, like the 28-page summary, and then a couple hundred-page other stuff, and I appreciate this being down, but at some point, I assume that we're going to come back to more particulars or more granular, if there are. Is that correct? Yes. We're kind of doing it. I'm trying to understand. Yeah. Right now, I just wanted to highlight the amendments to the plan that were necessary for state statutory compliance. And it's a fairly limited number of things, so I just wanted to put those all together. I have no, I'm happy that you're doing what you're doing. I was just trying to understand how that's going to relate to the review. Actually, Mr. Chair, the next slide, I think, starts on the future land use element. Yes, it does. Start talking about the specific details that are included in the packet. I tried not to intervene while I was trying to wait until you changed subjects, so I didn't, you know, disrupt you. Sure. I appreciate that. Okay. So, moving to the amendments to the future land use element, this is actually the longest element of the comprehensive plan, so there's a lot of changes in there that you'll see, and I'll just, I'll go through them. If you have questions, please just stop me and feel free to ask. The traditional neighborhood development policies, which I believe are under Section 1.6 in the future land use element, in that section we've proposed several technical updates to simply clarify some of the design standard language that's included in that section. We are currently working on changes to the land development code for TND, Traditional Neighborhood Development Design. So, these are, these changes that you see in the plan are kind of, in a way, helping set the table for what we need to do in the code that will follow. So, another change in the future land use element had to do with accessory dwelling units, and this was actually a recommendation that came out of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and was also directed by the board. But for accessory dwelling units in the urban cluster, the revisions would remove the existing requirement that the applicant has to provide proof of homestead exemption and permanent residency on the property in order to build an ADU. And so, the idea there is just to make ADUs more, make them easier to build and more possible. I would point out, though, that the policies for ADUs in the rural area would not change. You would still have to provide proof of homestead exemption and permanent residency on the property for areas in the rural area of the county. And that was, that was based on board discussion. They wanted to see the, they wanted to see that proof of homestead and residency go away in the urban cluster, but keep it in the, in the rural area. What was the board discussion on that and why differentiate between the two? I, I think the, the idea was that within the urban cluster, that's the area where we want to see more densification of land use, more efficient, compact development patterns. And so, I think they wanted to, you know, they, they were comfortable making that change for the urban cluster because it was consistent with those other policies in our comp plan. In the rural area, obviously, that's not an area where we necessarily want to focus more densification of development. So, I think not, not allowing it in the rural area was, it, it, it tied in with, with the overall land use policies that the county has in the comp plan. The activity centers policies and maps, the activity centers are addressed under section 2.0 in the future land use element. And the primary change there is to eliminate some of the design policies that apply generally to all activity centers or to development within all activity centers. The policies would instead refer to our existing traditional neighborhood development design requirements. In some cases, those existing activity center policies kind of conflict with the T&D design policies. The T&D design standards are more current and I think have probably been more successful in terms of producing the kind of development that the board would like to see. And this would, I think this would just, it would kind of align everything, align the policies for design for all development in the urban cluster instead of having separate policies for activity centers. And another change regarding activity centers would be to delete all of the individual future land use maps for the activity centers. The idea behind that is all of those activity centers are shown on the county's future land use map. Their boundaries and their future land use designations are part of the overall county map. So there's really not a need to have individual maps for all of those sub areas within the plan. The, still on activity centers, the Eastside Activity Center, which is the general area located around Eastside High School, that has its own set of unique policies in the plan, which apply to development within that area. The proposed changes would reduce some of the detail in the land use policies to provide a little bit more flexibility in the short term. For example, there are some policies that require mandatory mixed use developments that every development has to be mixed use in certain areas. That would be removed. And we would also broaden the allowable density ranges within the land use, some of the land use categories within the Eastside Activity Center. So those are kind of some short term fixes for the Eastside Activity Center policies to hopefully help see some development happen in that area. We would anticipate having a follow-up process after this to consider some more what I would call wholesale changes to the future land use map for the Eastside Activity Center to align the future land use categories in that activity center with our standard land use categories. So instead of having special land use categories, we would try to move to a more standard land use category for that area. Commercial land uses, that's Section 3.0 of the future land use element. In that section, there are some revisions to essentially delete outdated descriptions of commercial shopping centers for regional commercial, community commercial, neighborhood commercial, and neighborhood convenience. Those are kind of outdated descriptions, and they don't really recognize the possibility of mixed use developments. So those descriptors within that commercial section have been just generalized more. The tourist entertainment land use category, that's a subset of the commercial land use policies. In that section, there are some proposed changes to clarify the purpose and add some detail about potential locations for the tourist entertainment land use category. And essentially, that land use category provides goods and services for the traveling public, for visitors to Alachua County. So think of areas around interstate interchanges, for example, and there's some other areas, like up near the Gainesville Raceway, that are tourist entertainment. So there's just some clarifications in that section. Can I interrupt a second? Can I interrupt a second? One of the things that I'm trying to wrestle with is I think that what you're presenting is done well, but I'm not so sure that do you believe that everything that is in these slides relate to what is already in the documents that we were given to review? Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I understand your question. I think the presentation is good. I think it's quality. I'm just wondering if this, do you believe that what we're seeing here is also in the documents that we reviewed? Yes. Okay. I would say, I can't say that every single point that's in the document is in a slide, but I think the vast majority of the significant changes to the plan are in the slides and in the presentation. And I think you're doing well. Some of what I'm hearing, I don't remember reading, but it could be I need to review my reading again. Yeah, if I'm talking about it in the presentation, it's in the packet, and I'll try to refer to policies. That's the clear answer I was looking for. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Chair, it might be helpful, too, if you, while Ben is going through the presentation, if you see a reference to a policy number where you're like, I don't remember that one, you know, let's make a note of it because then we can go through and actually look at the language that is proposed if there are questions about it. In most cases, I've tried to put policy numbers where I could, or in some cases, something may apply to a group of policies generally. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just want to know if I needed to do something else in my review. No. Okay. Thank you. The policies on urban agriculture, which are under 6.1.5 of the element, there are several changes there, including clarifying the areas where farmers markets may be permitted and also referring to some recent updates to the land development regulations regarding the keeping of poultry in residential areas. That was a case where a change was made to the land development code, and we're now going back and revising the comp plan accordingly to be consistent with that. And then in a new policy, 6.1.5.5 is in there, which calls for the county to encourage small-scale agriculture and residential areas within the urban cluster for both personal consumption and local direct-to-consumer sale. That was a point that was brought up by the county commission as something they wanted to see in the plan, so we've added that. Moving on to policies for rural clusters, rural clusters are a land-use category that applies to 13 different historic rural communities throughout the rural area. They're essentially small clusters of existing development, and the policies allow for some limited infill development within those areas, but not new development extending outside of those areas. So the clarifications that have been made in those policies would be just to state clearly that the criteria for how the rural cluster land-use category is delineated, which is stated in the policies, those will be applied on a case-by-case basis to determine the boundaries for the rural cluster future land-use designation. So the actual criteria for delineating where those areas are would not change, just a clarification that the county will apply that criteria on a case-by-case basis. And then also in policy 6.4.6, that policy currently prohibits the subdivision of land within a rural cluster until such time as the