The Issue Whether the Ochlocknee Management Corporation has demonstrated that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Initial Purchase. In January, 1986, Ochlocknee Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Ochlocknee"), began negotiations for the purchase and development of land located on Buck Lake Road (hereinafter referred to as the "Buck Lake Property"). On January 25, 1986, a document indicating an intent to sell 100 acres of the Buck Lake Property to Ochlocknee was executed. On October 31, 1986, a Contract for Sale was entered into between Ochlocknee and the owners of the Buck Lake Property. Pursuant to the Contract for Sale, Ochlocknee agreed to purchase 100 acres of the Buck Lake Property (hereinafter referred to as the "100 Acres"). The 100 Acres were to be developed in three phases by Ochlocknee. The development was named Avondale. In February of 1987, the 100 Acres were rezoned and platted. The Development of Units I, II and III. Development of Avondale Unit I began in March, 1987. In August, 1987, the Unit I plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit I were complete. In April, 1988, development of Avondale Unit II began. The development of Unit II began approximately 8 months after the Unit I plat was recorded. In October, 1988, the Unit II plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit II were complete. In May, 1989, development of Avondale Unit III began. The development of Unit III began approximately 7 months after the Unit II plat was recorded. In November, 1989, the Unit III plat was recorded. All roads, utilities and storm water for Unit III were complete. During the construction of Unit III Ochlocknee intended to purchase an additional parcel of the Buck Lake Property. This property was to be developed as additional phases or units of the Avondale development, including Avondale Unit IV, the development which is the subject of this proceeding. When constructed, the main road running through Units I, II and III was intended to continue through, and serve, Avondale Unit IV. The road is the only road providing access between Unit IV and Buck Lake Road. Utilities for Unit III were designed and stubbed to serve Unit IV. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that any action which Leon County took in approving the development of Units I, II, or III could have been reasonably relied upon by Ochlocknee in its development of Unit IV. Most of Leon County's actions in approving the development of Avondale were taken before the Unit IV property was even purchased. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove that Leon County specifically reviewed any plans concerning Ochlocknee's plans to develop Unit IV until after the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed for approval. The Second Purchase. In November, 1988, Ochlocknee began negotiations for the purchase of the additional parcel of the Buck Lake Property to be developed as Unit IV. The property consisted of 40.5 acres and was to be developed as Unit IV, the development at issue in this proceeding, and Unit V. In March, 1989, the owners of the 40.5 acres applied for rezoning of the 40.5 acre parcel from A-2 (agricultural use) to R-1 (residential use). In March, 1989, Ochlocknee entered into a Contract for Sale and Option, pursuant to which Ochlocknee was to purchase the 40.5 acres. Unit IV was to consist of 10 acres of the parcel. The 10 acres abut Unit III. The remaining 30.5 acres of the parcel were to be developed as Unit V. In May, 1989, the 40.5 acre parcel was rezoned as R-1, limited use. The zoning limited septic tanks on the property to 2.2 units per acre. On June 27, 1989, Ochlocknee purchased the 10 acres to be developed as Unit IV. The Regional Stormwater Facility. In April, 1988, Poole & Associates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Poole"), prepared plans and designs for a regional stormwater facility for 126 acres of the Buck Lake Property. Poole provided the engineers for Avondale. The plan developed by Poole was intended to handle stormwater for all of Units II and III, all of what was to be Unit IV, part of what was to be Unit V and part of the Buck Lake Property which was not to be developed by Ochlocknee. This regional stormwater facility will hereinafter be referred to as the "Stormwater Facility". The plans and designs for the Stormwater Facility were completed before Unit IV was purchased by Ochlocknee and before Unit IV was rezoned from A-2 to R-1. In July, 1989, Ochlocknee began construction of the Stormwater Facility. Ponds used in the Stormwater Facility are located on Unit III. In November, 1989, when the Unit III plat was recorded, the Stormwater Facility was substantially completed. The Stormwater Facility was generally approved upon the recording of the Unit III plat. Recording of the Unit III plat and the approval of the Stormwater Facility only applied to the use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit III. The use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV was not approved or even reviewed by Leon County in November, 1989. Ochlocknee was required to maintain the Stormwater Facility for an additional year after it was approved for Unit III. After approval of the Stormwater Facility for Unit III, problems arose with the Stormwater Facility. These problems began as early as August, 1989 based upon an August 31, 1989, letter from Broward Davis & Assoc., Inc., to Ochlocknee. In a letter dated November 22, 1989, from the Respondent's engineering inspectors, Poole was provided with a "punch list" of problems associated with Units I, II and III, including problems associated with the Stormwater Facility. The punch list was developed during a meeting held on November 21, 1989. Ochlocknee informed Leon County that the problems raised in the letter referred to in finding of fact 29 would be resolved in 30 days. The problems continued, however, into 1990. Efforts continued during the remainder of 1989 and early 1990 to resolve the problems. On January 17, 1990, a new Environmental Management Act became effective in Leon County. Ochlocknee was required to insure that its proposed use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV complied with the Act. In a letter dated February 22, 1990, Leon County notified Poole that preliminary plans for the development of Unit IV which had been submitted to Leon County had been reviewed. Poole was informed that additional information concerning the preliminary site plans was needed before Unit IV could be approved for development. Among other things, Leon County informed Poole that additional information concerning the use of the Stormwater Facility for Unit IV would have to be submitted. Unit IV Development. In October, 1988, Poole prepared a preliminary site plan for the development of Unit IV. These plans were prepared before the property which constitutes Unit IV was purchased or rezoned from A-2 to R-1. On June 27, 1989, Ochlocknee purchased the 10 acres of Unit IV for $104,956.50. In November, 1989, Ochlocknee entered into an agreement with Poole to design roadways, utilities and obtain construction approvals for Unit IV. On December 1, 1989, preliminary plat approval for Unit IV was applied for. The preliminary plat was approved by the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department on January 10, 1990. On January 17, 1990, the City of Tallahassee approved the water distribution plans for Unit IV. On January 12, 1990, the City of Tallahassee agreed to provide water and electrical service for Unit IV. On February 2, 1990, a commitment for a construction loan for Unit IV was received by Ochlocknee. The Leon County comprehensive plan was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs on February 1, 1990. Ochlocknee should have been aware of the drafting of the comprehensive plan and the fact that it had been provided to the Department of Community Affairs for approval. 41 In March, 1990, Poole completed final construction drawings for the Unit IV roadways. In April, 1990, Ochlocknee received contracts for the construction of roadways and utilities for Unit IV. In May, 1990, Poole held an onsite pre-construction conference with Leon County officials, utility providers and construction personnel. Poole placed stakes for clearing limits on Unit IV during May, 1990. On June 29, 1990, Leon County approved roadway construction plans for Unit IV. At the time that the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed by Ochlocknee for approval, Ochlocknee knew that the Stormwater Facility needed to be modified before development of Unit IV would be approved. Despite this knowledge, Ochlocknee chose to continue to propose that the Stormwater Facility be used for Unit IV. These problems continued throughout the time after the preliminary plat for Unit IV was filed. In May, 1990, Leon County informed Ochlocknee that a permit for clearing and grading, the last permit needed to begin construction, would not be issued until the Stormwater Facility proposed for Unit IV was modified and the problems previously identified by Leon County with the Stormwater Facility in 1989, were corrected. Construction on Unit IV has not commenced. Costs Associated with Unit IV. The cost of rezoning the 10 acres of Unit IV was $2,911.25 plus a $300.00 fee. The $300.00 fee was incurred in March, 1989, before the Unit IV property was purchased or the rezoning had taken place. Therefore, the fee was not incurred in reliance upon any representation from Leon County. The $2,911.25 cost was incurred between October, 1988 and May, 1989. This amount was incurred before the purchase of the Unit IV property or the approval of the rezoning. Therefore, this cost was not incurred in reliance upon any representation from Leon County. The cost of purchasing the 10 acres which are to be developed as Unit IV was $104,956.50. This cost was incurred in June of 1989. The only action taken by Leon County concerning any possible development of Unit IV prior to the time this cost was incurred was to approve rezoning Unit IV from A-2 to R-1. The cost of purchasing the 10 acres of Unit IV was not, therefore, incurred in reliance upon any action of Leon County other than approval of the rezoning of Unit IV. The cost of constructing the Stormwater Facility attributable to Unit IV was approximately $8,000.00. This cost was incurred between July, 1989, and November, 1989. Therefore, the cost was incurred after the Unit IV property was rezoned but before the preliminary plat and the development plans for Unit IV were approved by Leon County. Therefore, the cost of the Stormwater Facility attributable to the Unit IV property was not incurred in reliance upon any action of Leon County other than approval of the rezoning of Unit IV. Ochlocknee failed to present sufficient evidence to conclude what expenses were incurred by it in stubbing the road and utilities that run through Units I, II, and III are attributable to Unit IV. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove when any such expenses were incurred. These expenses were incurred sometime after the development of Unit I began (before the Unit IV property was acquired or rezoned) and sometime before Unit III was completed (before the preliminary plat for Unit IV was approved). Therefore, any expenses attributable to Unit IV for the road and utilities were incurred before Leon County took any action with regard to the development of Unit IV or were incurred only in reliance upon the rezoning of the Unit IV property. Engineering, surveying and permitting costs associated with Unit IV totalled $13,384.49. These costs were incurred between January, 1990 and May, 1990. Prior to the expenditure of these funds Leon County had approved the rezoning of Unit IV, the preliminary plat and some of the other plans for the development of Unit IV. All of these costs were incurred after Ochlocknee had been informed that there was a problem with the Stormwater Facility. All of the engineering costs were incurred before Leon County had indicated that it would approve the development of Unit IV. On April 25, 1990, Ochlocknee refinanced the note for the 10 acres of Unit IV. The new note was for $219,750.00. This amount was borrowed to refinance the cost of purchasing the 10 acres and to pay construction costs for the development of Unit IV. The funds intended for construction costs for Unit IV have not, however, been expended. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what costs Ochlocknee incurred in obtaining the $219,750.00 note. All of the costs incurred by Ochlocknee relating to the development of Unit IV were incurred in an effort to obtain approval from Leon County for the development of Unit IV. The costs were incurred before any representation from Leon County that development of Unit IV would be allowed to proceed. Some of the costs were incurred before the Unit IV property was rezoned from an agricultural use to R-1. Leon County had taken no action before approval of the rezoning. Some of the costs were incurred only in reliance upon the rezoning of the Unit IV property. Finally, all of the costs were incurred in an effort to obtain approval to develop Unit IV and before Leon County indicated through any action that development of the property would be allowed to proceed. These costs were incurred at a time when Ochlocknee should have known that the development of Unit IV would probably have to be consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Procedure. On or about August 1, 1990, Ochlocknee filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with Leon County. The following information concerning the development of Unit IV was contained on the Application: "Ochlocknee Management" is listed as the "Owner/Agent." Question 3 of the Application requests the name of the project, including the name and address of each owner of, and interested party in, the project or property. "AVONDALE UNIT IV" was included as the response to question 3. The project is described as "22 Residential Lots on 10 acres, Proposed with Public Road, Water, and Recorded Plat." The project location is described as "AVONDALE WAY, SOUTH OF AVONDALE III." Total project costs are estimated at "$226,205.95" and it is estimated that "$126,952,24 " have been expended to date. "Progress . . . Towards Completion" is described as: (1) all utility site, drainage plans completed as of May 4, 1990; (2) preliminary plat approval 1/10/90, water plans approved 2/1/90 and environmental permit 6/27/90; and (3) the drainage facility located in Unit III is complete. "Preliminary Plat, Water Plan Approval, Environm. Permits" are included as forms of "government approval." The response to question 10 of the Application, which requests information concerning government action relied upon prior to committing funds towards completing the project, was "[s]ubdivision Ordinance for Preliminary Plat, The Letter of Agreement, Policy & Procedures Manual for Utilities and the Environmental Management Act for the Stormwater Permits." In a letter dated August 7, 1990, Ochlocknee was informed that its Application was being referred to a Staff Committee comprised of Jim English, Mark Gumula, Howard Pardue, Buddie Holshouser and Herb Thiele. By letter dated August 24, 1990, Ochlocknee provided additional information for the Staff Committee to consider. On August 27, 1990, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee. Barry Poole, of Poole, and Jody Elliott, of Ochlocknee, testified. By letter dated August 27, 1990, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department informed Ochlocknee that the Application had been denied. By letter dated September 5, 1990, to Mr. Gumula, counsel for Ochlocknee appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated October 5, 1990, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on October 25, 1990. During the hearing before the undersigned Ochlocknee stipulated that it had sought approval of its Application based upon "common law vesting" and not "statutory vesting" as those terms are defined in Leon County Ordinance 90- 31.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether a development order approved by Lake County is consistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, the Lake County land development regulations, and the Principles for Guiding Development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner DEO is the state land planning agency with the authority and responsibility to review development orders issued in Areas of Critical State Concern. Respondent Lake County is a political subdivision of the State with jurisdiction over the affected property. Respondent Rubin Groves is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Lake County. Rubin Groves is the owner of the approximate 131 acres in Lake County (“the Property”) on which development was approved by the Ordinance. Background The Property is located within the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern and more particularly within the Lake Wales Ridge. The Property’s future land use designation under the Lake County Comprehensive Plan is Green Swamp Ridge. The topography of the Property is generally a hill, bounded by U.S Highway 27 to the east, a wetland to the west, and properties approved for mixed-use residential uses to the north. Existing elevations are approximately 130 feet NGVD at the wetland on the western boundary of the Property, 140 feet NGVD on eastern boundary at U.S. 27, with the top of the hill in the center portion of the property at an elevation of about 180 feet NGVD. In June 2010, Rubin Groves filed a pre-submittal application with Lake County that proposed a borrow pit (mining) operation for the Property. The County informed Rubin Groves that mining was prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge and Rubin Groves took no further action on the pre-submittal application. In February 2013, Lake County approved Rubin Groves’ application to rezone the Property. Ordinance No. 2013-8 rezoned the Property from Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (“PUD”), allowing a mixed-use development of 490 single-family residential units and 24.54 acres of commercial uses. Less than a year later, Rubin Groves applied to amend the PUD to allow “mass grading” of the Property to make it relatively level to accommodate a residential development for the elderly and disabled (mobility-impaired). The Mass Grading Plan calls for removing 2.4 to 3.0 million cubic yards of sand from the Property. The average cut or change in elevation would be 11 to 12 feet. The deepest cut, near the center of the Property, would be about 30 feet. The contractor that Rubin Groves would hire to extract and remove the sand from the Property would sell the sand and the income would be applied to offset the costs charged to Rubin Groves for the work. The Lake County Community Design staff recommended denial of the application based upon the following: (1) the activities proposed in the Mass Grading Plan constitute mining; (2) mining is prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge future land use category in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan”); (3) the Mass Grading would result in the property's elevation being lowered more than the 10-foot limit in the Lake County Code; (4) the applicant failed to demonstrate that the Mass Grading Plan was necessary to develop the site; and (5) the Mass Grading Plan did not comply with the Green Swamp Principles for Guiding Development, sections (1), (2) (7) and (10). On January 28, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners of Lake County approved the rezoning application, including the Mass Grading Plan, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-7. Whether Sand