boundary for that rural cluster has been delineated on the future land-use map, and that policy is proposed to be deleted. And still on the future land-use element, there are a few changes under the implementation section, which begins with 7.0. There is a new policy 7.1.38 proposed, which acknowledges the county growth management area and its related provisions in Section 1.5 of the Alachua County Charter. That's essentially just acknowledging what exists in the county charter for that. Buffering requirements is another one. We currently have a table of required buffers for development sites in the comp plan. That is proposed to be deleted as that level of detail is more appropriately addressed in the land development regulations. And then special area plans generally, policy 7.1.28, there are some clarifications in there with regard to the purpose of special area plans, saying that those plans must be generally consistent with the county's comprehensive plan as a whole and identify some of the general areas where special area planning may be appropriate. And there is also a new policy added under that, which talks about how community organizations may request initiation of a special area plan and how those requests would be considered by the county commission, taking into account things like the need for a special area plan as well as the cost and the benefits of doing that and going through that process. So that's kind of a summary of the changes in the future land use element. If you'd like, I can pause there before we move on to the transportation element for discussion or questions. Let's ask, are there any comments, questions, anything you want to ask, make a point, all good? Is there one time that we're going to be with you? I hope not, but I'm not sure. That's the process. Mr. Chair, I will say we have a few continuation dates that we've lined up if we need them. So once we get to the conclusion of tonight's meeting, we can decide on a continuation date. I know. Let's speak. Go for it. All right. Thank you, Chair. I did have some proposed amendments to the land use plan. I don't know if I wanted to speak about or to the future land use element, speak about those now or later at the end of the meeting. I do think just on the kind of on our timeline, I would request that we have another meeting on this just because we only got this a week ago. And I haven't had a chance to fully review everything. I mean, it's a lot to take in in a week. I resemble that. Yeah. So that would be my request that we have at least one other meeting to discuss it and digest it. And we can give feedback. Thank you, Ross. What I was going to say was that we also had the city plan meeting today, and some people who wanted to be here had to be there. Chair, shall I proceed or? I think we're ready to proceed. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So moving to the transportation mobility element, there are a few changes in here. You'll probably see a lot of strikeout and underline language under objectives 1.1 through 1.3, and really what those are about, the county updated its mobility fee ordinance back in 2024, which changed some of the terminology, I would say, and kind of the areas that are identified on certain maps of mobility fee areas. So we had to kind of go back through the transportation mobility element and just update the terminology in a lot of places so it was reflective of that 2024 mobility fee update. I will say nothing in there is necessarily new per se. It's completely reflective of what we have in our mobility fee ordinance, but we want to just make sure the two were consistent in terms of their terminology. We have a couple of transportation-related planning efforts that are currently going on and have been going on for the last year or so, and those are the countywide bicycle pedestrian master plan and the safe streets and roads for all action plan. Those efforts are in various stages of completion. This is ongoing work, so we have added new policies into the element just to recognize both of these planning efforts with the understanding that once those plans are completed and adopted, there will need to be some additional changes in the transportation element to reflect what comes out of those planning efforts. Transit policies, which are under Objective 2.1. There is some new language in there expressing the county's commitment to working with community partners to ensure that specialized transit service is provided for the transportation disadvantaged. I know that's been an ongoing discussion of the county commission, and we wanted to make sure that the policy and the element reflected that. And then also there is policy language that's been added about exploring and promoting innovative solutions and partnerships to address transit needs within rural areas. That's another one that's another one that the county commission wanted to see in here, so we have added that under Objective 2.1. And then there are several updates, actually, in the transportation map series, and some of those maps have been updated to reflect current conditions. And some of the maps have actually been proposed for deletion because they're old requirements under 9J5 that are no longer required to be included within the comprehensive plan. So we've recommended deleting those and updating other maps where needed. Are there any questions on the transportation element? The next element is housing, so I'll pause there for questions on transportation. I assume funding is not on the table here. None of what's proposed here is talking about transportation funding, no. We're good? Please proceed. Okay. The next element is the housing element. A number of proposed changes in here. The first one, I think I referred to it already earlier, was the addition of workforce housing and just adding references to that throughout the element. That's a requirement of statute. Also, inclusionary housing. If you recall, the county adopted some inclusionary housing requirements and incentives last year. So we have added some references into the housing element to reflect those inclusionary housing policies that were adopted last year. The existing policies on manufactured housing, which are under 1.1.11 through 1.1.15, those existing policies have simply been consolidated into a fewer number of policies. Accessory dwelling units is another addition in here. Language was added in policy 1.1.15 to encourage ADUs as a source of affordable housing, and that, of course, ties in with the policies in the future land use element that we talked about earlier, which reduced some of the regulatory burdens associated with building an ADU. Talking about funding for housing, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and infrastructure surtax, those are current funding sources for affordable housing in the county, and references have been added to those in the housing element under 1.4.12 and 1.4.13. We have recommended adding a policy about motel conversions for affordable housing under 2.3.11, calling for the county to seek opportunities for the acquisition and adaptive reuse of motels for permanent supportive housing. The county has either completed or almost completed a couple of those projects already, so we wanted to make sure that was reflected in the comp plan. And then under the special needs housing section, under 3.1, there is some language added to promote aging in place and housing intervention programs for high-need populations in that section. Again, I'll pause there. That's a summary of the changes that are included in the housing element, if you have any questions on those. Not directly to this, but could I get a copy of the workforce housing and inclusionary housing, and just not here, but later? Sure. Thank you. Absolutely. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Thank you. I do have a question on manufactured housing and homes, and just to clarify, are manufactured homes allowed everywhere else, a single-family home is allowed, or are they treated differently in terms of if they're built off-site or partially built off-site and brought to a location? I think there's different kinds of manufactured housing. There's essentially the modular home, which is built in pieces, and I believe those are, they're essentially allowed anywhere single-family homes are permitted, but then mobile homes, which are kind of built on an automotive chassis, are they're allowed, I believe, within the R1C zoning district or maybe one other that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. In agricultural zoning districts as well. Okay, so if they're built somewhere else and then put on a slab or some kind of foundation here, those are allowed everywhere that a single-family home is allowed? Essentially, yes. All right. Thank you. There are, in component homes, I mean, I've been in some homes where they were, they came in pieces, and you couldn't tell, and they were excellent. They would stand up, you know, you have some really excellent work done, and then sometimes we have a little less excellent work done. It's like just anything else. You've got to be careful what you buy. Shall I proceed? Please. The next element is the potable water and sanitary sewer element. Just a few amendments in this element. The first one is to add groundwater and surface water protection specifically as part of the goal of the element. That was a board direction, so we have added that into the goal. Also, again, I touched on this earlier, but enhanced nutrient-reducing septic system, there is, we've added language into policy 2.1.3.2, basically reflecting the new state requirements for the use of the enhanced septic systems under certain circumstances that are identified in the statute. That's a House Bill 1379 requirement, and also we have added language which adds the use of the enhanced nutrient-reducing septic system as a potential remedy for instances when there is evidence of septic system failure. That's policy 2.1.7, which I believe it currently says that where there is evidence of septic system failure, then they would have to connect to a municipal system. So this would add in the enhanced septic system as a potential option in those situations. In policy 6.1.2, composting has been added as one potential option for the disposal of biosolids from wastewater treatment facilities. The policy currently says that biosolids can be applied to land, just spray applied to land, and so this would add composting as a potentially better option in those situations. And then in the definition section, there are a couple minor updates, updating the definition of public water supply system just to be consistent with statute, and then minor clarifying type language to the definition of package treatment plant. And those are all the amendments that are in potable water and sanitary sewer, and I can, again, pause there if there's any questions. Any questions? Please continue. Okay, moving on to the solid waste element. We have a number of amendments in here. The element goal has been revised to add language, specifically prioritizing the reduction of waste generation. The goal currently talks about managing solid waste, and one of the board's priorities is to see an actual reduction of waste generation, so that's coming from board direction, and so that's been added into the overall goal for the element. Circular economy. We've added several references to circular economy and a definition of what that means. It's essentially a system of solid waste management where products and materials never become waste. They're instead kept in circulation through processes like recycling, reuse, remanufacturing, things like that. But the concept of the circular economy is something that's relatively new in the county commission's strategic guide, so we wanted to make sure to build that into the solid waste element, but also in the economic element as well. The EcoLoop Industrial Park, we have added a couple general references to the county's EcoLoop project in Objective 1.4 and 1.4.2. We're not calling it EcoLoop in the policy, but it's a park that is intended to attract businesses and the recycling and reuse of materials. And so we've used that more general language instead of just saying EcoLoop, so if you're looking for that term, it won't be in there. Policy 1.2.6 is a policy that speaks to compatibility of solid waste facilities with surrounding areas, and there are some amendments in that policy which speak a little more broadly to the idea of compatibility and calling for the county to consider environmental justice factors when considering new solid waste facilities. We have some existing policies to that effect in the future land use element for institutional land uses and industrial land uses, so that language has been incorporated into the solid waste element as well. And then there are a couple of policies that refer to the state of Florida's 2020, their state-mandated recycling goals or targets, and the amendments would delete the policies that refer to those 2020 recycling targets since that date has passed, and they're no longer timely or relevant at this point. We can pause there if there are any questions on solid waste. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Can you define circular economy? I might have missed that. Yes. Hold on. We did add a definition of that. Let me get to it. And while you're looking for that, this is one that this section I'm not as familiar with. So is the language that's added, is it more aspirational type language, or is it truly that we're prioritizing the solid waste element? I think it's, yeah, Sean, let me address your first question first. If we could get the overhead, can you see that? It means a system where materials never become waste, and nature is, I can't, sorry, my eyes are not as good as they used to be. All good. I appreciate it. So the definition that's proposed, circular economy means a system where materials never become waste, and nature is regenerated. In a circular economy, products and materials are kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. The circular economy addresses climate change and other global challenges like biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution by decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources. Thank you. And then my second question, aspirational, or is this actually prioritized? I think it's, I would probably say it's both. I mean, yes, it's aspirational for sure, but I think it's also something that's reflected in the county's programs, its solid waste programs, as well as its economic development strategies. So it's both. It's aspirational and programmatic. Okay, thank you. That's something I was considering, because there's a lot of the word encourage in this, and I think when we're presented with something, we're like a comp plan amendment, or maybe not that, but other things, the staff tells us this is in compliance with this part of the comp plan. So imagine if something comes to us, the encourage part will be, because that was on my mind as well, what does encourage mean? Yes. It's on now? Okay. Yes, it is. Can you explain or define environmental justice factors under the solid waste facilities and compatibility with surrounding areas? Yes. We actually have a definition of environmental justice in the future land use element, and I will go to it and read it so I don't misstate it. Okay, so the definition of environmental justice, this was adopted by the county commission a couple of years ago. Environmental justice means that no group of people, including those from marginalized racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups or persons with disabilities should disproportionately bear the cumulative negative social or environmental consequences resulting from land use decisions. Principles of environmental justice recognize historically that the largest proportion of environmental burdens come from industrial development, energy production facilities, disposal of waste, and transportation systems, and that these burdens often fall on the communities that are least able to withstand the impacts of them, i.e. poorer and marginalized communities. Environmental justice is a principle and practice that emerged historically from people of color organizing to protect their environments, community rights, lands, and health. So that's the definition that's adopted in the comprehensive plan today. You ready? Okay, the next element is the stormwater management element. There's not a lot of changes in this one. The only changes we have here are under policy 5.1.8. Just some minor clarifications to make it very clear that stormwater facilities within developments must be designed in accordance with all stormwater management standards, landscaping standards, and all of the supplemental stormwater standards that are identified in the land development code. And there's a list of them in the land development code. So I think that's just a matter of cross-referencing the plan to the code in this case. And then also proposed is the deletion of the definitions of one-stop permitting and stormwater utility. And that's simply because those terms are not used in the comp plan. So we're recommending deletion of them. And those are all of the changes in the stormwater element. Would you go through the stormwater design standards again for a moment? Not any more depth, just again. Yeah, it's just I think there's one policy in there, policy 5.1.8 that has some revisions. And essentially it's just it's making it clear that for stormwater facilities within developments that those have to be designed in accordance with all of the stormwater management standards as well as landscaping standards and other supplemental stormwater standards that are identified in the land development code. And those supplemental standards, they could be things like FDEP, Department of Environmental Protection requirements, for example. And this was just it's this is really a matter of just making sure the the comprehensive plan policy aligns with the land development code. And what I'm still worried about, and maybe it'll become clear to me after a while, is that we are still at a higher level. And then sometimes I'm wondering and I and you need to be because you start out at the granular level. We never get anywhere. There are some things that probably would be productive, but I didn't I'm waiting to see. Mr. Chair, while you're on that subject, you know, one of the things I might mention has been been mentioned. We do have a statutorily defined time frame for this process. We already know there's going to be several items that we either haven't addressed due to time, haven't addressed due to Senate Bill 180 constraints or haven't been addressed for one reason or another that we know we have to follow back up on, you know, basically somewhat later in this year. So from a staff perspective, we definitely would love comments on what has been drafted, because these are the issues that the county commission set staff out to work on. And so we spend a fair amount of work preparing, researching those, preparing those, having data and analysis on those. Certainly happy to have any other discussions beyond that. And we could also discuss outside of this amendment package, following on with workshops for the planning commission on other topics, you know, housing, whatever the other topics may be that could be addressed. This is a time that if we can do something and do it quickly, or at least just understand what sometimes it's just a lack of understanding, and that can be taken care of in a shorter period of time. If it can't, then we there'll be other issues and we'll push. Yes, and Mr. Chair, speaking of future meetings, one thing I would request is since we have a fair number of staff here from different county departments, if there are questions on, and they're here really to address what has been discussed, but if you look out there and you have a question for solid waste, DPD, parks, any of those questions to ask, you know, while they're here this evening, it'd be a great opportunity to ask those questions. You want to continue, please? Okay. And thank you for your patience. Okay, so the next element in your packet is the conservation and open space element. There are a number of changes in here. The first is in policy 112, and that is to recognize in the plan that the county has certain countywide natural resource protection ordinances that are adopted as part of the county's code of ordinances, chapter 77 and 78. So just recognizing that those exist and referring to them in the comprehensive plan. You will notice in there under policy 3.2.2, there is a list of preservation areas within Alachua County, and that list is proposed to be deleted. The reason for that is there is an existing general definition of what qualifies as a preservation area under 3.2.2. So the thought is we can rely on that general description rather than listing them