Mining is Allowed in the Green Swamp Ridge In the previous version of the Comp Plan, mining was expressly prohibited in the Green Swamp Ridge future land use category. In the current Comp Plan, there are four future land use categories established within the Green Swamp: Green Swamp Ridge, Green Swamp Rural, Green Swamp Rural/Conservation, and Green Swamp Core/Conservation. For each category, the Comp Plan lists “Typical Uses” and “Typical Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.” Mining is not listed as a typical use in any category, and it is not similar to any listed typical use. In all categories except Green Swamp Ridge, sand mining is listed as a typical use requiring a conditional use permit. The format of these Comp Plan provisions, together with the fact that sand mining was expressly prohibited in the previous version of the Comp Plan, plainly indicates that sand mining is not an allowed use in the Green Swamp Ridge future land use category. Whether the Proposed Mass Grading is Mining The Comp Plan defines “Mining Activities” as: The mining of materials, ore or other naturally occurring materials from the earth by whatever method, including the removal of overburden for the purpose of extracting and removing from the site such underlying deposits and all associated clearing, grading, construction, processing, transportation and reclamation on the property, and includes the term pre-mining activities and lake creation but shall not be deemed to include activities associated with site surveying, environmental monitoring, mineral exploration or the sinking or operation of test wells and similar activities. Section 6.06.01(F) of the Lake County Code creates eight exemptions to the requirement to obtain a mining conditional use permit and they are activities not commonly considered to be mining. For example, excavating and removing dirt to install a swimming pool does not require a mining conditional use permit. Excavating and removing dirt to install a swimming pool is not commonly considered to be a mining activity. The broad definition in the Comp Plan could allow for absurd applications, contrary to its ordinary meaning, if the term was interpreted to mean the removal of any amount of material from the ground for any purpose. The definition of “mining activities” must be read in conjunction with section 6.06.01(F) of the Lake County Code and the latter, along with common sense, provide guidance for what is mining. It is not mining to excavate soil to install a swimming pool because mining is commonly understood to involve more than the excavation of a small amount of material in a small amount of time. Mining is commonly understood to be an ongoing business of extracting and selling a large volume of material. One of the exemptions from the requirement to obtain a mining conditional use permit is excavation associated with construction activities: Excavation in conjunction with bona fide commercial, industrial or Subdivision Construction provided a Construction approval or Building Permit has been obtained from the County and Excavation is completed and Construction initiated within a reasonable period of time from the date that Excavation is initiated. Said time period shall be determined by the County based upon the type of Construction and shall be indicated on the written exemption document. Excess Overburden generated as a result of the bona fide Construction may be Removed offsite only as follows: Excess overburden generated as a result of the bona fide Construction may be removed offsite so long as the County Manager or designee is provided written notice during Construction approval or Building Permit application process and so long as the total amount of material removed offsite is not greater than two hundred (200) percent of the minimum stormwater retention/detention volume required. If the [200 percent limit] is exceeded or excavation is not storm water related, the County Manager or designee may give approval for removal of such excess Overburden if the applicant shows that removal of such excess Overburden is necessary for development of the Site due to physical factors of the Land or Permitting requirements from a governmental agency. In making this decision, the County Manager or designee shall consider the following factors: Unique physical characteristics and topography of the Land involved; Engineering and environmental factors requiring overburden removal; Whether excavation and removal of Overburden is necessary for access to the property; Permitting requirements of state, local and federal governmental agencies; or Such other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the County Manager or designee. Rubin Groves proposes to remove much more than 200 percent of the volume needed for stormwater retention/detention. Rubin Grove says it intends to seek the approval of the County Manager for exemption from the requirement to obtain a mining conditional use permit. However, as noted above, Ordinance 2014-7 approves the Mass Grading Plan and, therefore, already authorizes Rubin Groves to exceed the 200 percent criterion. Rubin Groves believes it qualifies for the exemption for excavation associated with construction because of its need to level the Property to make the subdivision suitable for mobility-impaired residents. However, that explanation falls short of demonstrating necessity because it does not explain why the Property could not be leveled by moving sand from higher areas of the Property to lower areas. Rubin Groves did not explain why so much sand has to be removed from the Property, but there is some evidence indicating the reason is to allow the residential development to be constructed upon the deeper soils that are denser and more stable. The exemption for bona fide construction activities, like the other activities exempted in Section 6.06.01(F) is not intended to allow mining. The Mass Grading Plan is sand mining because it involves activities that are indistinguishable from the business of sand mining. The estimated volume of sand to be removed, 2.4 to 3.0 million cubic yards, equates to 133,333 to 166,666 truckloads of sand. One of Rubin Groves’ experts stated that, if there was a road construction project which needed the sand, Rubin Groves might be able to extract and haul away the sand in nine or ten months. However, even at the lower figure of 133,333 truckloads, removal in 10 months would amount to about 444 truckloads per day with no days off; an ambitious pace. It is more reasonable to believe removal of the sand would take over a year to complete, perhaps much longer if there are no suitable road projects. A year-long or longer operation of extracting and hauling away sand in 133,333 to 166,666 truckloads, and selling it for roadbuilding and other construction projects, is indistinguishable from the business of sand mining. It conforms with the common meaning of “mining.” Rubin Groves argues that it does not matter how much sand it wants to remove (even “a zillion” cubic yards) because Rubin Groves’ purpose is not sand mining. According to that view, even if sand removal at the Rubin Groves site would (otherwise) amount to the largest sand mine in Florida, it could not be regulated as mining because Rubin Groves’ purpose is to build a residential subdivision afterward. However, the Mass Grading Plan is indistinguishable from sand mining by a landowner who has no plans to develop a residential subdivision afterward. The reason there are special regulations in the Comp Plan and Lake County Code (and elsewhere) for mining activities is to address the impacts associated with mining. The regulations are not concerned with the land use ambitions of landowners or with the profitability of their enterprises. Rubin Groves’ interpretation of the Lake County Code is inconsistent with the plain intent of the Comp Plan and Lake County Code because its interpretation would allow mining impacts, but not make them subject to the mining prohibitions and regulations that were adopted to address mining impacts. Rubin Groves’ argument about purpose is unpersuasive. Rubin Groves’ purpose is to mine sand and then build a subdivision. Rubin Groves’ argument that the Mass Grading Plan would not be regulated as mining by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-39 is also unpersuasive. First, whether the Mass Grading Plan is subject to state regulation has not been determined by DEP. The term “extraction” is defined in rule 62C-39.002(7) to exclude excavation “solely” in aid of on-site construction, but that begs the question whether DEP would view the Mass Grading Plan as solely for on-site construction. Second, rule 62C-39 contains state reclamation standards and implements chapter 378, Florida Statutes, entitled “Land Reclamation.” Under DEP’s reclamation regulatory program, there is no obvious state reclamation issue associated with sand mining on lands approved for construction activities. That does not foreclose a local interest in regulating the land use impacts of mining activities. The Exemption Procedure Pursuant to section 6.06.01(F) of the Lake County Code, approval to remove overburden that exceeds 200 percent of the volume required for stormwater retention must be obtained from the County Manager. However, the County Manager did not approve Rubin Groves’ Mass Grading Plan. It was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in Ordinance 2014-7. Rubin Groves argues that it qualifies for an exemption under Section 6.06.01(F), but the Board of County Commissioners approved the Mass grading Plan without making any finding that the Mass Grading Plan was not mining or that it qualified for exemption from the requirement to obtain a mining conditional use permit. Lake County’s approval of the Mass Grading Plan is inconsistent with Section 6.06.01 of the Lake County Code. Ten Percent Lot Grading Limitation The Mass Grading Plan would change the elevation of the Property more than 10 feet. Section 9.07.00 of the Lake County Code addresses lot grading and prohibits elevation changes that exceed 10 feet. The parties disputed whether this section applies to the Property. DEO contends it applies; Rubin Groves disagrees. Section 9.07.00 states that it applies to “development that is wholly within or partially within any flood hazard area.” The Mass Grading Plan is not within a flood hazard area. The Lake County Engineer testified that the County does not interpret Section 9.07.14 as applicable to subdivision grading, but only to the grading of individual residential lots. The preponderance of the evidence shows Section 9.07.00 is not applicable to the Mass Grading Plan. Principles for Guiding Development The Green Swamp is one of the most significant sources for water recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. It is centered along the potentiometric high for the aquifer as well. The potentiometric high is the level to which water would rise in an open well and affects ground water flow because water flows from high-pressure areas to low-pressure areas. The Principles for Guiding Development in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern adopted by the Administration Commission are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-26.003. The Principles have also been adopted into the Lake County Comp Plan. Rule 28-26.003(1) sets forth the objectives to be achieved for the Green Swamp: Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer, wetlands, and flood-detention areas. Protect the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern. Protect the water available for aquifer recharge. Protect the functions of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High of the Floridan Aquifer. Protect the normal supply of ground and surface water. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality. Protect the water-retention capabilities of wetlands. Protect the biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands. Protect the natural flow regime of drainage basins. Protect the design capacity of flood- detention areas and the water-management objectives of these areas through the maintenance of hydrologic characteristics of drainage basins. DEO contends the Mass Grading Plan would violate the Principles for Guiding Development for the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern in rule 28-26.003(1)(a),(b), (c), (e), (g), (j), and (k). DEO objects to so much of the vadose zone being removed from the Property. The vadose zone is the layer of material between the land surface and the top of the water table. The vadose zone acts as a filter to remove contaminants as water moves through it. It stores water, creating a buffer for water recharge into the aquifer below it and regulates the rate at which water recharges. It also affects evapotranspiration and runoff. DEO contends the Mass Grading Plan would reduce storage capacity and filtration, cause “surges” of groundwater which would adversely affect the surrounding wetlands, reduce recharge and change the potentiometric high, adversely affect the water retention capabilities of wetlands, and alter the natural flow regime of drainage basins. The evidence presented by DEO was insufficient to prove that the storage capacity of the Property would be reduced by the Mass Grading Plan. In a scenario where the water table is near the ground surface, removal of soil can substantially reduce water storage, but DEO’s theory for loss of storage was not persuasively demonstrated in this situation where the vadose zone would still be about 24 feet deep after the Mass grading Plan. DEO’s evidence regarding the possibility of karst features on the Property was not compelling because it was not shown that the Mass Grading Plan would affect current water movement associated with any karst features. The proper placement of stormwater facilities to avoid karst features is a matter for stormwater permitting. The preponderance of the record evidence supports DEO’s claim that the filtration capacity of the Property would be reduced by the Mass Grading Plan. However, DEO did not rebut Rubin Groves’ evidence that nutrient loading to groundwater from the Property would decrease. DEO did not show that the reduction of filtration capacity would result in a measurable adverse impact to groundwater. The evidence presented by DEO was insufficient to prove that the Mass Grading Plan would cause “pulse” flow to the nearby wetlands. The Mass Grading Plan does not involve soil removal within four or five hundred feet of the wetlands. In a scenario where the water table is near the ground surface, removal of soil can affect water storage and the slow release of water to wetlands, but DEO’s theory for pulse flow was not persuasively demonstrated in this situation where the vadose zone would still be about 24 feet deep after the Mass Grading Plan. The evidence presented by DEO was insufficient to prove that the Mass Grading Plan would reduce recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. In summary, DEO did not prove that the Mass Grading Plan would have a measurable or more than de minimis adverse impact on the Floridan Aquifer and associated water resources which the Principles for Guiding Development are intended to protect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issue a final order determining that Ordinance 2014-7 is invalid because it is inconsistent with the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Merideth Nagel, P.A. 1201 West Highway 50 Clermont, Florida 34711 (eServed) Sanford A. Minkoff, Esquire Lake County Attorney`s Office 315 West Main Street, Suite 335 Post Office Box 7800 Tavares, Florida 32778-7800 Keith Austin, Esquire Rubin Groves of Clermont, LLC 223 Peruvian Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Barbara R. Leighty, Agency Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (eServed) Aaron Charles Dunlap, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Erin Hartigan, Esquire Office of the Lake County Attorney 315 West Main Street Tavares, Florida 32778 (eServed) Harry Thomas Hackney, Esquire Campione & Hackney, P.A. 2750 Dora Avenue Tavares, Florida 32778 (eServed) Cynthia Kelly, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 John P. “Jack” Heekin, General Counsel Office of the Governor Room 209, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (eServed) James W. Poppell, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Caldwell Building, MSC110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent, while serving as an appointed member of the Ocoee Planning and Zoning Commission, violated section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2015)1/ by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with his official responsibilities; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the complaint, Respondent served as an appointed member of the Ocoee P & Z Commission. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, for his acts and omissions during his tenure on the P & Z Commission. As a member of the P & Z Commission, Respondent is subject to the “Ocoee Florida Land Development Code, Section 3, Planning and Zoning Commission [Land Development Code].” Section 3-2 of Land Development Code provides in part as follows: Establishment and Membership The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the City Commission and one member appointed by the School Board of Orange County as a non- voting member. The member appointed by the School Board of Orange County shall attend those meetings at which the Planning and Zoning Commission considers comprehensive plan amendments and rezonings that would, if approved, increase residential density on the property that is the subject of the application. No member shall be an employee of the City of Ocoee and all members, except the member appointed by the School Board of Orange County, shall be residents of the City of Ocoee. When selecting members to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Commission shall attempt to select persons from different geographical areas within the City so as to create geographical diversity and representation. * * * E. Compliance with Laws The Planning and Zoning Commission, and its individual members, shall comply with all applicable laws relative to public bodies, including disclosure of interests and procedure[s] for refraining from participation [when] a conflict of interest exists. * * * G. Duties and Responsibilities To act as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) of the City of Ocoee, pursuant to Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and to prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ocoee, including text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To prepare on its own initiative recommendations for amendments to this Code, text and/or maps, and to forward such amendments to the City Commission for consideration. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for amendments to this Code, including applications for annexation or change of zoning. Pursuant to Section 163.3174(4)(c), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall also have the responsibility to review and make a finding as to the consistency of the proposed land development regulation with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and to report such finding to the City Commission. No such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To review and make recommendations to the City Commission on applications for various development approvals or permits as provided within this Code, including, but not limited to Planned Unit Developments (PUD), special exceptions, subdivisions, and any other application for which the City Commission requests a report and/or recommendation. Where a public hearing is required by the applicable procedural section, no such recommendation shall be made except after a public hearing held in accordance with State and local requirements. To act in an advisory capacity to the City Commission on land use and land development issues and to make such studies and to conduct such investigations as may be requested from time to time by the City Commission. To review zoning of newly annexed lands when it represents an increase in intensity of use or a conflict with the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to requirements of State law and City ordinance. In addition to serving on the P & Z Commission, Respondent buys and sells commercial real estate. Respondent is a manager and shareholder in W.O.R.Y. INVESTORS, LLC (WORY), an entity that is also in the business of buying and selling commercial real estate. Respondent, in his individual capacity, owned approximately four acres, which abutted six acres owned by WORY. Both properties have an address on West Road in Ocoee, Florida, and will be referred to collectively herein as the “West Road property.” The Contract On or about November 11, 2015, Respondent, in his individual capacity, and as manager for WORY, executed an “Agreement of Sale” wherein the West Road property was to be purchased by Charter Schools Development Group, LLC (buyer), for $1,890,540. According to the Agreement of Sale, the buyer wanted to “develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school.” The Agreement of Sale contained a number of contingencies, referred to in the contract as “Buyer Required Approvals,” that Respondent was required to satisfy prior to finalization of the sale of the West Road property. Paragraph six of the Agreement to Sale sets forth a number of the pre-sale contingencies imposed on Respondent, and the same provides as follows: 6. Development The Buyer intends to develop and construct on the Property a K-8 public charter school and adjacent commercial development acceptable to Buyer consisting of buildings and other improvements including, but not limited to recreation fields, related landscaping, open space, storm water, and appropriate parking (the "Project"). Buyer's obligation to complete the purchase of the Property from Seller in accordance with the terms of this Agreement is contingent upon the satisfaction of each of the following conditions with regard to the Property (each of which may be waived in whole or in part in writing by Buyer): Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals from all necessary governmental authorities (including governmental agencies), for zoning, utilities and any other approvals (including necessary parking requirements) Buyer deems necessary, in its sole discretion, permitting the construction and use of the improvements comprising the Project, including but not limited to any required special exception. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) so that the Property shall have immediate and adequate access to water, sewer and all other utilities in accordance with the final approved site development plan. Buyer has obtained final, unappealed and unappealable approvals and/or permits required by any and all governmental authorities (including governmental agencies) for storm water management; including easements and agreements for constructing and maintaining storm water basins; all wetlands studies and approvals in such form that wetlands, if any, shall not preclude construction of roads, utilities, storm water management facilities, any other required improvements for erection of buildings on the Property. Buyer has obtained all permits and approvals, and all conditions thereof shall have been satisfied, so as to allow for recording of the final plan and issuance of building permits subject only to satisfaction of the following requirements by Buyer at or after Closing (i) submission of construction drawings in accordance with applicable law, (ii) execution by the Buyer of the necessary development agreements, (iii) execution and funding by Buyer of the necessary escrow agreements for municipal improvements, and sewer and water improvements, and (iv) payment by the Buyer of all municipal fees and charges associated therewith. Subject to Seller's obligation set forth in Section 6(f) below, Buyer has obtained any and all other easements, approvals and/or permits that may be necessary to construct and use the improvements comprising the Project. Buyer shall obtain, at no additional cost to Seller, all easements and roads that in Buyer's sole reasonable discretion are necessary for property access, utilities and signage to the Property in accordance with Buyer's final approved site development plan. The items referred to in subsections 6(a) through 6(f) hereof shall hereafter be referred to as the "Buyer Required Approvals." After the end of the Inspection Period, Buyer shall diligently proceed with the filing of all applications necessary for obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. Seller agrees, at no expense to Seller, to cooperate with buyer in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals to the extent of signing all applications necessary for obtaining the buyer Required Approvals and appearing and testifying at the various hearings. Seller's cooperation as aforesaid shall not entitle Seller to any additional compensation. All permit fees, studies, deposit and investigation costs incurred in connection with the Buyer Required Approvals shall be the sole responsibility of buyer and buyer agrees to affirmatively use its good faith efforts to obtain all of the Buyer Required Approvals without delay and as expeditiously as reasonably possible. Seller hereby grants to Buyer a power of attorney to file, on Seller's behalf, all applications related to the Buyer Required Approvals; provided, however, that the Land shall not be rezoned prior to the expiration of the Inspection Period. Seller acknowledges that buyer will likely contact, meet with and/or obtain consents for the Project from neighboring property owners during the Inspection Period and in the process of obtaining the Buyer Required Approvals. (emphasis added). None of the provisions of paragraph six of the Agreement of Sale were waived by either party. Paragraph 15(b) of the Agreement of Sale provides as follows: (b) If Seller shall violate or fail (in breach of its obligations hereunder) to fulfill or perform any of the terms, conditions or undertaking set forth in this Agreement within ten (10) days written notice from Buyer or (five (5) days written notice in the event of a monetary default), Buyer shall be entitled to: (i) terminate this Agreement and receive the return of the Deposit and reimbursement of Buyer's documented out-of-pocket due diligence expenses up to $15,000.00, and, thereupon, the parties hereto will be released and relieved from all provisions of this Agreement, or (ii) pursue specific performance. Paragraph 17 of the Agreement of Sale states that “[b]uyer and Seller agree to cooperate with each other and to take such further actions as may be requested by the other in order to facilitate the timely purchase and sale of the Property.” Paragraphs 6, 15(b) and 17 of the Agreement of Sale obligated Respondent to take all steps necessary, including “appearing and testifying at the various hearings,” for ensuring that the “Buyer Required Approvals” were satisfied, which in turn would allow Respondent to receive his share of the purchase price for the West Road property. Section 112.311(1), provides in part that “[i]t is essential to the proper conduct and operation of government that public officials be independent and impartial and that public office not be used for private gain other than the remuneration provided by law.” Rezoning and Respondent’s Role In order for a charter school to be built on the West Road property, it was necessary to rezone the existing planned unit development land use plan covering the property. Ocoee City Planner Michael Rumer testified that there are two types of rezoning. There is a straight rezoning to a zoning category listed in the land development code and there is rezoning to a planned unit development (PUD). Both types of zoning use the following process: an application is filed; then there is a review process by a development review committee, which is a staff level review; that review is forwarded to the P & Z Commission for a recommendation; and then it goes to the Ocoee City Commission for two readings of an ordinance for rezoning if the rezoning is approved. This is the process that was followed for the West Road property PUD. On February 9, 2016, the issue of whether to recommend rezoning of the West Road property to allow for the charter school referenced in the Agreement of Sale came before the P & Z Commission. Respondent was present for the meeting. During the meeting, Respondent spoke in favor of the rezoning request for the West Road property. When a fellow commissioner made a request for more time to review the rezoning issue, Respondent opposed the delay by stating “[i]f you don't give them a go now, you basically kill the deal because it's a time sensitive thing that they want the kids in there in August.” During the meeting, the commissioners struggled with whether to recommend denial of the West Road property zoning request, recommend approval of the request without conditions, or recommend approval of the request with conditions. After two previous motions regarding the zoning request died for lack of a “second,” a third motion was made wherein approval was recommended “with the condition that we’re all going to look at the traffic movement with the final site plan design.” When it appeared as though this motion was also likely to fail for lack of a “second,” Respondent encouraged the chairman of the P & Z Commission to voice a “second” for the motion since Respondent was unable to do so.2/ Respondent’s actions during the meeting of February 9, 2016, were consistent with his obligations under the Agreement of Sale to assist the buyer of the West Road property with securing the “Buyer Required Approvals.”
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a civil penalty of $10,000.00 be imposed against Respondent due to his violation of section 112.313(7)(a) and that Respondent also be publicly censured and reprimanded. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Wellness Way Area Plan Map and Text Amendment to the Lake County Comprehensive Plan (“Remedial Amendment”) adopted through Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Cemex is a Florida limited liability company doing business in Lake County. Cemex made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Petitioner Lake Louisa is a limited liability company that owns property in Lake County. Lake Louisa made timely objections and comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment. Cemex leases 1,200 acres of land in Lake County from Lake Louisa. The leased property is located within the area affected by the Remedial Amendment. Cemex proposes sand mining on the leased property and obtained all the required state permits. Prior to adoption of the Remedial Amendment, Cemex sought a conditional use permit from Lake County for its proposed sand mining. Respondent Lake County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and adopted the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Intervenors South Lake Crossings I, LLC; South Lake Crossings II, LLC; South Lake Crossings III, LLC; Clonts Groves, Inc.; Catherine Ross Groves, Inc.; and Cra-Mar Groves, Inc., (referred to collectively as “South Lake”) own 2,500 acres in Lake County which are subject to the Remedial Amendment. Intervenors made timely comments to Lake County on the Remedial Amendment.1/ The Wellness Way Area The Wellness Way Area comprises 15,471 acres in southeastern Lake County. It is bordered by U.S. Highway 27 to the west, the City of Clermont to the north, and Orange County to the east. Currently, the Wellness Way Area is mostly designated as agricultural with some small areas of residential and industrial uses. However, there is only one active agricultural operation. The majority of properties within the Wellness Way Area are large tracts of unused land. Directly east of the Wellness Way Area, in Orange County, is the Horizon West Sector Plan which consists of 23,000 acres and is one of the fastest growing areas in the United States. The Remedial Amendment To address DEO’s objections to the Lake County Wellness Way Sector Plan, the County adopted the Remedial Amendment which converted the Sector Plan into the Wellness Way Urban Service Area. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement, the ordinance adopting the Remedial Amendment, and Lake County’s stipulation on the record, the Wellness Way Sector Plan no longer has force or effect. The Remedial Amendment creates five future land use categories within the Wellness Way Area: Town Center and Wellness Way 1 through Wellness Way 4. Each future land use category allows a mix of uses, but with different density and intensity limits in each category. The highest density and intensity limits are in the Town Center category, located along U.S. Highway 27. The lowest limits are in the Wellness Way 4 category. The Town Center and Wellness Way 1-3 categories have identical permitted and conditional land uses. Wellness Way 4 allows fewer types of land uses and no residential land use because the land is publicly owned and contains a large wastewater reclamation facility. The new land use categories provides for a distribution of land uses by percentage of total land area within the category. In Town Center, the distribution is 25 percent non- residential, 45 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. In Wellness Way 1-3, the distribution is 10 percent non- residential, 60 percent residential, and 30 percent open space. The allowable residential density for each category differs. The Town Center has a minimum density of 6.0 dwelling units per net buildable acre (“du/ac”) and a maximum density of 25 du/ac. Net buildable acre is defined as gross acres minus wetlands, waterbodies, and open spaces. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum density of 3 du/ac and a maximum density of 20 du/ac. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum density of 2.5 du/ac and a maximum density of 15 du/ac. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum density of 2 du/ac and a maximum density of 10 du/ac. Wellness Way 4 has no density criteria because residential uses are not allowed. The allowable intensity for non-residential uses in each category also differs. The Town Center has a minimum average Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 30 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 1 has a minimum average FAR of 25 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 2 has a minimum average FAR of 20 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 3 has a minimum average FAR of 15 percent and a maximum average FAR of 200 percent. Wellness Way 4 has no intensity criteria. Implementation of the Remedial Amendment goals, objectives, and policies is to be accomplished through the review and approval of planned unit developments (“PUDs”). Despite the density allowances stated above, the total number of dwelling units that can be included in a PUD are further controlled by Policy I-8.2.1.1, which ties residential development to job creation. For each dwelling unit proposed in a PUD, a certain number of jobs must be created through the setting aside of areas for non-residential uses. The jobs-to- housing ratio assumes that one job is created for every 450 square feet of non-residential development. Each land use category has a different jobs-to-housing ratio applicable to approved PUDs. In Town Center, the jobs-to- housing ratio is 2.0 to 1.0, meaning 900 square feet of non- residential development must accompany every proposed dwelling unit. In Wellness Way 1, the jobs-to-housing ratio is 1.75 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 2, the ratio is 1.50 to 1.0. In Wellness Way 3, the ratio is 1.35 to 1.0. In the Remedial Amendment, the information and criteria for a PUD application are more detailed and extensive than under the Comprehensive Plan provisions for PUDs outside the Wellness Way Area. For example, a PUD application under the Remedial Amendment must include a report on the PUD’s impact on transportation facilities and the need for additional transportation improvements, and a detailed plan for public facilities, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, and schools. The Remedial Amendment requires each PUD to establish Wellness Way Corridors, which serve as buffers around the border to connect job hubs and neighborhoods through trails and other pedestrian facilities. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Sand Mining Approval Petitioners contend the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards governing sand mining within the Wellness Way Area. Sand mining is listed as a conditional use in all land use categories. Comprehensive Plan Objective III-3.5 and its policies, which address sand mining, were not changed by the Remedial Amendment. They prohibit mining in environmentally sensitive areas which cannot be reclaimed, require mining within aquifer protection zones to be performed in a manner that would not negatively impact water quality, and require mining operators to demonstrate a practical and environmentally sound reclamation plan. Under the Remedial Amendment, an application for a conditional use in the Wellness Way Area must be combined with a PUD application and must comply with the detailed PUD criteria of new Policy I-8.7. By combining a conditional use application with a PUD application, Lake County can impose additional conditions designed to assure the conditional use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The Remedial Amendment adds more criteria and greater detail than exists currently in the Comprehensive Plan for reviewing a proposal for sand mining. Adding these review criteria is not a failure to provide meaningful and predictable standards. PUD Densities and Intensities Petitioners contend that the densities and intensities within the Wellness Way Area cannot be reasonably predicted because Policy I-8.2.1.2 permits the density and intensity of developments to exceed or fall below the required maximum and minimum densities and intensities of use so long as a PUD as a whole fits within the limits. Petitioners’ evidence on this point was not persuasive. Applying density and intensity limits to the entire area of a PUD is not unreasonable and does not fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. Location of Future Land Uses A more persuasive argument made by Petitioners is that the land use planning flexibility in the Remedial Amendment goes too far because the location of particular land uses will not be known until PUDs are approved. Lake County’s arguments in this regard do not overcome the fact that, under the Remedial Amendment, the determination where land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area is deferred to the PUD process. The Remedial Amendment itself does not establish the location of future land uses in the Wellness Way Area. A landowner or citizen cannot predict where future land uses will be located in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County did not present evidence to show that any other local government comprehensive plan in Florida uses a similar planning approach. There appears to be no other comprehensive plan amendment that was the subject of a DOAH proceeding which left the location of future land uses unspecified in this way. Potential PUDs Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment fails to provide meaningful and predictable standards because applications for development approvals in the Wellness Way Area are reviewed on a case-by-case basis for their effect on approved and “potential PUDs.” Policy I-8.7.1 provides: Until and unless a PUD is approved by the Lake County Board of County Commissioners, the property in the WWUSA area shall maintain the existing zoning (e.g. A, R-1, CFD, PUD). All applications for development approvals (i.e. lot splits, conditional use permits, variances, etc.) on any property within the WWUSA area shall be reviewed on a case-by- case basis for the effect of such development approval on adopted or potential PUDs and compliance with the general principles of the Urban Service Area. The Remedial Amendment’s requirement that development approvals account for potential PUDs makes it impossible to predict how Lake County will make a land use decision because it is impossible to know or account for an unapproved, potential PUD. This standard lacks meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Case-by-Case Approvals Petitioners assert that Policy I-8.7.1 also creates internal inconsistency because it requires all development to be approved through the PUD process, but then appears to also provide for non-PUD development approvals on a case-by-case basis. The testimony presented by Lake County seemed to support Petitioners’ claims. Exceptions can be stated in a comprehensive plan without constituting an internal inconsistency. However, the ambiguity of Policy I-8.7.1 causes it to lack meaning and predictability for guiding land development. Urban Form Guiding Principles Policy I-8.2.2 of the Remedial Amendment sets forth guiding principles for development derived from the goals, objectives, and policies for the Wellness Way Area and establishes principles to guide development. Petitioners argue that the principles are not meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land because they were described by a Lake County witness at the final hearing as “aspirational.” The policy itself states that, “These guiding principles shall be specifically demonstrated in the PUDs.” The plain meaning of this statement is that application of the principles is mandatory. A witness’ testimony cannot alter the plain meaning of a policy for purposes of an “in compliance” determination. Data and Analysis Planning Timeframes Petitioners contend that the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis because they address only infrastructure needs at the time of the Wellness Way Area’s buildout in 2040; no intermediate timeframes were used. Although section 163.3177(5)(a) requires comprehensive plans to “include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan’s adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period,” the statute is less clear on the requirements applicable to a comprehensive plan amendment. Petitioners’ evidence and argument on this claim was insufficient to meet their burden of proof. Potable Water Supply Petitioners claim the Remedial Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and an analysis to show that the demand for potable water will be met at buildout. Petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to prove this claim. Internal Consistency Goal I-8 Petitioners argue that Goal I-8 of the Remedial Amendment contains an impermissible waiver of any Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, or policies that conflict with the Remedial Amendment. Goal I-8 provides: The following Objectives and Policies shall govern the WWUSA as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. In the event that these Goals, Objectives or Policies present either an express (direct) or implied (indirect) conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies that appear elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, the provision elsewhere in the comprehensive plan that is in direct or indirect conflict with a Wellness Way Goal, Objective or Policy shall not apply to the WWUSA area. All Goals, Objectives and Policies in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan that do not directly or indirectly conflict with this Goal and associated Objectives and Policies shall apply to the WWUSA area depicted in the Future Land Use Map. Goal I-8 gives no hint as to the nature or the number of potential direct or indirect conflicts that could arise. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the goal creates an unlawful waiver of unidentified inconsistencies. Urban Service Area The Wellness Way Area is intended to be an urban service area. “Urban service area” is defined in section 163.3164(50): “Urban Service Area” means areas identified in the comprehensive plan where public facilities and services, including, but not limited to, central water and sewer capacity and roads, are already in place or are identified in the capital improvements element. The term includes any areas identified in the comprehensive plan as urban services areas, regardless of local government limitations.” Petitioners contend the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Remedial Amendment because Lake County did not amend the Capital Improvements Element to address public facilities and services in the Wellness Way Area. Lake County responds that it does not own or operate the utility companies that would provide the services, but who owns and operates the utilities has no effect on the statutory requirement to do public utility planning. Lake County argues that it was sufficient for the County to simply identify the utility providers. Section 163.3164(50) requires more. It requires the identification of public facilities and services. Furthermore, section 163.3177(3)(a) requires a capital improvement element “to consider the need for and location of public facilities.” The Remedial Amendment creates an internal inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan by providing for greater growth and a new urban service area in the Wellness Way Area without amending the Capital Improvements Element to address the greater growth or the urban service area. The Capital Improvements Element should have been amended to include some of the data and analysis that was used to support the Remedial Amendment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the Remedial Amendment adopted by Lake County Ordinance No. 2016-1 is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2016.
The Issue In an order dated July 24, 1991, the Florida Commission on Ethics found probable cause that Respondent violated sections 112.3143(2)(b) and 112.3143(3), by twice participating in, and voting on measures (land use changes) which inured to his special private gain or to the special gain of a principal by whom he was retained. The issue is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent The Respondent, Hugh W. Harling, Jr. (Harling, or Respondent) is a Florida registered professional engineer and majority owner of Harling, Locklin and Associates, a firm which he established in 1979. The firm's office is located in Orlando and most of its work is done in the east central area of the state. Harling has a long history of public service. He was director of utilities for the City of Titusville from approximately 1968 until 1972, and during that time was chairperson of the Brevard County Utility Steering Committee. At various times he served as mayor of the City of Altamonte Springs (1980); and on myriad local boards and committees, including the Orange County Underground Utilities Examining Board, City of Altamonte Springs Utility Rate Review Committee, Seminole County Transportation Planning Committee, City of Altamonte Springs Citizen Advisory Committee and Land Use Update Committee. Since 1984, he has served on the Code Enforcement Board for Seminole County. The South Central Citizens Advisory Committee Pursuant to legislative mandate, counties in Florida are required to maintain a comprehensive plan which includes, among other elements, the land uses throughout the county. In 1987 Seminole County began its 10-year update process for the 1977 comprehensive plan. Desiring effective citizen participation, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners created citizen advisory committees corresponding to five geographical regions of the county. Guidelines for the comprehensive plan update process established by Seminole County describes the citizen advisory committees (CAC) as follows: Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC) - are comprised of individuals representing various interests within a specific geographic area of the County. The role of the CAC is to review, evaluate County-wide policies and assumptions, identify special issues within the sub-planning area, and make recommendations on preliminary Plan policies, land use maps and programs. (Respondent's #10, p.9) Individuals were selected to serve on the committees based on their interests or discipline in the following areas: homeowners, environment, development, technical resource, agriculture, business/industry and property owners (undeveloped). Harling was appointed to the South Central CAC as a "technical resource" member, and served as the committee chairperson. Weekly meetings began in December 1986 and continued until June 1987. The process was considered by county staff to be "fast track", with a lot of material to be covered in an abbreviated time. Thus, a mass of information was presented by county staff to the committee: maps, handouts and staff recommendations as to proposed land use changes in the geographical area covered by the committee. Concurrently with the citizen advisory committee review, the county conducted an "open amendment" process, allowing citizens to request amendments to the future land use maps without having to pay the normal application fee. The applications for these amendments were processed during the course of the entire adoption process for the comprehensive plan update. These citizens' requests were presented to the advisory committees by county staff in summary form, with the staff recommendation. The applications were not presented to the committee, nor were committee members provided with advance notice of items coming before them each week. At the direction of county staff, action by the committee was taken by motion and vote of the members, duly recorded and made available to the county commission. This procedure differed from Harling's previous experience on the comprehensive plan review committee for the City of Altamonte Springs where the members discussed their views and sought a consensus without a formal vote. The Seminole County committee members were told that a record of votes would enable the county commissioners to determine how the various represented interests took sides on the issues. In contrast to his participation on the Seminole County Code Enforcement Board, Harling understood that voting in this committee would not require disclosure of conflicts. Other members of the committee had the same understanding based on statements by county staff. Since the committee itself was comprised of competing, conflicting interests, including property owners who voted on items affecting their property, conflict was inherent to the work of the committee. The Policy Steering Committee Under the Seminole County citizen involvement guidelines, recommendations of the five CACs were referred to a single policy steering committee (PSC) comprised of representatives from the CACs and the Local Planning Agency (the Seminole County Planning and Zoning Board). The purpose of the PSC was to ". . . receive and evaluate the recommendations of the various committees, ensure consistency between plan elements, and make final recommendations to adopting boards." (Respondent Ex. #10, p.9) Respondent Harling was selected from the South Central CAC to be one of the committee's two representatives on the PSC. The PSC meetings involved not only conflicting policy recommendations from the CAC's but a review of land uses for all of Seminole County. As in the CAC's, votes were taken and recorded, and the members were not informed of any need to disclose interests. Nor were the members provided information on ownership of specific parcels presented for review. There were hundreds of requests for land use amendments identified by alphabetical letters, but there was no attempt even by county staff to keep track of who owned what. The Arborio/Clayton Parcel One such request for change of land use involved a parcel located in south central Seminole County comprised of a 40-acre tract on the south side of State Road 426 (Aloma Avenue), and a 100-acre tract along the north side of State Road 426. The two tracts belonged to the Arborio family in New York. In the mid-80's, one family member sold a 25 percent interest to Malcolm and Charles Clayton, cousins with almost fifty years' experience in real estate and development in central Florida. On February 17, 1987, the Claytons, representing themselves and the Arborios, filed a request to change the land use designation from "general rural" to "commercial/multi family". The reason for the request was to avoid a lengthy "red tape" delay in the future when the land was ready to develop. A change in land use designation at this stage of the county plan update would save time for the owner/developer later when the zoning needed to be changed. Although the route had not been finally determined at that point, there was reasonable anticipation that the parcels would be transected by an expressway extension. Land use designation is one of many factors used to determine the value of a particular piece of property. The owners stood to gain or lose by the change in the land use designation. Votes on the Parcel The Clayton's request for land use change was presented to the South Central CAC on June 3, 1987, along with several other requests for changes. The county staff recommended commercial use east of the expressway and medium density residential use north and west of the expressway as depicted on map #19, presented to the committee. The committee, including Respondent Harling, voted unanimously to recommend medium density residential west of the expressway and office use east of the expressway. Map #19 does not reflect the location of the expressway. Map #19 does not identify owners of any of the parcels depicted and Respondent Harling was not aware of the Clayton's ownership interest at the time of the vote. He did not file a conflict disclosure memorandum. The South Central CAC's recommendation was considered by the PSC at its final meeting on July 30, 1987, along with other land use change requests from this and the other four regional CAC's. The Clayton request was considered in the process of reviewing "Map 0" (formerly "Map 19"). Map 0 shows the expressway extension as a heavy black line running north to northeast through the Clayton/Arborio parcel. References to "Maps O, E, and D" in the PSC minutes correspond to the intersection of the expressway and Aloma Avenue on Map 0. Respondent Harling made the motion to recommend all three parcels to be higher intensity planned unit development. The motion carried 10-2. Higher intensity planned unit development (HIP) was a new land use category developed during the 1987 comprehensive plan update. It is a mixed use category that allows for a mix of uses (residential, commercial, office, industrial), but requires planned unit development zoning or planned commercial development zoning in order to develop. Any of the permitted uses are potentially conditional uses which would have to go through a planned unit development process. Unlike conventional planned unit development use which required a master plan at the time the comprehensive plan was amended, the HIP designation allowed a mixed use land use category to be placed on the map without a master plan. The HIP use was designed for use at expressway interchanges where higher intensity development was anticipated or wanted. There was no discussion at the July 30, 1987 meeting of who owned parcels O, E and D, and Respondent Harling was not aware of the Clayton's ownership interest at the time that he participated in and voted on the measure before the PSC. He did not disclose any interest in the property and did not file a disclosure memorandum. Harling's Relationship with the Claytons For over ten years, Harling, Locklin and Associates has provided professional services to Charles and Malcolm Clayton. The Harling firm is not on retainer; separate contracts for services are entered for particular engagements on particular projects. The Claytons also utilize numerous other engineering firms. Harling's firm routinely collects information of a general nature unrelated to a specific project or particular engagement. This information includes flood plain elevations for the entire state, traffic count information, plans for road expansion, zoning and other information of interest to the real estate and development community. Frequently, the firm is contacted for that and other technical information, and as long as the system is not abused, the information is provided gratis. In some instances the firm responds to an inquiry, and gathers and shares the information in the hopes that an engagement will result from its effort. The Claytons utilized this retrieval system with Harling's and other firms. Experienced and careful businessmen, the Claytons most often sought information without disclosing their interest in a parcel or their intended use of the information. Although an employee of Harling, Locklin & Associates may "pull a job number" for work performed for a potential client that was not attributable to a current contract, the time is billed to the client later only when and if a contract is entered into for professional services. Through this method, promotional work done by the firm is in some circumstances recovered by those projects which eventually go to contract. In late May, early June, 1987, Charlie and Malcolm Clayton met with Harling and asked questions relating to a limited access map prepared for the Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority. The map showed the location of limited access fencing in the area of the intersection of the proposed expressway and State Road 426 (Aloma Avenue). The Claytons did not identify for Harling their interest in the property, or the purpose for which they sought the information. The map shown to Harling did not identify the Claytons as having any interest in the property, nor did Harling have any specific knowledge of the exact location of the particular piece of property, other than along Aloma Avenue. The Claytons also asked similar questions of at least one other engineering firm. In follow up to the meeting with the Claytons, Harling also met with a representative of the Expressway Authority to confirm his interpretation of the limited access map, and to verify the information he had given to the Claytons. Through the office system utilized by Harling, Locklin & Associates, the time spent by Mr. Harling was attributed to the job number established for the dealings with the Claytons concerning property on Aloma Avenue, but no contract then existed and there was no reasonable expectation that Harling, Locklin & Associates would be compensated for the time in the future. During this same time period, Charles and Malcolm Clayton met with Joan Cerretti-Randolph, a Harling, Locklin & Associates employee, concerning property along Aloma Avenue. The amount of work requested of Ms. Ceretti- Randolph by the Claytons was consistent with promotional work done in the past by Harling, Locklin & Associates, and was done initially on