all in the comp plan. And those areas are constantly being added to as well. And then, again, we've mentioned this a bit already, but enhanced nutrient-reducing septic systems, there is policy language proposed which calls for the county to consider amendments to its land development regulations and other ordinances to potentially require the use of the ENR systems in certain instances that may go beyond what the statute requires. I think due to, in this case, due to Senate Bill 180, we didn't necessarily feel comfortable putting that requirement in the comprehensive plan right now, but we believe it will be okay to put a policy in there saying that we will consider it as part of future amendments to the land development regulations. Several changes regarding water conservation strategies under policy 4.5.21. Language was added in subpart A of that policy, which calls for the county to identify strategies to reduce the overall footprint of new development, minimize site disturbance, and maximize the protection of existing vegetation. And those are strategies that we would look to implement through the land development regulations, not necessarily as part of the comp plan. And then language is added in subpart F, which calls for the county to be more proactive in reviewing homeowner association documents during the development review process for language that is potentially conflicting with county water conservation policies, and also to partner with the HOAs where we can to provide educational materials and programs. And I know our water resources folks do some of that already, but this is kind of formalizing it a little bit more in a policy. Under policy 4.7.7, this addresses how wetland impacts are reviewed and decided upon. The proposed revision to that policy, let me back up. Currently the policy requires that proposed significant impacts to wetlands have to, all of them have to come before the board of county commissioners for approval. So the proposed change would allow for administrative review and approval for proposed wetland impacts of a quarter acre or less for a single family home. So it would make the process a little bit easier if it's a smaller impact and it's just for a single family home. So there's some new language in the element about dark sky policies. And the proposed language calls for the county to include dark sky lighting standards in the land development regulations, and that those would be based on certain dark sky principles that are advocated by organizations such as Dark Sky International and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. And the idea of those is to minimize impacts of outdoor lighting and protect the quality of the night sky. This was an issue that the county commission identified as being of interest to them. We've also heard from a lot of folks in the rural area who are interested in this. So if this is adopted and we go to the point of drafting land development regulations for some sort of dark sky ordinance, I think we would have to consider things like we have to consider what the standards would be but also where those policies would apply. So, for example, would they apply just in rural areas? It may not be practical to apply those policies in the urban cluster just because of the nature of urban areas. So there's definitely some work to do on that one, but the policy has been recommended that we do that. I'm thinking about safety, and I guess you do that through lenses and reflectors to be more sensitive to the light dispersion. I think the policy speaks to, it does speak to safety. So it prompts the county to look at some dark sky requirements but also to balance those with the need for safety. So at this point, like I said, we don't really have specific regulations for that, but we have an enabling policy that would enable us to sort of look at those regulations going forward. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Thank you. To the dark skies, I think that I very much support in the rural areas, but in urban areas, I think that some of those standards go too far. Like, I mean, our urban cluster is an urban area and is a growing urban area, and having, when you try to stop any light trespass or anything like that, it can, that somewhat, it impacts safety. So I would like for us to consider on this one recommending that it's just the urban cluster or there's something not as stringent in the urban cluster and then something more stringent in the rural areas. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. So with the dark sky policy, I'm somewhat familiar with this. It's a lot about the light bouncing up, and so you're concentrating the light downward into the area where it needs to be illuminated instead of, so that you have deflectors on lights. So it's not that you're removing light. You're just lighting the areas that need to be lit and not, you know, putting it back to the sky. Did you want to add on? Yeah, so I imagine less, but it's more ecological energy in nature. It's ecological. Ecological? Yeah, mostly. Okay. So not anything related to energy saving or anything like that? I mean, it might be. Sort of? I don't know. Just curious. Please continue. Okay. The next area where we have some changes is under the Land Conservation Program policies, which I believe are under Section 6 in the conservation element. This section has, I would characterize them as various revisions. To clarify things, there's a reference that's been added to the recently created Agricultural Lands Acquisition Strategy, which is under the Alachua County Forever Program. We've added a reference to the Wild Spaces Public Places Surtax as a funding source for that program. Also, in those policies, there is an identification of community cat management as a focus in the management of county-owned preservation lands, and just some general updates also to agency names, program names, and statutory references that have just changed over the years. Okay. Before moving on to the next element, I'm happy to pause there for your questions. Was there a comment? Yes. So there's one of the changes. I've lost it, but something about behavioral change, encourage behavioral changes, and there's a list. I'm trying to go back to the page it was on. Why that strategy or turn of phrase? Is it because these are more stringent apologies? Is it to get around SB 180? I don't think it's necessarily to get around Senate Bill 180. I'm probably not the best person to speak to the reasoning for that wording, but I think it's about educational efforts and educating people. And I think you're talking – one of the policies where that appears, I think it's about water conservation. Is that – I'm trying to pinpoint the policy. It's 2.2. You point to the focus on encouraging behavior change. Was there a discussion at that on the county commission level, why that was included, why that change was included? I don't – that's one that I don't think came out of a county commission level direction. And like I said, I think it's really more about public education more than anything, and I don't know if maybe that's a better term to use there. Do you have – which slide number it is? It's policy 2.2.2. It's not – it's something we can go over in the future. And basically, I'll read the first part of the policy just so everybody's on the same page. The county shall implement proactive, innovative, and creative educational programs. Then what's been added is with a focus on encouraging behavior change concerning natural resource protection, including but not limited to – and then it lists a whole list of things like air quality and water quality and other environmental factors. Mr. Chair, I just focused on that one because with all the changes, I want to make sure that any change, any addition is – that's not redundant or that it's not already allowed under the comp plan. And so when I see innovative solutions or creative solutions or behavioral changes, those don't seem to be very weighty additions to the comp plan is why I bring that up. I don't think the current comp plan disallows any of those things. Mr. Chair? To that point? And I think it came up in relation to one of the questions earlier. One of the things to keep in mind about our comprehensive plan, I know that this commission, every other meeting you have, what you're doing with the comprehensive plan is applying it to a development proposal and wanting policies that have the weight of law that guide you in how to view rezoning or another comprehensive plan amendment. The comprehensive plan does have other functions, and this is one that's more of like a programmatic function and maybe Stacey wants to speak to it, but we have educational programs and maybe instead of just informing, we want to encourage behavior change. Just to make clear, I'm not objecting at all to this one element or this one thing. It's just throughout the plan, I just want to make sure that I understand the purpose behind the word choices. The innovative solution things is really sticking out to me because I don't think it, the commission, and that's not part of this, but I just want to understand why this terminology is being used. If it's programmatic, if it's required by programmatic planning or support by the commission, then that's totally fine. It's just I want to bring this up because I keep seeing these words, and I want to make sure that they have weight behind them and that they're just not being, you know, added. Hi, Stacey Greco. I'm with the Environmental Protection Department Water Resources Program. I believe this was my edit added in there, and we just added with the focus on behavior change because most of our campaigns, like trying to get people to reduce fertilizer use, irrigation, you know, we focus not just on the education but really trying to get that actual behavior change. So we just added that in there to just, you know, have the cover, if the climate ever changed, that we have that support because it is a little bit more of a comprehensive than a traditional public outreach program. It can be more expensive. It can have surveys to try to really get at what people are doing and how do we change it. So that was the reasoning behind it. Thank you. Does that help? Yes, thank you. Does the commission have any other questions on the conservation and open space element? We're good, or at least. Quiet. All right. So moving on to the recreation element, several updates in this element. The main one really has to do with the parks and open space master plan. The county completed an updated master plan in 2023, and that is now essentially the guiding vision for the county's park system going forward. So we've added several references to that master plan throughout the element. There were some existing references to an old version of the recreation master plan in there. So in some cases, I think we've just we've kind of updated those so they're more current. There is new policy language about looking at unserved areas as a priority for new or expanded parks. That was one of the focus areas of the parks and open space master plan. So we've reflected that in the comp plan. And then also table one of this element, which is a table of recreational site classifications of different park types and their service areas. That has been updated to reflect the information, the new information that's in the 2023 parks master plan. So the two are consistent. Then in policy 1.3.1, we've added some language about considering inclusion of charging stations for phones and e-bikes at county parks where feasible and practical. That was a direction that we got from the county commission. So that's been added in there. Another thing the board wanted us to incorporate in here was something about exploring different options for the ongoing maintenance of county parks, including agreements with local volunteer organizations. So that language has been added in 1.5.5. And then promotion of eco-tourism. That was another board direction. They wanted to see some policy language that focused on the use of the county's resource-based parks to promote eco-tourism in the county. So that language has been added in 1.4.11. And then some of the existing policy language about community engagement has been updated to just generally call for community engagement where new or expanded parks are proposed. So now there's policy language to say that. That's the extent of the changes in the recreation element. If you have any questions on that one. Questions? Comments? Next. The next one is the intergovernmental coordination element. There are not a lot of specific changes in here. This was one where staff went through and just proposed some various technical updates, things like revising the names of agencies or deleting references to agencies or committees that once existed but no longer exist. Just revising or deleting some policies that appear to be outdated and then just revising policies generally where needed to reflect current intergovernmental coordination mechanisms that are in place. So not a lot of changes in that element. Which one are you? So I'll go ahead and pause there if the commission has any questions on the intergovernmental coordination element. Thank you. Amendments? Give me just a moment. Okay. Any comments? We move forward. Move forward. Grab it. All right. All right. The next element is the capital improvements element. There is one change in this element, and it has to do with basin management action plan or BMAP capital projects. And I think I mentioned this at the beginning of the presentation, but a new table four has been added in this element, which shows water quality-related capital projects that are associated with basin management action plans that are attributable to Alachua County. This is a new requirement under state statute that we include these water quality projects, capital projects, in our comprehensive plan. So we've worked with our water resources folks to identify what those projects are and include them in the comprehensive plan. I have a question about the watershed areas. The basins don't necessarily follow political boundaries, so I'm wondering about how that is navigated when you may have a basin that crosses the city and county boundaries, et cetera. Mr. Chair, I'm not the best person to answer that one. Still Stacey Greco with our water resources program. That is a fabulous question. We're actually within three BMAPs, basin management action plans. Our allocations, though, are for the unincorporated part of the county. The municipalities have their own allocations, and they will be doing their own projects. There can be partnerships, which hopefully will happen, but the projects that were in here are county projects at this point in time. So there is the ability to partner? Yes, there is. Are there any other questions from the commission on the capital improvements element change? Just the normal, where do we get the money? That's not the day. Okay. I will move on, then, to the economic element. One comment on the economic element. There are a few changes that are proposed in this element. I would point out, though, that staff is in the process of doing what I would characterize as a full rewrite and reorganization of this element. Much of the material in there is out of date and really no longer reflective of what the county is doing in terms of economic development. So we will be bringing forward what I'll call a complete strike-through and rewrite of this element probably later in the year for a new economic element, one that's a little more reflective of what the county is currently doing. There are a few focused revisions that are included in this current package, though, things that we either needed to include in here by statute or things that the county commission has directed us to add. And the first has to do with home-based businesses. This was a statutory change from 2021, and that change essentially prohibited local governments from enacting or enforcing any regulation that violates the statutory criteria. And the statute provides that home-based businesses that operate from a residential property may operate in any area that is zoned for residential use, and they can't be regulated in a manner that's different from other businesses in the jurisdiction. So our existing policy, 118, and the economic element was not reflective of that current statute, so that policy has been revised so that it is consistent with the statute. I would point out, too, that we have revised our land development regulations already to be consistent with that statute. A new policy is proposed to be added in the economic element, 1.5.12, to recognize the county's forward-focus planning effort. That is an ongoing effort. It's a needs assessment and economic development effort, planning effort, for the eastern third of Alachua County. Just putting something in the comprehensive plan to recognize that effort and that it will be a continuing effort going forward. Another addition has to do with the circular economy again and the county's eco-loop project. We talked about that already, but there are new policies added into the economic element. They are also added into the solid waste element, just to reflect the board's current strategy on circular economy and the eco-loop project. Urban agriculture, there are some changes under Objective 1.9 and a new policy, 1.9.6, that just generally add the promotion of urban agriculture as part of the county's economic strategy in the policy language for the element. Also, another key change here is in policy 1.1.1. I think I've kind of taken these out of order, but in that policy, there's a list of county-targeted industries, and that list has been updated to add agriculture, local food, and solid waste recycling, reuse, reprocessing, and re-manufacturing into the list of county-targeted industries. And I believe there's also a clarification in that policy stating that distribution is only a targeted industry where it's adjacent to rail facilities. And that was a county commission direction, so that's been clarified as a targeted industry in that policy. And that's all for the economic element, if the commission has any questions. Continue, please. Okay. Moving on to the energy element. There's not a lot of change here. I would point out much of the policy language in the energy element relates very closely to the climate action plan work that the county has done and is continuing to do. So one of the things we're going to be doing as a follow-up to this process is incorporating more detailed policies relating to the climate action plan into the comp plan. But there are a few things in this batch, too, that we've included. One is to revise the existing policies that talk about different target goals, for example, community-wide greenhouse gas reduction, water conservation, non-automobile mode share, and vehicle miles traveled per capita. There are some very specific goals in the energy element. Some of those were goals for the year 2020, where we've simply deleted those because the year has passed. But the general policy focus on those goals, I think we've found that we don't really have great baseline data in a lot of cases to really measure these goals. So those policies on those particular goals have been revised to essentially say that we need to develop appropriate baseline data for tracking these metrics going forward. So that's a process we're going to be working on, separate from the current batch of amendments, but that'll be coming forward in the future. The references to the PACE program, that's Property Assessed Clean Energy, that was a state program based on a federal program, which provided financing options for energy efficiency-related home upgrades for people. Well, Alachua County was implementing that program locally for several years. Then I think in 2021, that program was essentially discontinued in Alachua County. So references to it are just simply deleted from the energy element. Again, the state-mandated solid waste recycling goals, we would be deleting policies 7-1-1 and 7-1-2, which talk about the state's 75% recycling goal for the year 2020, as well as the interim goals as those time frames have passed. And then, once again, talking about the circular economy, it appears in several different elements, including the energy element. So a new policy, 7-1-1, is proposed talking about circular economy in relation to energy. Thank you, Chair. On the PACE program, I know the residential one ran into significant issues in multiple ways, but on the commercial side, in a commercial PACE program, I would like for us to consider supporting that or having the county do that. The commercial, I don't know if you're familiar with PACE programs or the residential commercial, but the residential one, I think, probably did take advantage of a lot of people and got them trapped into it. But the commercial PACE program is for commercial buildings, and those people, in essence, kind of