a gratis basis. Ms. Cerretti-Randolph was not advised what, if any, the Claytons' interest was in the property in question, or whether there would be a contract executed on any particular job involving the Claytons and concerning the property now referred to as the Clayton/Arborio parcel. A contract was entered into by Harling, Locklin & Associates, the Arborio family, and the Claytons in October, 1987. The contract was not initiated by the Claytons, but was initiated by David Foerster, a condemnation attorney from Jacksonville who represented various landowners, including the Claytons and Arborios, in condemnation actions brought by the Expressway Authority at the time the various parcels were condemned for the construction of the expressway. At the time of the meetings of the South Central CAC in June, 1987, and of the PSC in July, 1987, Harling, Locklin & Associates was not under contract with the Claytons or the Arborios (or Mr. Foerster) to render services concerning the parcels of property in question. At the conclusion of the condemnation action concerning the taking of a portion of the parcels for construction of the expressway, Harling, Locklin & Associates submitted an invoice for services rendered which included time expended, originally as promotional work, for the Claytons in spring and summer, 1987. Some work reflected on the bill was done in May through July of 1987, at a time when Harling was unaware of the interest of the Claytons in the property, or the specific location of the property about which the Claytons were inquiring. Summary of Findings Harling's participation and votes as a member of the South Central CAC and later, PSC, are uncontroverted. These committees, or citizens groups were integral to the public participation component of the ten-year plan update. As a seasoned member of similar, as well as more formal bodies, Harling was well aware of his responsibilities to disclose conflicts. He and other members of the CAC and PSC were misled, however, by county staff or commission members, as to the nature of the committee and the need to disclose. It is also uncontroverted that specific votes, on June 3, 1987 and July 30, 1987, were on property owned, in part, by the Claytons. Although Harling and his staff had been consulted by the Claytons with regard to the parcel, at the time of the votes, the Claytons had not disclosed their ownership interest in the property; their contacts were in the nature of information- gathering and the professional relationship was not formalized until October 1987. The land use changes voted by the CAC and PSC as recommendations for the Arborio/Clayton parcel were not those sought by the applicant, but still positively benefited the owners. The change from "general rural" during the plan update process substantially abbreviated the local approval process required before the property is actually developed. The HIP designation, while still requiring approval of a master plan later, would provide flexibility for the owners/developers to plan for the uses being sought by the Claytons in their February application. A land use designation, though not a controlling or even substantial influence on valuation of a parcel, is still considered by a property appraiser in fixing that valuation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order and public report finding that Hugh Harling did not violate sections 112.3143(2)(b) and (3), F.S. (1985 and 1986 Supp.), and dismissing the complaint at issue. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4941EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: The Advocate's Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 11. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 14. 10.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13.-14. Adopted in paragraph 14. 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 16.17. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 18.25. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent that those facts are proposed to establish a motive by Respondent to benefit his "principal", that proposal is expressly rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 26.-27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover, the Pardue testimony was confused, as he said on one hand that he was not concerned with the north side (p.52, 11. 19-21), and it is not clear at p.53, ll. 22-24 whether he was addressing the north or south parcel. 29.-30. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 17 and 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraphs 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence cited is confusing, as the recommendation by staff and vote by the CAC is a little different on another document. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover, the evidence supporting this proposed finding is too confused to be reliable. 43.-44. Adopted in paragraph 21. 45.-46. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Advocate in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 20 and 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to clearer, more credible evidence. Charles Clayton's testimony was rambling and disjointed. Malcolm Clayton more plainly testified that the property was discussed in 1987 and the ownership interest was not disclosed to Harling. (transcript, pages 238-239.) Rejected as unnecessary. Moreover the dates and time sequence provided by Charles Clayton were not reliable and conflicted with other competent evidence. 52.-55. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected. Although an accurate statement of Pardue's testimony, the underlying fact is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as argument and substantially unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as argument. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. 11.-13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in substance in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. 21.-22. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. 25.-26. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 34. 31.-32. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 12. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 38.-39. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. Adopted in substance in paragraph 34. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 43.-46. Rejected as unnecessary. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the weight of evidence (as to the change not benefiting the landowners). 49.-51. Adopted in paragraph 23. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 24. 54. Adopted in paragraph 26. 55. Adopted in paragraph 27. 56. Adopted in paragraph 28. 57.-58. Adopted in paragraph 29. 59. Adopted in paragraph 30. 60. Adopted in paragraph 31. 61. Adopted in paragraph 32. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Michael L. Gore, Esquire Ken Wright, Esquire Shutts & Bowen 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 34801 Bruce Minnick, Esquire Mang, Rett and Collette, P.A. Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3127
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The City of Islandia: General Description and Location The City of Islandia is a municipality situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County, Florida. It was incorporated in 1961. The City is located in an environmentally sensitive area in the southeastern corner of the county several miles east of the mainland. The City is separated from the mainland by Biscayne Bay and is accessible only by boat, seaplane, or helicopter. The City consists of 42,208 acres of submerged and non-submerged land, 41,366 acres of which are owned by the federal government and are part of Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park Biscayne National Park was established as a national monument in 1968. Twelve years later it was designated a national park. The park was established because of the unique natural resources within its boundaries. Its designation as a national park promotes the preservation and protection of these valuable resources. The park attracts visitors who engage in passive, marine-oriented recreational activities, such as fishing and snorkeling. Some development has taken place within the park. Among the structures currently standing are the buildings that house the park rangers who work and reside in the park and the docks that are used by those who travel to and from the park by boat. The City's Privately Held Land The remaining 842 acres of land in the City are owned by twelve private landowners, five of whom serve on the Islandia City Council. This land contains no infrastructure and is almost entirely undeveloped. As a result, it is in virtually pristine condition. Because the privately held land in the City is part of the same ecosystem as Biscayne National Park, the development of the privately held land will necessarily have an impact on the activities in the park. Of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City only approximately three acres consist of uplands. These uplands, at their highest elevation, are only four feet above sea level. The other 839 acres of privately held land are submerged bottom lands of Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. The privately held land in the City is located in an area of coastal barrier islands known as the Ragged Keys. These islands lie between Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. They are separated from one another by surge channels, through which the ocean waters enter the bay. Because of their location and low elevation, these islands are extremely vulnerable to the threat of storm surges and coastal flooding. It therefore is imperative that individuals on the islands evacuate to safety as soon as possible in advance of any storm or hurricane. 2/ The Coast Guard, which assists in the early evacuation of coastal residents, removes its assets from the water when wind speeds reach 35 miles per hour. This heightens the need for those on the islands to leave before the weather takes a turn for the worse. There are five Ragged Keys in private ownership. Ragged Key One, the northernmost of these islands, is surrounded by an old, breached bulkhead. Tidal waters enter where the bulkhead is breached. Coastal wetland vegetation is the only vegetation found on the island. Ragged Key Two is totally submerged and has no uplands. Mangroves are scattered throughout the island. Unlike Ragged Key Two, Ragged Key Three includes some uplands. Its shoreline, however, is fringed with white, red and black mangroves, vegetation associated with wetlands. Mangroves play a vital role in maintaining the health of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem. They contribute a leafy matter, known as detritus, to the nutrient budget of the bay. In addition, mangroves help filter upland runoff and protect against shoreline erosion. Most of Ragged Key Four is covered with mangroves. Red mangroves dominate, but there are also white and black mangroves. A narrow band of uplands, approximately 30 to 50 feet in width, runs through the center of the island. The island's upland vegetation consists of an unusual, and therefore ecologically significant, tropical hardwood hammock species not found on the mainland. Ragged Key Five, the southernmost of the privately owned Ragged Keys, is completely inundated by tidal waters twice a day. The vegetation on the northern one-half to two-thirds of the island consists almost exclusively of mangroves, with white mangroves dominating. Mangroves are also found on the island's southeastern perimeter. Less than an acre of uplands lies toward the center of the island. The dominant vegetation on these uplands is Australian pine. The privately held bottom lands in the City that are on the ocean side of the Ragged Keys consist of a number of species of hard coral as well as soft coral and sponges not found further to the north. Consequently, these hard- bottom communities are very significant ecologically. The privately held bottomlands in the City that are on the bay side of the Ragged Keys are covered almost entirely with seagrass beds. These seagrass beds are an essential component of the bay's ecosystem. They help to maintain water quality by stabilizing and filtering sediment and serve as habitat and food for fish and other marine organisms. This is significant from not only an environmental perspective, but from an economic perspective as well, inasmuch as commercial fishing is an important industry in the area. Seagrasses depend on light for their survival. If they are beneath, or otherwise shaded by, a structure, such as a "stilt home" or dock, or deprived of light as a result of construction-related turbidity, they will die. Water depths in the City on both the ocean and bay side of the Ragged Keys are extremely shallow. In most areas, the depth of the water never exceeds four feet. Consequently, one has to be a competent boater to navigate in these areas without running aground. Boats that travel in these shallow waters, even if piloted by competent navigators, are likely to scrape and scar the ocean and bay bottom and damage the seagrass and hard-bottom communities that exist there. Furthermore, these boats are likely to leave behind in the waters they have traversed bilge waters, oils, greases and metallic-based paints from their undersides. This has the effect of lowering water quality. Fortunately, boating activities in these waters have been limited to date and, consequently, these activities have resulted in only minor environmental damage. Substantial damage will occur, however, if boat traffic on these waters increases significantly. Comprehensive Plan Preparation and Adoption The City's comprehensive plan was drafted by the staff of Robert K. Swarthout, Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in land use planning. Before retaining the services of the Swarthout firm, the City's governing body, the City Council, voted that, in the plan, all of the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that the allowable density would be six units per acre. Sound planning dictates that such decisions be made only after the character of the land and its suitability for development are analyzed. A proposed plan for the City was developed by the Swarthout firm. Following a vote of the City Council, the proposed plan was transmitted to DCA. Upon its receipt of the proposed plan, DCA distributed copies to other governmental agencies, including Dade County, and solicited their comments. After receiving these comments and conducting its own review, DCA sent to the City a report containing DCA's objections, recommendations and comments regarding the City's proposed plan. In response to this report, the Swarthout firm drafted certain modifications to the proposed plan. The proposed plan, as so modified, was adopted by the City Council on January 13, 1989, and thereupon transmitted to DCA. The City Council held public hearings before transmitting the proposed plan and the adopted plan to DCA. The twelve private landowners in the City were notified of these hearings by mail. No one else, including any park ranger residing in the City or any other representative of the federal government, was given direct, individual advance notice of these hearings, nor were the hearings advertised in any newspaper or other publication. In failing to provide advance notice of these hearings to any one other than the City's twelve private landowners, the City Council relied upon the opinion of its attorney that no additional notice was necessary to meet the requirements of the law. Format of the City's Adopted Plan The City's adopted plan focuses upon the 842 acres of privately held land in the City. It does not discuss in great detail the future of Biscayne National Park, which comprises more than 98% of the City's land area. The plan consists of nine elements: future land use; transportation; housing; infrastructure; coastal management; conservation; recreation and open space; intergovernmental; and capital improvements. Each element contains goals, policies and objectives. In addition, the future land use element includes a future land use map and the capital improvements element includes both an implementation section and a section prescribing monitoring, updating and evaluation procedures. The document containing the City's adopted plan also describes and discusses the data and analysis upon which the plan is purportedly based. According to the document, however: Only the following segments of this document were adopted by the City Council: Goals, Objectives and Policies Capital Improvements Element Implementation section Future Land Use map Monitoring, Updating and Evaluation Procedures Future Land Use Element The future land use element of the City's adopted plan sets forth the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1 To provide for minimal residential development compatible with the natural resources of the National Park and balance of the islands. Objective 1.1 By 1994, achieve first phase new development sited appropriately for the topographic/flood conditions and infrastructure compatible with soil conditions. Policy 1.1.1 As the residential development occurs, require acceptable private paths, drainage, water and sewer systems through the development code; special care is needed due to limited wellfield and soil absorption areas. Policy 1.1.2 Private automobiles shall not be permitted; adequate boat or aircraft access facilities shall be required by the development code. Policy 1.1.3 Development permits shall be issued only if facilities meeting the following levels of service can be made available concurrent with the impacts of development: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks 3/ or package treatment plants providing a treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners 4/ -Circulation: pedestrian and golf cart paths -Open space: public and private of 175 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.2 Ensure reasonable protection of historic and natural resources (particularly) mangroves as development occurs. See policy for measurability Policy 1.2.