know what they're doing, but they're getting into. There's not. It's a much more robust kind of how they're qualified for it, as well. And it also helps energy refit, like large apartment complexes or a new development. You can, I think, in getting funding or in getting loans for it, you can, in some new buildings, you could get, like, 20%, 30% of the building could be put into a commercial PACE program. I was wondering if the county has looked into that commercial PACE or, yeah. Mr. Chair, honestly, I cannot answer that question. I don't know if any other staff can, but I would point out just on the policy language, we didn't delete the whole policy. We just kept it as consider potential options for implementation of an efficiency and renewable energy financing program. So there's probably some room there to put something about commercial, if that's the direction of the commission. Thank you, Chair. More questions, comments? I have a question about the state-mandated solid waste recycling goals that were deleted. Are those being replaced? Are there new goals? Are there new state-mandated requirements for those? Mr. Chair, I probably am not the best person to answer that question. I don't know if Gus Olmos might know the answer to that. Good evening, Gus Olmos, solid waste director. No, the state is still working on updating those goals, so there's no new goals right now. Thank you. And while we do have knowledgeable staff here, policy 5.2.1, the interim target of 50% by 2025 of energy purchased or produced by solar, has that been reached or not? It's policy 5.2.1. Okay, so the policy says the county's goal by 2030 is that 100% of energy purchased or produced for county facilities be from solar photovoltaic sources, with an interim target of 50% by 2025. Once again, I do not know that answer. I'm not sure if any other staff in the room know that. I don't believe we've met that goal. I don't believe so either. But I can't tell you what percentage we are at. Mr. Chair, commissioners, yeah, we have not met that goal, but as Ben said, I don't know what that number is. You know, we don't produce our own energy, so we're kind of limited to some of those options. We are putting, you know, solar on new buildings that the county has, and so we are working toward that goal. But I don't know what the number is, but I don't believe we hit that mark. Thank you for those comments. We're good. Oh, okay. Then I was going to make a couple comments. I was, a number of us looked at documents that were very large and took up a couple days, and we missed the mark, and we were, so I prepared for something else, and it was more detailed. Your presentation was really quite good, both in how you delivered it and what you told us, but it, in some areas, it didn't go deep enough. And so from that viewpoint, when you say, what, you know, what are we approving or trying to approve, and, you know, we had a 28-page summary. We got a couple hundred pages and another document. You know, we got other stuff. And trying to figure out what it is, what is our responsibility, what are the parameters, and it's not a problem with your presentation at all. It's a problem of having missed and not sure what we are supposed to be. I'm not sure exactly on what I would do to say I'm ready, and other, from other comp plans and other things I've done, I would be going deeper than what I'm doing here. And, I mean, when you have a 28-page summary, and I've yellow-lined it, you know, it's like you've gone through it, you've looked at it, it makes you think. So one of those, I'm trying to think about what should our direction be, how do we fulfill our mission. And I'm a little worried about how, when you're at a high enough level, you're not being as precise as you might want to be. And there are some other things that are, have been asked, and from some of the people who are not here, where do we go from there? So, am I making sense to you? Mr. Chair, I can try to address that a bit. But, you know, we're given essentially a one-year time frame to look through our comprehensive plan and make sure that it is updated to be consistent with state statutes, and then also address whatever other local issues that we think need to be addressed in the comprehensive plan. So, I think what staff is asking is for the commission to look at the changes that have been proposed, the strike-through and underline documents, and give us any comments or feedback on those. Also, if there are issues that maybe we have not addressed in any of this policy language, that you let us know, okay, well, we would like you to address this issue or that issue. And maybe if time permits, we can build that into this package, or if not, we can bring it back at a separate package of amendments. I'm asking other members of the board, you know, do you have any thoughts? Are you all good with what you have? Are you... Is it comprehensive enough? Yes? Well, I just asked, what's the timeline for our board, separate from the commission, separate from the state requirements? What is... A couple weeks. Well, I mean, including meetings. Like, what is... I mean, is this it? And what's the timeline that it has to go through us before it goes to the county commission? Mr. Chair, there is no timeline separate from the state timeline. It's all the same timeline. So our deadline is March 31st. Like I said, we can go a little past that without any significant consequence. I think for this commission, obviously, we want to be mindful of the deadline, but we also... We want you to have adequate time to review these changes and give the input that you, as the commission, feel like you need to give us before we pass this along to the county commission. So more direct question. What other meetings are planned for our board about the comp plan? Mr. Chair, we have three other potential meeting dates lined up, if needed. We scheduled this one to see how much we could get through in this meeting. If we still need more time to discuss after this meeting, we have March 4th, and we have March 11th, and we have March 12th as potential follow-up dates for further discussion. Senator. Senator. Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I very much appreciate all the staff working on this, and an incredible amount, and I think it's very well done. For me, and I think this is only a week to review this, also the public has had a week, and I spoke to people who they read their jobs in the comp plans as well, and they've had the chance to read it as well, so I do think we should have a second meeting. I think it's a good time to digest what we've heard here, think about it, talk to staff in between, and come back with, and hopefully maybe we move forward to the next one, but I think that would be my suggestion. I also, when we have time, I'd like to go through the amendments that I'd like to propose as well, too. We have. But March 4th actually worked best for me, too. We have taking dates, or if we want to take a date. I'm going to ask other people for comments. I'm not trying to drive the train. I'm just trying to help it. So can we let staff finish their presentation? We're like so close. I think there's like a couple, right? One more slide. I'm sorry. There was one more element. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that. Chair, I have one more question, or really I guess it's a question about, again, about the recycling piece that's being deleted. And is that something that staff has thought about, that you don't want to have any goals, given the fact the state may be still working on goals? Is that something that you want to delete completely, or have you thought about including that? So, I'm also the director. So, we're not stopping recycling. We're still doing the work. We're just deleting the reference to the state goals because they're out of date. The expectation is that the state is going to come up with statewide goals, and if they do, then we'll adopt those. I think you're referring to maybe we should adopt a county-specific recycling goal? That's a question. That's something we can certainly take into consideration, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Chair, does that? Yes. Yeah, to your point, member, I think that probably having some county goals, I don't have much faith in the state putting forward goals that are going to be, they might even be less than what the previous ones were. So, I think it might be good for the county to create our own goals. Thank you, Chair. So, I'm sorry, I did not realize I had prematurely stopped here. My apologies. Okay, like I said, only one more element to go through, and that is the community health element. This is another one where we're going to be doing some additional work and working with the Health Care Advisory Board and other community health stakeholders to do a more comprehensive update of this element. It was originally written back in 2008, 2009, and there's a number of aspects that need to be updated, and there's a lot of work that has to be done with stakeholders and advisory committees before we can come forward with those. There are a few changes proposed in this batch, however, one has to do with social determinants of health. This was added as a focus in the overall element goal and Objective 1.1, and then also there's a new policy, 1.1.9, calling for the county to support programs and work with partner agencies that seek to address and improve social determinants of health for vulnerable populations. This idea came from direction of the county commission, so that is why you're seeing this in here, and social determinants of health really focus on things like economic stability, education access, health care, as well as neighborhood and built environment factors. So building those kinds of things into the community health element will be a focus going forward. So gun violence as a public health crisis, the county commission adopted a resolution recognizing that the county has declared gun violence as a public health crisis, so we have included a new policy in the community health element at the board's direction to reflect that declaration and resolution. Also, having to do with aging in place, there is a new policy, 1.2.5, calling for the county to explore ways through grant programs and other sources to assist residents making necessary safety upgrades to their homes to help promote aging in place. That was another one that was a county commission-directed addition. Food systems and healthy food access, this is a significant focus area for the board, and the health element goal is revised to include promoting access to fresh, healthy foods. And then policy 1.2.3 was also revised to add the county jail as a partner agency for county efforts to encourage access to healthy foods, and also a revision in 1.3.1.6 to include support for food system infrastructure development and expansion, as that is a major strategic focus area for the board. And then the county's central receiving facility, there is a new policy proposed, 1.7.4, which simply recognizes the central receiving facility, which provides support for individuals that are experiencing mental health and substance abuse crisis issues. So that's a new policy. That is all for the community health element. If there's any questions on that one. Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am. In a number of places, there's the idea of encouraging aging in place. What was the discussion of the commission that prioritized that? Was that homelessness prevention or...? I don't think it was homelessness prevention. I think it was just simply that, aging in place, just allowing people to stay in their homes as they grow older and not have to move. I'm not sure what the impetus for that would have been, but it was a board direction. Mr. Chair? Yes. Along those same lines, for this aging in place, are we connecting this proposed amendment to our housing and transportation elements in any way? I would think they would correlate. Mr. Chair, yes. And, in fact, there is some new language added in the housing element talking about doing things to promote aging in place. I'm not sure. I don't think it's addressed in the transportation element, but we can certainly add that if that's the will of the board. Aging in place. To me, it would make sense. There was a policy somewhere about transit, access to transit. It might have been in the housing policy, but it did mention, it did link aging in place with transit. But if it wasn't, I mean, it's worth repeating in the transportation element. It just only makes sense to thread it through as well. Mr. Chair, for social determinants of health, staff, did you mention that we have defined social determinants locally in that policy? Let me pull it up. So that's, well, it's objective 1.1 and then 1.1.9. And to answer, I don't think we have actually defined social determinants of health, although that is a good suggestion, and we could add that if that's the will of the board. That would be my recommendation. And then, Mr. Chair, for gun violence proposed amendment, is there any policies or action-oriented policies that would follow, or is that just simply a declaration? It's a declaration, and, in fact, I think at the board meeting just yesterday, they heard about a gun violence strategic plan. And, unfortunately, I can't remember what their action was on that strategic plan. I don't know if they voted to adopt it, but it was presented to the county commission yesterday, and it had a number of implementation steps. It's a joint effort of Alachua County and the city of Gainesville and, I believe, Santa Fe College. Other questions? Yes. To build on that, it may be worthwhile to define aging in place as well. And maybe a statement of why it's important to the county to have those policies. We have them elsewhere, so for other policies. For that, sorry, Mr. Chair, for the question. You're doing just fine. For the food systems and healthy food access, is there anything that discusses, like, zoning or some kind of economic incentive for grocery stores? That's been a thing. Yep. I don't believe that is in the community health element. Probably the place where that would be addressed would be the economic element. And just to directly answer your question, no, that's not included in this batch of changes. So I would actually propose an element under what I just mentioned, food systems and healthy foods. This element goal revised to include promoting access to fresh and healthy food by even strategically thinking about zoning or economic incentives for grocery stores. Chair, I have a comment? I have. You go ahead. You want to go ahead? Go for it. Okay. One thing I wanted to, and I'm sure your attorneys are looking at this, but I thought there was something in the environmental justice factors definition to just be assured that your definitions are in accordance with the, was it, Senate Bill 266 that became law. We've been getting, we at the school board have been getting a lot of, we've been getting a lot of, having a lot of issues with that. Just FYI. We will take a look at that. This might be you, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Go finish your list. So for the Alachua County Central Receiving Facility, and this is probably more loaded, but is there funding commitment for that? I know it is funded. I don't know about funding commitment into the future. It's funded now. And there's a state appropriation, right, for the facility itself? I think that the state appropriation was to initially build the facility. Yeah. One of my questions is, what's next? And we have, I know, one of them is like, what's next? I peaked. And we have, there are, this slide show was quite well done, and thank you very much. You know, and your explanations were good, and your tolerance is exceedingly good. So after that, what I, but there are, we've been reading other parts of this. How many of you, have you gone into the 200-page, or the 28, even the 28-page summary? Have you all been through that? I have not received it, because I am a new member, and I didn't even. We can fix that. I'm so excited about that. But what I'm trying to decide, and then I'm asking for guidance from Jeff, you know, what we're doing is, a bunch of us, we're going in one direction, and for more of the details. And this is a, what we have today is a higher level, but not the details, some of the details that we have in the, and so if we have these documents that are floating around, does that mean that tangentially, that they are getting swept up into this? Or is this, do we need to, I mean, the 28 pages don't need to be all done, but there are some things in there that are probably important. And that's, and then you're going to ask me what it is, so I can start pulling out my yellow, you know, my underline. But we have, but I don't know if that's appropriate. And so I'm trying not to create a whole new deal, but I am trying to do a good job for us and the community and the staff. And there's a lot of work that's gone into it. So I'm trying to get a little help on how we are moving forward, because moving forward is a good thing, as opposed to some of the alternatives we've experienced. So I think there are a number of things. One is reviewing the changes that are in front of us. One is to just have, like, Mr. Hayes-Santos having things that want to be added to it. And then just questions, and just in general, I mean, I have questions about the minimum lot size way back in the beginning of the presentation. I don't want to take up, I don't want to have a full room of staff members, because that is a huge commitment, and it's very valuable that everyone's here. But I don't know if that's – so I think we should have another meeting. I think we should maybe not go page by page, but bring the questions that we have that came up tonight, bring the suggestions that we have tonight, focus on those things, and then hopefully come to a place of recommendation after that. Does it need to be – if there is something that we have read in these reports and we think is important? To discuss tonight? Not tonight, but to discuss it. Oh, absolutely. You know, at the next meeting. You know, so that if you have points that you're concerned about, then we ought to not be – I think we should not be silent, but we shouldn't be thinking that we're commissioners, you know, the county commissioners. I mean, there's this balance. And so – but I don't want to have – from my personal viewpoint, I like to give as good input as I can that's meaningful and will be helpful. So just one suggestion on – to Kristen's side on a lot of staff. Maybe if there – our next meeting, if there are sections, letting staff know if they're – like, I have a question on this section or I want to talk about this section, letting staff know ahead of time of which sections you want to discuss the next time. Like, I know I want to discuss the future land use. There's a few other ones I want to discuss as well. But just to help, I think, reduce on your staff, I think that might be helpful on your end, and then, like, start narrowing it down on that. But I think if you do have – I mean, I don't know if things can be – to the attorney, if stuff can be shared with staff and then sent out, if there's – if people do have notes prior to the meeting as well, so we can start looking at other people's notes, in a sense, on where they're standing and if that's possible or not. So your notes can be sent to staff as far as staff circulating kind of responses and whatnot. I wouldn't suggest doing that. But you could certainly send your notes to staff so the staff can come prepared to discuss those and highlight those key things. Could those be shared with everyone else, or does that have to happen? Like, I had my notes here I brought up. Like, can they be sent and just sent out if they're not, like, addressing each other's notes? If they're just, like, these are my kind of thoughts. If there were to be – I suppose you could have a situation where there's, like, a compilation of notes that might be able to be sent out. We can take a look at what comes in and make a judgment call then. But if it's almost like a compilation that would not be responsive to one another, that might be something that we can do. I think that might be helpful just for the other board members to send that out just so we know kind of this person is going to focus on this area so we can start reading that area, understanding kind of where you're at, too. For me, land use and transportation are the ones I want to – because it's most relevant to my experience on this board. And I will say that right now. So that, again, I don't want to take a members of staff's time to have them here another night if there's no questions that can't be answered by the staff that's provided to the Planning Commission. Should we try and do some specifics tonight so that we can just – to minimize the number of people who might have to come? We're almost at 8.30. I think