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, a development code will be prepared to assure adequate protection of the vegetative communities (particularly mangroves) as well as sensitive to hurricane considerations and the bay bottom ecology. Policy 1.2.2 The City shall consult with the National Park Service should any archaeological sites be found on the privately owned islands. Policy 1.3 Facilitate planned unit development projects through the 1989 adoption of a development code. Policy 1.3.1 Within one year of transmitting this plan, include Planned Unit Development provisions in the zoning provisions of a development code to help achieve residential development. Objective 1.4 By July 1989, adopt a development code to implement land use policies that correspond to the category on the Future Land Use Plan and minimize hurricane evacuation. Policy 1.4.1 The following land use densities, intensities and approaches shall be incorporated in the land development code; development will be required to use these densities in a mixed use Planned Unit Development format -Residential: Single-family detached and attached units at a density of 6 units per acre or less in a PUD mixed-use format. -Commercial: Supporting boat clubs/marinas, restaurants and light convenience retail; this would either be in the residential PUD or the National Park Recreation category i.e. not shown on the map. -Recreation and Open Space: This category includes primarily the National Park. The future land use map depicts only two future land uses: "recreational," which is described on the map as constituting lands of the "National Park and City Park;" and "residential," which is indicated on the map as constituting "[l]ess than 6 units per acre in Planned Unit Developments with supporting service commercial." Because Policy 1.4.1 of the future land use element permits a maximum "residential" density in the City of "6 units per acre" whereas the future land use map reflects that the City's maximum permissible "residential" density is "less [emphasis supplied] than 6 units per acre," these two provisions of the City's adopted plan are inconsistent. On the future land use map, only Ragged Keys One through Five are designated for "residential" use. The remaining land in the City, including the privately held bay and ocean bottom surrounding these islands, is designated on the map for "recreational" use. There are statements in the plan document that reflect that "residential" development is contemplated not just for the five Ragged Keys, but for the entire 842 acres of privately held land in the City. Such statements include the following which are found in the discussion of the data and analysis allegedly underlying the future land use element: Residential Capacity- The islands under municipal jurisdiction have not been developed, and there are only 842 acres of suitable vacant land for the development of residential units. Based on the Land Use Plan PUD density of six units per acre, this would suggest a build-out of 5,000 housing units. * * * Needs Assessment: Not Applicable and Other Issues- There are no incompatible or blighted uses. Some private redevelopment might be involved in upgrading the boat dock and several recreational housing units. Rather than an analysis of the land required to accommodate the projected population, this is a case where the 842 acres of buildable private land can accommodate a build-out population of about 5,000 although 720 is projected for the year 2000 based upon a projected private market demand for development at five units per acre requiring 78 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Land Use Category- As indicated above, all non-Park Service land and bay bottom (842 acres) is designated "Residential Planned Unit Development With Supporting Commercial;" this will accommodate the projected population. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Impact- It is important to note the minimal impact that the private development area (842 acres), will have on the total area of the City which encompasses 42,208 acres. * * * Future Land Use Plan: Density- Approximately 842 acres, at a density of less than six units per acre, are proposed for development of the recreational units. These statements, however, are not included in those portions of the plan document that were adopted by the City Council and therefore are not part of the City's adopted plan. In addition to depicting future land uses, the future land use map also shows shoreline areas. Beaches, wetlands, and flood plains, however, are not identified on the map. Transportation Element The transportation element of the City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To meet the unique circulation needs of Islandia. Objective 1.1- As development occurs, achieve an internal circulation system that uses paths for pedestrians, bicycles and golf carts but not automobiles. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires developers to provide such a path system, a) concurrent with development, and b) that connects with other adjacent developments and the boat dock facilities. Policy 1.1.2- Include development code provisions that require adequate access to the development from the mainland i.e. either by boat or aircraft facilities. Housing Element The following goals, objectives and policies are set forth in the housing element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To provide recreational housing units compatible with the unique locational and environmental character of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Achieve and maintain quality housing with supporting infrastructure. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that provides an expeditious review process yet assures concurrent adequate private infrastructure. Policy 1.1.2- Include building and property maintenance standards that will assure that units are maintained in sound condition. Policy 1.1.3- To assure environmentally sound design, City codes shall include building standards (sensitive to hurricanes) and site plan review. Infrastructure Element As evidenced by the following goals, objectives and policies set forth in the infrastructure element of the City's adopted plan, the City intends that infrastructure needs will be met by private developers, rather than by the City through the expenditure of public funds: Goal 1- To provide adequate private infrastructure to serve the projected limited recreational residential development. Objective 1.1- Assure provision of adequate, environmentally sensitive private infrastructure concurrent with development through a 1989 development code. Policy 1.1.1- By July 1989, enact a development code that requires City site plan review with engineering design standards in the areas of water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, solid waste, groundwater recharge and wellfield protection plus incentives for the use of solar energy and solid waste recycling (to reduce disposal quantities by 30 percent). Policy 1.1.2- Require all development to meet the following level of service standards: -Sewage disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 5/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Objective 1.2- Encourage multi-unit water and sewer systems in order to protect the fragile environment through the 1989 development code. Policy 1.2.1- Include planned unit development provisions in the development code to be enacted by July 1989 thereby encouraging joint systems rather than individual wells and septic tanks. 6/ Policy 1,3- Protect wellfield aquifer recharge areas from development. Policy 1.3.1- By 1991, enact development code provisions that require developers to designate their wellfield aquifer recharge areas, and authorize the City to then prohibit development within said areas and related drainage systems. Objective 1.4- Each developer shall provide a mechanism for water conservation. Policy 1.4.1- At the time building permits are issued for the first development, the City and developer shall jointly prepare a water conservation plan for normal and emergency consumption. Coastal Management Element The City's adopted plan contains the following goals, objectives and policies relating to coastal management: Goal 1- To conserve, manage and sensitively use the environmental assets of Islandia's coastal zone location. Objective 1.1- Through the 1989 development code adoption, continue to protect the barrier island function and wildlife habitat. Policy 1.1.1- Retain the integrity of the islands by strictly regulating shoreline dredge and fill through the development code. Policy 1.1.2- Require common open space in conjunction with private development to retain wildlife habitats, wetlands and mangroves and assist in preservation of marine water quality and living resources. Objective 1.2- Through the 1989 development code adoption, include estuarine protection policies and thus assure environmental quality. Policy 1.2.1- The development code shall result in drainage, sewage disposal and shoreline setback policies that protect the estuary. Policy 1.2.2- As private development occurs, the City shall use the County's Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan as a basis for review and maintain liaison with the Biscayne Bay Management Committee's staff. This will also be the vehicle for coordinating with the City of Miami (which is some 10 miles to the north) in terms of estuarine. Objective 1.3- Continue the current pattern which is all uses, including shoreline uses, are water dependent. Policy 1.3.1- Use the development code to maintain a shoreline use pattern that is either park, natural private land or residential with supporting boat facilities; by definition, all Islandia uses are water dependent. Objective 1.4- Protect the current natural beach and dune configuration. Policy 1.4.1- Through the development code, require any private development to a) setback far enough from the beach to retain the dunes and b) retain the related vegetative cover and wetlands or mitigate on a fair value ratio. Goal 2- To minimize hurricane damage both to property and people. Objective 2.1- Continue the current City policy of not providing infrastructure unless public safety or natural resource preservation so requires. Policy 2.1.1- The City shall not program any municipal infrastructure; private development will provide its own circulation, water and sewer systems. Objective 2.2- Residential development will be limited in amount and density, and setback from the shoreline due to the coastal high hazard area location. Policy 2.2.1- Maintain density controls so that the City will experience only limited new residential development and thereby not jeopardize hurricane evacuation capabilities or undue concentration on the private islands which are the high hazard area. (Analysis explains why directing population away from the coastal high hazard area is not feasible.) 7/ Objective 2.3- By July 1989, adopt development code provisions that assure adequate boat evacuation capability by developers and occupants. Policy 2.3.1- The development code shall require, as a condition of development permit approval, an evacuation plan showing adequate boat or aircraft capability. Objective 2.4- By 1993, prepare an emergency redevelopment plan. Policy 2.4.1- By 1993, the first phase of residential development should be underway; that will permit preparation of a realistic post-disaster redevelopment plan. Currently there is little to "redevelop." Objective 2.5- Preserve both resident and general public access to the beach. Policy 2.5.1- Over 98 percent of Islandia's area is public land with shoreline access. However, the remaining two percent should be developed so as to maximize resident beach access through planned unit development requirements. 8/ Objective 2.6- The City's objective is not to provide any public infrastructure; private developers shall provide infrastructure in conformance with level of service standards, concurrent with development. Policy 2.6.1- Developers shall provide infrastructure, with a design sensitive to hurricane vulnerability, concurrent with the impact of development within a development code concurrency management system and in keeping with the following levels of service: -Sewage Disposal: package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day. 9/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day. -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically). -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners. Conservation Element The following goals, objectives and policies are found in the conservation element of the City's adopted plan: Goal 1- To preserve and enhance the significant natural features of Islandia. Objective 1.1- Continue policies that help achieve compliance with State Department of Environmental Affairs [sic] air quality regulations; see policy for measurability. Policy 1.1.1- Continue to prohibit automobiles in the City. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, require drainage practices that avoid direct development runoff into the ocean or bay. Policy 1.2.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require on-site runoff detention. Objective 1.3- By July 1989, achieve protection of existing vegetation and wildlife communities. Policy 1.3.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require retention of a percentage 10/ of prime vegetative cover and wildlife habitat; particularly mangroves. Policy 1.3.2- These development regulations shall also address preservation/mitigation of the scattered island wetlands and related soils. Policy 1.3.3- Work with Federal park officials to assure that any National Park improvements are sensitive to the mangrove and other environmentally sensitive vegetative/wildlife/ marine habitats. Objective 1.4- By July 1989, have basis to avoid development activities that adversely impact the marine habitat. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that control dredge and fill activities, and boat anchorages in order to protect the marine and estuarine character, including the fish feeding areas on the Biscayne Bay side of the islands; special care must be taken to avoid any disruption of the tidal channels between the islands. Objective 1.5- When development occurs, achieve carefully located and designed well and sewage disposal systems. Policy 1.5.1- By July 1989, enact development code provisions that require City technical review of all well and sewage disposal systems to assure well water protections, groundwater conservation and sewage effluent control. Policy 1.5.2- When the first phase residential development permits are issued, develop an emergency water conservation program. This element of the City's adopted plan does not contain a land use and inventory map showing wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Recreation and Open Space Element The recreation and open space element of the City's adopted plan prescribes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To provide recreation facilities and open space which are responsive to the leisure-time needs of residents. Objective 1.1- By July 1989, achieve controls that achieve common access to the bay and the ocean. Policy 1.1.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that protect common access to the shoreline as development occurs. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, assure private recreational resources in the limited development projects to complement the National Park. Objective 1.2.1- The City shall enact development code provisions that require private recreational facilities for developments over a certain size, to complement the public National Park. Policy 1.3.1- The City shall urge Congress to retain the National Park thereby providing a Level of Service of at least 57 acres of public open space per permanent resident prior to the year 2000. 11/ Objective 1.4- Ensure the preservation of public and private open space. Policy 1.4.1- By July 1989, enact development code regulations to assure preservation of adequate private open space in conjunction with private development. Policy 1.4.2.- Work with Congress and National Park Service to assure preservation of this public open space resource. Policy 1.4.3- The City shall retain City Key in its ownership for potential use as a municipal park. Intergovernmental Element The following goals, objectives and policies in the City's adopted plan address the matter of intergovernmental coordination: Goal 1 - To maintain or establish processes to assure coordination with other governmental entities where necessary to implement this plan. Objective 1.1- By 1994, at least three of the seven issues listed in the Analysis shall be the subject of formal agreement, assuming development review has been initiated. Policy 1.1.1- The Mayor shall oversee the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Analysis section of this element. Policy 1.1.2- In particular, the Mayor shall work with County Office of Emergency Management relative to hurricane warning and evacuation mechanisms. Policy 1.1.3- The City shall continue to work with the County and Regional planning agencies in an attempt to reach consensus on a mutually agreeable land use designation for the private islands. Policy 1.1.4- If necessary, the City shall use the South Florida Regional Planning Council to assist in the mediation of any major intergovernmental conflicts; the County land use plan is a potential example. Policy 1.1.5- After development is initiated, the Mayor shall annually issue a report outlining the services the City is providing and providing information on intergovernmental coordination. Policy 1.1.6- The City shall review all development applications in the context of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Management Plan and maintain liaison with the staff to the Committee responsible for this plan. Objective 1.2- The Mayor shall meet at least annually with the National Park Superintendent to coordinate the impact of the City's development upon adjacent areas. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall maintain liaison with the National Park Service on any land use or development impacts along their common boundaries. Objective 1.3- By 1999, assure level of service standards coordination with the County relative to solid waste. Policy 1.3.1- As first phase development is completed, City officials shall work with County officials on the long range implications of solid waste disposal to determine adequacy and approach. The "seven issues listed in the [intergovernmental] Analysis" section of the plan document (reference to which is made in Objective 1.1) concern the following subjects: land uses and densities; historic resources; private holdings within the National Park; permitting for construction and related infrastructure; solid waste; Biscayne Bay water quality; and emergency evacuation. The "land uses and densities" issue raised in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document relates to the alleged inconsistency between the City's plan and Dade County's plan regarding the land use designation of the privately held land in the City. It is asserted in this section of the document that the "Metro-Dade Comprehensive Plan shows the privately owned land in Islandia as 'Parks and Recreation' rather than residential." The following recommendation to resolve this alleged conflict is then offered: To date, the coordination on this issue has been sporadic. 