we're flagging a bit. Okay. Mr. Chair, as a suggestion, and I think they were good suggestions, if you would provide staff your comments, notes, questions, my guess is from – based on the fact that we've handled a lot of the specified staff from different departments, areas, and I didn't hear a lot of – or where we had questions, you've already addressed them, is what I heard. Unless you find additional, that's fine. And just let us know, and we can either have them be here or we can be prepared as growth management staff. My guess is that most of your questions probably are for growth management staff, and we're always here anyway. So – and I'm looking at Commissioner Hayes-Santos' list. These are, you know, growth management issues, so we'll be here. And to the question about sending them, the other thing is for us to probably arrive at a date, and then if you're going to send us comments, we're going to collect them, and we're going to send the commission comments out to the commissioners. We're going to do that in one fell swoop and then not to be responded to or to get what Corbyn was getting to so we don't have any sunshine violations. And so I think then – so we're happy to be here. It's up to you if you have more questions related to what you've seen. If you want more time to digest it, which is what it sounds like to me, we can certainly take the pause and come back at the future meeting. Chair, can I ask a clarifying question? Can you clarify the process after – do you provide this commission's comments to your commissioners? What is the process for our suggestions? All of – whatever the planning commission's recommendation ends up being, we will provide that to the county commission when we present this to them. So in some cases, if there's some, you know, technical language changes that, you know, just are easy to put in, we'll just go ahead and add those into the amendment package now. If it's more policy-level decisions, we'll highlight those so that the board can consider them and make their decision. And, Mr. Chair, while you've been having your conversation tonight, I've been taking notes of where there seem like items of consensus. So we'll be prepared for those. And probably at the end of the next meeting, we can read those off to you. And if that's – if there's still consensus, that's what we would forward on as your recommendation to them. Then one of the issues would be, would we be ready for next week or do we need to go two weeks out? I think they said March 4th, March 12th, or – It's March 4th, March 11th, or March 12th. We have this room available. When is spring break for the following? It's the following week. The fourth one? Yeah. The third? The following week. It starts like the same. The week of the 16th. And then you have spring break. Is that impactful? Is that impactful? I think we've just got to find something that works for us. Yeah. I know that. I just wanted to make sure everyone could be here. Any of those dates work for me, March 4th, 11th, or 12th. I'm going to have – I'm on a mission – I'm on a trip, an educational trip, for Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And so I can – I don't have much time beforehand or after the next meeting. So I'm going to be able to squeeze there. But I'm not as – I don't want to hold up the train. So are you saying you wouldn't be available for the March 4th? I'll be here, but I'm not – I'm worried about my preparation. I'm in Texas on the 4th. All that whole week. Okay. Mr. Chair, might I suggest the 11th is two weeks from now. And as a reminder, your regularly scheduled March meeting has been bumped to the 25th due to spring break. So that would be – you'd have two meetings in March 1 on the 11th and one on the 25th. Yeah. I'm not worried about – we have a mission, so we need to complete it. And we – Sounds like March 11th. And we have time. Is it consensus then? That works. And you'd have the next day if we had to, but I think that gives us time to – that gives us time to get our questions together and talk with staff or whatever else and not to have to have everybody – the gang that we have here. We'd love to have you here, but we're just trying to be respectful. Mindful, yeah. Yes, mindful is a good word. Is this – are we coming to a consensus here? March 11th works. Yes. Has anybody opposed? Okay. I think – are we good? Mr. Chair, just quick – Yes. So for our fellow commissioners that weren't – that wasn't here, are we planning to send those directives about sending their feedback, thoughts, comments – We should. – creatively – Yes. – in a communication – Excellent point. Okay. And I think it would have been covered, but it's good to have it right here. That's good. Keep it up. Okay. And, Chair, if possible, if I could have a couple minutes just to kind of review proposals, just so I can kind of give you the reasoning behind them. Go for it. Maybe everyone can see, but the thoughts on these amendments are they're focused on the future land use element. They are mainly focused on the urban cluster, mainly, and the urbanization of that cluster, and also keeping in mind that that area will get annexed by the city, and that's kind of the goal of the county as well. The first one is looking at – it's explicitly stating there's no parking minimums countywide. Parking minimums drive more driving. They also create more stormwater runoff, and there's a lot of – the city of Gainesville doesn't have any parking minimums, and many communities around the country are moving away from them. The second is a prohibition of new gated communities in the urban cluster. It reduces connectivity. Also, the city of Gainesville does not have that, so it kind of starts to fit with – as the city of Gainesville continues to annex the county or the urban cluster. The third one is on mixed-use flexibility. We had this discussion at our last meeting where I think there was consensus that we thought mixed-use was a good idea of having that, so we'd like to have – having some enabling language to allow for mixed-use in the commercial office and light industrial. And then in the high-density and medium-high-density residential areas allowing commercial there as well, so that fits with those kind of higher-intensity uses and allows for mixed-use there. Density – so looking at our density and then looking at kind of some of the other goals in the comp plan, I mean, there's almost, I think, every goal – almost every goal in section in there is – it's – a lot of it's focused on how do we reduce energy and environmental, and a lot of that comes down to in transportation. There's a goal of a 50-minute headway. A lot of that all deals with having a more dense area and protecting our rural areas. Our urban cluster is filling up, and we need to allow more density in the urban cluster, or we'll have to expand the urban cluster line. So looking at increasing those – some of them look like large increases, and they are, but the densities in the urban cluster are very low. So just for example, like the low-density, which is the lowest density in the urban cluster, it is currently at four units an acre, the city of Gainesville has a lowest density of 12 units an acre. And even just going to the high-density one, I know there's an increase from 24 to 75 dwelling units an acre, but just to give you an example of what that building looks like, across from campus, like two or three blocks in, north of University Avenue, in kind of the College Park area, you'll see buildings that are four stories tall, that have one floor of parking underneath, and three stories of residential. Those are 75-unit-acre buildings in that area. And then looking at increasing the TND and TOD. One of them is looking at the open space requirement in the urban cluster. Having a lot of open space inside the urban cluster makes it more likely that people have to drive. It makes it harder to walk, so keeping more of our open spaces outside the urban cluster, and kind of allowing the internal portion of our urban area to be urban. And the last one is looking to, it's kind of a much more technical one, but trying to, in their governmental section, of creating, or having the county creating a governmental service boundary agreement, or interlocal service boundary agreement, to really lay out how annexations work, how urban services are changed, or transferred over from the county, or from the county to the city, also the capital roads and all that. The city and the county did start working on one back in 2017-18, a joint planning agreement, there wasn't a full ISPA, but I think that would help as these areas are changing, and they're going to be annexed in the city, having a much more clear way of how that's done. Thank you, Chair. The only, I'm going to read this carefully, one of the things that not having gates helps is interconnectivity and roads, and on the other hand, sometimes I think there is a point for it, and when you have the absolutes, you know, that's, I'm just thinking it through. Mm-hmm. And so I'm putting it on the table, and then we'll talk more about it, and I'll think about it, too. Appreciate it, thank you. The thinking's not done yet. No, so I wanted to just bring it out there to start the thinking. Okay. Well, at two and a half hours, are we, are we, have we, are we at a good point for you? Mr. Chair, yes, I think so. Okay, I think it's, we probably need a motion to continue this public hearing to March 11th at 6 p.m. We'll do that in just a moment. I just want to make sure that we had done what we needed to do for this meeting. I saw that. Yes. Okay. I would move that we continue this meeting, public hearing, to March 11th at 6 p.m. Second? Second. We got a second. Okay. Discussion? Yeah, someone back there? Okay. All in favor? Just reminding about public comment. Public comment. Do we have any public here? I mean, I have a lot of familiar faces. Okay. I'm sorry. I keep doing that. And I was supposed to have somebody who was going to make up a little thing like public comment. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you all very, very much for being here to helping us through this journey. And I appreciate you all not throwing spitballs or anything at us. It's really good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman. We got public comment again? Public comment. Pardon? That's correct. Public comment again. Is there any more public comment? Items not on this agenda. Okay. We're all good. We're adjourned. Okay. We're all good. We're adjourned.