12/ If neither the County nor National Park Service are willing to acquire these islands at a fair price, then the County plan should be amended to show them as residential. The Regional Planning Council can serve as a mediator. Dade County's adopted plan provides the following explanation of the significance of a "Parks and Recreation" land use designation in terms of the development potential of the land so designated: Both governmentally and privately owned lands are included in areas designated for Parks and Recreation use. Most of the designated Privately owned land either possess outstanding environmental qualities and unique potential for public recreation, or is a golf course included within a large scale development. The long term use of such golf courses is typically limited by deed restriction. If the owners of privately owned land designated as Parks and Recreation choose to develop before the land can be acquired for public use, the land may be developed for a use, or at a density comparable to, and compatible with surrounding development providing that such development is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies of the CDMP (the County's plan). This allowance does not apply to land designated Parks and Recreation that was set aside for park or open space use as a part of, or as a basis for approving the density of, a residential development. Certain commercial activities that are supportive of the recreational uses and complementary to the resources of the park, such as marine supply stores, fuel docks or tennis and golf clubhouses may be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category. Other commercial recreational or entertainment, or cultural uses may also be considered for approval in the Parks and Recreation category where complementary to the site and its resources. Some of the land shown for Parks is also environmentally sensitive. These areas include tropical hardwood hammocks, high- quality Dade County pineland, and viable mangrove forests. Some sites proposed for public acquisition under Florida's Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) program are identified in this category on the LUP (Land Use Plan) map although they may be as small as ten acres in size. Many of these areas are designated on the LUP map as "Environmentally Protected Parks" however, some environmentally sensitive areas may be designated simply as Parks and Recreation due to graphic restraints. All portions of parkland designated Environmentally Protected Parks or other parkland which is characterized by valuable environmental resources is intended to be managed in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies for development of the applicable environmental resources or protection area. Because it is an environmentally sensitive area, the City of Islandia, including the five Ragged Keys, has been designated "Environmentally Protected" parkland on the County's future land use map. Under the County's plan, the maximum density permitted on land so designated is one unit per five acres. With respect to the issue of historic resources, it is stated in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document containing the City's plan that the preservation of such resources within Biscayne National Park is the responsibility of the "National Park Service working with the State Bureau of Historic Preservation (within the Department of State) and the County Historic Preservation Division." Regarding the matter of private holdings within Biscayne National Park, the assertion is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "[a]lthough existing formal agreements exist relative to individual life estates and long-term leases by private owners within the Park, there is a need for a formal agreement relative to joint development review and agreements between the National Park Service and the City." As to permitting requirements, the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document acknowledges "the array of permits required [from federal, state and county agencies] for private development and related infrastructure" in the City. In view of the regulatory authority of these agencies, the recommendation is made that the "City development code should establish a systematic review process flow chart meshing with the concurrency management system." Concerning the issue of solid waste, it is suggested in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that "once first phase development is completed, the off-island disposal of solid waste by residents should be monitored for effectiveness" and if "this system is not working, a City-County collection arrangement would have to be developed." With respect to the issue of the water quality of Biscayne Bay, it is noted in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the plan document that the County's "Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (Biscayne Bay Management Plan) can serve as a guide to intergovernmental estuary planning and protection as development occurs" and that therefore the "City should consult with the [County's Biscayne Bay Management Committee] staff when development proposals reach preliminary status." 13/ The Biscayne Bay Management Plan is codified in Chapter 33-D of the Metro-Dade County Code. It identifies guidelines and objectives designed to optimize the quality and quantity of marine life in the bay, to protect the bay's endangered and rare plants and animals, and to avoid irreversible and irretrievable loss of the bay's resources. The following are among the guidelines set forth in the plan: Coastal construction should be compatible with the Bay's natural features. . . * * * 8. Siting of new marinas and docking facilities should avoid use of shoreline areas containing viable submerged communities and near-shore areas of inadequate navigational depths. Such facilities should not negatively impact existing water quality. * * * The total impact from the many individual development or user activities along the Bay shoreline should not be allowed to negatively affect the Bay's biological, chemical or aesthetic qualities. Facilities in and over Bay waters and its tributaries should only be constructed if their development and use are water- dependent. Concerning the issue of emergency evacuation, the observation is made in the Intergovernmental Analysis section of the document that the "City's hurricane vulnerability makes an effective early warning imperative." It is therefore recommended that "[w]hen development occurs, the City should formalize an arrangement with the County 14/ including formal contacts, evacuation route/shelter designations and boat monitoring mechanism." 15/ Capital Improvements Element The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan establishes the following goals, objectives and policies: Goal 1- To undertake municipal capital improvements when necessary to complement private new development facilities, within sound fiscal practices. Objective 1.1- The Mayor shall annually monitor public facility needs as a basis for recommendations to the City Council. Policy 1.1.1.- Engineering studies shall form the basis for annual preparation of a five- year capital improvement program, including one year capital budget if and when such municipal projects are deemed necessary. This element shall be reviewed annually. Policy 1.1.2- Overall priority for fiscal planning shall be those projects that enhance residential development and the environment, as per Land Use Plan. Policy 1.1.3- In setting priorities, the following kinds of criteria will be used: -Public Safety implications: a project to address a threat to public safety will receive first priority. -Level of service or capacity problems: next in priority would be projects needed to maintain the stated Level of Service. -Ability to finance: A third criteria is the budgetary impact; will it exceed budget projections? -Quality of life projects: lowest priority would be those projects not in categories 1 or 2 but that would enhance the quality of life. -Priority will be given to projects on islands experiencing development. Policy 1.1.4- Pursue a prudent policy in terms of borrowing for major capital improvements; in no case borrow more than two percent of the total assessed value in any one bond issue or loan. Objective 1.2- By July 1989, the City shall adopt a development code containing a concurrency management system to integrate the land use plan, capital improvement element and levels of service. Policy 1.2.1- City officials shall use both the Future Land Use Plan and financial analyses of the kind contained herein as a basis for reviewing development applications, in order to maintain an adequate level of service; all except parks are expected to be private: -Sewage disposal: septic tanks or package treatment plants providing treatment capacity of 300 gallons per residential unit per day 16/ -Water: wells providing 300 gallons per residential unit per day -Drainage: on-site retention and drainage systems that can accommodate a one-day storm that occurs once in ten years (statistically) -Solid Waste: off-island disposal by individual homeowners or other property owners -Public open space: 57 acres per permanent resident Objective 1.3- Major future development projects shall pay their fair share of the capital improvement needs they generate. Policy 1.3.1- The proposed development code and related review process shall require on-site detention and drainage structures acceptable to regional environmental agencies plus private water and sewer systems. Policy 1.3.2- The development code preparation shall include the consideration of impact fees. Policy 1.3.3- Pedestrian paths shall be installed as a part of all new development. Objective 1.4- Achieve mechanisms whereby public and private facility requirements generated by new development are adequately funded in a timely manner. Policy 1.4.1- The development code shall specify that no development permit shall be issued unless assurance is given that the private (or possibly public) facilities necessitated by the project (in order to meet level of service standards) will be in place concurrent with the impacts of the development. The capital improvements element of the City's adopted plan also contains an Implementation section which provides as follows: Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Not applicable; no deficiencies and no projects planned for 1990-1994 period. Programs For purposes of monitoring and evaluation, the principal programs needed to implement this Element are as follows: Initiate an annual capital programming and budgeting process as soon as warranted by prospective projects; use project selection criteria. Use engineering or design studies to pinpoint the cost and timing of any potential needs or deficiencies as they are determined. Amendments to the development code to a) assure conformance to the "concurrency" requirements relative to development orders, levels of service and public facility timing, and b) explore selected impact fees e.g. for park, boat dock and beach renourishment. Data and Analysis If a comprehensive plan is to be an effective tool in managing a community's future growth and development, it must be based, not upon unsubstantiated assumptions or wishful thinking, but rather upon appropriate data and reasoned analysis of that data. Typically, the first step in developing a comprehensive plan is to ascertain the projected population of the community. Once such a projection is made, the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population must then be determined. The analysis does not end there, however. Before any decision is made regarding how, and to what extent, the community's land will be used in the future to meet the needs of the projected population, the character of the land, including its soils, topography, and natural and historic resources, must be examined so that its suitability for development can be determined. Only after such a suitability determination is made and the carrying capacity of the land is evaluated is it appropriate to assign land use designations and densities. The City Council did not follow this conventional approach in developing its comprehensive plan. Instead, it used a methodology that is fundamentally flawed and not professionally accepted. Without collecting and analyzing available information concerning the amount of land needed to accommodate the City's future population and the character and suitability of the City's land to meet the needs of the population, it arbitrarily determined at the outset of the planning process that the privately held land in the City would be designated for "residential" use and that a maximum density of six units per acre would be allowed. It appears that the City Council simply assumed, based on nothing more than the fact that the land was in private ownership, that it was suitable for residential development at six units per acre. Had the City Council examined the information that was readily available to it concerning the character of the privately held land in the City, it undoubtedly would have realized that such land is actually unsuitable for such intense residential development. The City Council, through its consultant, the Swarthout firm, subsequently, but prior to the January 13, 1989, adoption of the City's plan, projected the population of the City and the amount of land needed to accommodate the anticipated population. It estimated that the City's population would be about 300 in 1994 and approximately 720 in the year 2000 and that 78 acres of land would be needed to accommodate the projected population in the latter year. These projections, however, were not made pursuant to a professionally accepted methodology inasmuch as they were based, at least in part, upon the preconceived notion that the City's plan should permit residential development of the privately owned land in the City at a density of six units per acre. In making these projections, the City Council assumed that all of the 842 acres of privately held land in the City would be subject to residential development. The future land use map adopted by the City Council, however, designates only a small portion of that land, the approximately 12 acres comprising the five Ragged Keys, for residential use. This is considerably less land than that the City Council projected would be needed to accommodate the City's population in the year 2000. The final land use decisions reflected on the future land use map were not the product of a thoughtful and reasoned analysis of issues that should have been considered before such decisions were made. The City Council failed to adequately consider and analyze, among other things, the following significant matters before making these decisions and adopting the City's comprehensive plan: the character of the five Ragged Keys and their suitability for residential development at a density of six units per acre, particularly in light of their location in a flood prone area; the adverse impact that such development, including related housing and infrastructure construction activities, would have on the area's natural resources and fragile environment; 17/ whether the potable water 18/ and sanitary sewer needs generated by such development can be met given logistical and environmental constraints; 19/ the financial feasibility of, and problems associated with, siting infrastructure on the land to be developed; 20/ whether the future residents of the City can be safely evacuated from the City in the face of a hurricane or tropical storm given the City's location in a coastal high-hazard area accessible from the mainland only by water and air; 21/ and the need for boat docking and other water-dependent facilities. The City's adopted plan therefore is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. The Regional Plan for South Florida The South Florida Regional Planning Council has adopted a Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan) to guide future development in Broward, Dade and Monroe Counties. The Regional Plan addresses issues of regional significance. Goal 51.1 of the Regional Plan provides as follows: By 1995 the amount of solid waste placed in landfills will be reduced by 30 percent over the 1986 volume. A local government's comprehensive plan must establish a level of service for solid waste disposal if it is to be consistent with, and further, this goal of the Regional Plan. The City's comprehensive plan does not do so. Goal 57.1 of the Regional Plan states as follows: New development will not be permitted in areas where public facilities do not already exist, are not programmed, or cannot be economically provided. The City's comprehensive plan contemplates new development in areas where there are no existing nor planned public facilities. Although the plan suggests that infrastructure will be provided by private developers, there is no indication that any consideration was given to the costliness of such a venture. Goal 58.1 of the Regional Plan imposes the following requirement: Beginning in 1987, all land use plans and development regulations shall consider the compatibility of adjacent land uses, and the impacts of development on the surrounding environment. The State Comprehensive Plan The State of Florida also has a comprehensive plan. The State Comprehensive Plan confronts issues of statewide importance. Among other things, it requires "local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents [and] to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human lives from the effects of natural disasters." It also reflects that it is the policy of the State to "[p]rotect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development" and to "[e]ncourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Dade County Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It has regulatory authority over the tidal waters, submerged bay bottom and coastal wetlands in the City of Islandia. It also has the authority under its Home Rule Charter to prescribe appropriate land uses and planning principles for the entire area within its territorial boundaries. Dade County municipalities, however, are free to deviate from the County's plan in fashioning a comprehensive plan of their own. If the residential development permitted by the City's adopted plan occurs, it will have a substantial adverse impact on areas within Dade County's jurisdiction, including Biscayne Bay, which have been designated as areas warranting protection and special treatment. Tropical Audobon Society The Tropical Audobon Society is a not-for-profit Florida corporation which engages in educational, scientific, investigative, literary and historical pursuits relating to wild birds and other animals and the plant, soil, water and other conditions essential to their development and preservation. On occasion, Tropical and its members engage in activity in the City of Islandia. They participate from time to time in census surveys of the City's bird population. In addition, they conduct tours through the City for people who want to observe the area's wildlife. The overwhelming majority of Tropical members are South Floridians. None of its members, however, reside or own land in the City of Islandia. Neither Tropical, nor anyone acting on its behalf, submitted oral or written objections during the City Council proceedings that culminated in the adoption of the City's comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED the Administration Commission issue a final order which: (1) dismisses the Tropical Audobon Society's petition to intervene; (2) finds the City of Islandia's adopted comprehensive plan not "in compliance," within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (3) directs the City to remedy these specific deficiencies to bring the plan "in compliance;" and (4) imposes appropriate sanctions authorized by Section 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of March, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1990.
The Issue May this appeal be dismissed as moot due to the impossibility of the development order being granted?
Findings Of Fact This case involves Florida Rock's May 20, 1992, application for a development order to the Citrus County Department of Development Services (LDDS or Department) for a mining operation. Sometime after 1980, the real property at issue had been designated "extractive" on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Citrus County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan designated Florida Rock's real property as "extractive." In 1990, after the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs challenged the "extractive" designation in the County's 1989 plan amendments, the site continued to be designated "extractive." Citrus County simultaneously enacted its Citrus County Land Development Code (LDC or Code). At all such times, zoning and all maps also embraced the same "extractive" designation. Citrus County maintains two sets of land use maps. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP or Comprehensive Plan) has a FLUM (a generalized land use map) and the LDC has attached to it atlas maps on a smaller scale. The LDC maps are identical to the county tax assessor tax maps and show individual parcels/lots of record. Such parcels defined by the Comprehensive Plan and LDC text have a land use designation as associated with each. Mining operations are permitted on real property designated "extractive." Under the LDC, when an application is submitted, it must be reviewed for completeness and the applicant notified within three days of whether the application is deemed complete or incomplete. If the application is deemed incomplete, the applicant must be advised of how the application should be amended or supplemented in order to be deemed complete for technical review. The applicant then may amend or supplement the application. Once a determination of completeness has been made, a technical review must be completed by each member of the technical review team within ten days, and thereafter, a series of committee meetings and public hearings may follow. During this portion of the procedure, amendments to the application may be required before the development order is ultimately granted or denied. Citrus County's land use amendment process began on April 10, 1992, before Florida Rock's application was submitted to the LDDS. Florida Rock had actual notice on April 10, 1992, that a change in its property designation from "extractive" to "rural residential" was pending, but no moratorium on development orders was imposed. Thus, the "rush to the Commission" began.1 On May 20, 1992, Florida Rock's application for a development order to permit mining on its real property was submitted to the Citrus County LDDS. The Department made four sequential determinations of incompleteness. At no time did Florida Rock ever amend its application or submit any supplemental material. On December 22, 1992, Citrus County's Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 92-A73, to change the designation of the subject real property on the Comprehensive Plan from "extractive" to "rural residential." The ordinance does not recite any retroactive effect. No moratorium on development orders was imposed. Mining operations are prohibited on real property designated as "rural residential." On December 28, 1992, the Department made the determination of incompleteness which gave rise to this instant proceeding. Florida Rock has not affirmatively plead and has not proven that the Department made any of its incompleteness determinations arbitrarily, capriciously, discriminatorily, in bad faith or solely for purposes of delaying the process of a technical review on the merits of the project. In the absence of any formal allegation and affirmative proof, no improper motive or improper purpose by the Department can be found.2 The December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness noted, in the following terms, the refusal of the applicant to supply certain assurances: The applicant is exempt from Section 4344 of the LDC only in regards to the bonafide [sic] agricultural or forestry purposes. Commercial forestry involves the harvesting or marketable timber not the wholesale clearing of all vegetation. Therefore, the impact on protected trees as defined by Section 4342.A and 4344.B needs to be addressed as it regards compliance with Section 4344 of the LDC. The application needs to reflect how this will be accomplished. Contrary to your statement, this item was previously referenced as Item 11 in my letter of May 29, 1992. While vegetative removal of unprotected trees as defined in Section 4343.A.6. of the LDC is acceptable, the issue of protected trees as defined in Section 4344.B of the LDC is still unaddressed in your application submittal. The submitted site plan indicates a setback of less than the 3000 feet from residentially committed areas as required by Section 4525.A.8.1 and 4531.E.1. of the LDC regarding expansion of existing mines. Interpretation of the LDC is addressed in Section 1410 of the LDC and so the attached interpretation is not applicable. Please revise your site plan to reflect this set back or resubmit your application after vesting pursuant to Section 3160 through 3163 of the LDC has been determined. Pursuant to Section 380.06(4)(b)F.S., Citrus County believes that Florida Rock Industries operations within Hernando/Citrus Counties may exceed DRI threshold. Therefore, please provide a letter from DCA resolving this matter. In regard to your position that DCA has not formally requested a binding letter, please note that the above referenced citation specifies the state land planning agency or local government with jurisdiction over the land on which a development is proposed may require a developer to obtain a binding letter. Based on information made available to this Department, we believe a determination is called for. In regards to the requested items 23 through 34 of my letter of May 29, 1992, please be advised that Section 4659.F. of the LDC requires proof of compliance with all applicable Citrus County regulations and policies. This includes the Comprehensive Plan (C.O. 89-04) and its amendments. The information requested is to assure that the proposed development will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. None of the reasons listed in the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness specifically stated that Florida Rock could not qualify for a development order for mining because its real property had just become designated by the December 22, 1992, ordinance as "rural residential," instead of "extractive." Indeed, the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness did not mention the ordinance change at all. However, its fourth paragraph concerns the requirement that an applicant establish its real property's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The County has taken the position that, without using the terms "extractive use" or "rural residential," paragraph four encompasses the change of ordinance as well as all matters pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan. Under the statutes in effect on December 22, 1992, Ordinance 92-A73 was not effective until filed with the Secretary of State. (See the face of the ordinance). The exact date of its filing was not stipulated, but it was agreed that filing occurred sometime in December 1992. Under Florida's growth management process, the newly adopted ordinance also was transmitted to the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, which would then issue a report before the new ordinance became part of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan.3 On January 3, 1993, Florida Rock challenged, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the new ordinance as it progressed through the Florida Department of Community Affairs' review process. On January 19, 1993, Citrus County's LDDS sent a letter to Florida Rock, further interpreting its December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness. That letter also made no specific mention of the ordinance amendment and did not amend the fourth paragraph of the incompleteness determination. It provided, in pertinent part: For the record, my letter of December 28, 1992, was not a "Denial" but rather a determination of incompleteness pursuant to Section 2222.B.1 of the Land Development Code. In response to your question of January 12, 1993, I was not persuaded by your argument in regards to access by way of Parcel 22100 lying in Section 36, Township 20 South, Range 19 East, but did recognize the driveway onto County Road 581. Florida Rock declined to amend its application or supply the information requested. On January 26, 1993, Florida Rock initiated the instant administrative appeal of the December 28, 1992, determination of incompleteness. However, by agreement of Florida Rock and Citrus County, the appeal was abated until January 13, 1999 (see the Preliminary Statement), when it was transferred from a local hearing officer to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Florida Rock's challenge of the ordinance before the Florida Department of Community Affairs also did not progress in a timely manner. On February 6, 1998, Florida Rock's challenge to the new ordinance was dismissed. The effect thereof is that the Florida Department of Community Affairs has found, and entered a Final Order pronouncing, Citrus County Ordinance 92-A73 to be in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, pertaining to Florida's Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. That Final Order, as final agency action, was not appealed. By any interpretation, Citrus County's Comprehensive Plan, embracing the new ordinance's land use designation of Florida Rock's property as "rural residential" has been in effect since February 1998, as have been coordinated zoning, FLUM, and LDC atlas maps. Since December 22, 1992, the ordinance has designated Florida Rock's proposed site as "rural residential," which precludes the proposed mining operation. Since February 1998, the Comprehensive Plan, FLUM, and LDC atlas maps have all embraced, and currently all of them now embrace, the ordinance, and all of them prohibit mining or "extractive use" of the real property in issue.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Citrus County Department of Land Development Services enter a final order dismissing the appeal for mootness. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1999.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Background Franklin County (Franklin) is a coastal county located along the Gulf Coast of Florida's Panhandle. To the west is the Apalachicola River; it empties into a bay defined by barrier islands (St. Vincent, St. George, Dog), creating North America's second largest and most productive estuary. The eastern part of the County is St. James Island (SJI), separated from the mainland by the Crooked and Ochlockonee Rivers. Franklin's primary economic base is historically resource-based, including silviculture/timber, and since the 1930s primarily the fishing (seafood) industry. Tourism/retirement is an emerging industry especially on St. George Island, a noted resort destination. Retirees and vacationers come to enjoy the beautiful, pristine, relatively undeveloped, but still accessible waterfront stretches. Franklin's cities are Carrabelle, a 2.66 square mile fishing community about 50 percent developed and Apalachicola, a historic 4.81 square mile fishing community where about 90 percent of the land is still open for development. About 62- 70 percent of the County is federal or State land including the 1200-inmate State prison, Bald Point and St. George Island State Parks, Tate's Hell State Forest, and Apalachicola National Forest. FSU's Marine Lab is at Turkey Point. St. Joe owns over 55,000 acres in Franklin, mostly on SJI. Franklin has one of Florida's worst poverty rates. SJI's boundaries are the Crooked River and the Ochlockonee River and Bay on the north, Bald Point State Park on the east, Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the City of Carrabelle on the east. SJI is mostly undeveloped except for: the Alligator Point area, including areas along County Road (CR) 370, areas along U.S. Highway (US) 98 including the unincorporated areas of St. Teresa and Lanark Village and adjacent to Carrabelle; and a few homes on Rio Vista Drive, just south of the Ochlockonee River. The natural systems on SJI are very diverse, and habitats range from xeric, well-drained uplands of pine and oak, to riverine swamps of cypress and hydric hardwoods, freshwater marshes, rivers and ponds, marine inter-tidal wetlands, bays, beaches, mudflats, seagrass meadows and open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. SJI is an ecologically significant and environmentally sensitive area that consistently scored in the 5 to 9 range (out of a high of 10) on the Florida Wildlife Commission's (FWC's) Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS). SJI supports up to 388 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, including a number of State-listed species. Of particular note is the presence of the black bear on SJI, which is a State-listed threatened species with substantial strategic habitats identified by FWC on SJI, particularly in the McIntyre, Brandy Creek, Cow Creek and Bear Creek corridors. The Gulf Sturgeon, a federally-listed threatened species, occurs in the Ochlockonee and Crooked Rivers and is subject to an ongoing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study to determine the importance of the habitat to spawning and distribution of this prehistoric fish. SJI is surrounded by relatively clean (pristine) surface waters that have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), including portions of Alligator Harbor and portions of the Ochlockonee Bay and River. A large part of Alligator Harbor is an Aquatic Preserve. Much of the Alligator Harbor and Ochlockonee Bay are designated as Class 2 Shellfish harvesting waters. SJI is home to Bald Point State Park, which provides a variety of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for nature observation and fishing. The eastern boundary of Tates Hell State Forest extends to Highway 319 on SJI and is separated from Bald Point State Park by approximately 7 miles of agricultural land (silviculture) through the center of SJI. Northeast Franklin, including SJI, is part of the Woodville Karst Plain, generally a sensitive karst area where some confining beds (especially in Wakulla County) are usually thin to absent, or breached. In unconfined karst hydrogeology, groundwater moves rapidly, but soil borings on SJI (Turkey Point) corroborate North Florida Water Management District maps which show a confining layer in eastern Franklin County varying in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. With such a confining layer, groundwater moves vertically at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year and laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin County, including on SJI. Petitioners attempted to contradict evidence presented by St. Joe and prove that SJI has karst hydrogeology primarily on evidence of core samples taken in eastern Franklin County. These core samples were not explained by any expert testimony and did not prove the absence of any clay confining layer in eastern Franklin County. While unlikely, there may be places in eastern Franklin County where the confining layer thins or is absent or breached. In 1991 Franklin adopted a Plan for a long-term planning horizon of the year 2000. The Plan was found “in compliance,” at a time when approximately 27 percent of Franklin was in public ownership and Franklin was designated an Area of Critical State Concern (ASCS) largely due to the importance of the Apalachicola Bay Area and its natural resources. See §§ 380.05 and 380.0555, Fla. Stat. The 1991 Plan designated a critical shoreline district and impervious surface area limitations within 150 feet of shorelines and wetlands, which not only were determined by Franklin and the Governor and Cabinet to effectively protect County wetlands but also won an award from DCA for Outstanding Environmental Protection. The Administration Commission removed Franklin's ACSC designation in 1992, but the Plan was not changed prior to 1995. After 1995, and within the year 2000 planning horizon, there was one policy addition--FLUE Policy 2.2(k)-- and one policy amendment--to FLUE Policy 2.2(d). In approximately 1997, Franklin prepared an EAR on the 1991 Plan. It did not state a need for, or anticipate any, changes to the FLUE or FLUM or much else in the Plan. However, Franklin did not timely adopt EAR-based amendments to the 1991 Plan, and the planning horizon of Franklin's Plan remained the year 2000. Notwithstanding the 2000 planning horizon, there also were some amendments/additions/deletions to goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) after 2000. Ordinance 2001-20 amended wetlands policies to reflect a change in State jurisdiction, amended FLUEP 1.2(d) and 3.1, deleted FLUEP 3.2 and 3.3, amended Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Policy 1.5, and added FLUEP 1.6-1.9. Ordinance 2003-1 amended C/CEOs 1, 2, 3, and 7 and added Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Policies 4.4-4.6. Franklin also adopted two large-scale Plan amendments for mixed-use residential developments on SJI after 2000 without updating its Plan and planning horizon. In 2000 Franklin approved a FLUM amendment (FLUMA) from "Public Facilities" to "Mixed Use Residential" on 377.4 acres along US 98 at the intersection with Crooked River Road for a development of regional impact known as "St. James Bay." In 2002, Franklin transmitted a proposed FLUMA for 784 acres on Alligator Harbor from "Agriculture" to "Mixed-Use Residential," together with proposed FLUEP 11.11, for a St. Joe development called SummerCamp. During DCA's compliance review of the Summercamp amendments, the issue was raised whether the amendments should be found "in compliance" when Franklin's Plan was out-of-date and still planning for the year 2000. To resolve the situation, in 2003 Franklin adopted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 along with the SummerCamp FLUMA. These amendments were found to be "in compliance." FLUEP 11.12 required Franklin to conduct a county- wide assessment of eight key substantive areas, prepare an overlay map and plan policies for SJI, and update its Plan not later than April 1, 2004, on the basis of the county-wide assessments, and to include requirements that all FLUMA on SJI be "consistent with the overlay map and policies." The eight key substantive areas were: Protection of natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, habitat for listed species, shorelines, sea grass beds, and economically valuable fishery resources, groundwater quality and estuarine water quality; Protection of cultural heritage; Promote economic development; Promotion of emergency management including the delineation of the coastal high hazard area, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation clearance times, creating shelter space, directing population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas, and implementing appropriate parts of the Local Mitigation Strategy; Adequate provision of public facilities and services including transportation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and facilities for access to water bodies; Provision of affordable housing, where appropriate; Inclusion of intensity standards; and A list of allowable uses. FLUEP 11.13 applied to any large-scale FLUMAs transmitted to DCA prior to the "effective date" of the Plan update pursuant to FLUEP 11.12, and required the FLUMA to "include an area-wide assessment covering the geographic area of the county where the FLUMA is located that addresses the same eight key substantive areas in FLUEP 11.12. Transmittal and Adoption Process The Plan Amendments at issue are the result of Franklin's endeavors to adopt EAR-based amendments and FLUMAs in accordance with FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13. Franklin initially contracted the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of the Florida State University (FSU) for: a review and evaluation of the current Plan and EAR to recommend plan changes; to have a consensus building process with at least six community workshops; to evaluate population and employment; to perform technical data assembly and analysis; to recommend updated GOPs; and to facilitate consensus on a planning overlay for SJI. FSU produced updated data and analysis (D&A) in Geographic Information System (GIS) format and GOP revisions. FSU found no need for more residential land through 2020. FSU prepared a GIS-based "suitability analysis and county-wide map." Based upon St. Joe's concerns, FSU was told to delete it, and Franklin did not transmit the suitability analysis/map. In lieu of the FSU's suitability analysis/map, a short narrative was submitted. On June 16, 2004, Franklin filed a "transmittal package" with DCA: a "complete revised plan" with D&A and GOPs; a "supplementary notebook"; and 13 large FLUMs. Franklin proposed 8 FLUMAs: Eastpoint Sprayfield (45 acres); Breakaway Lodge/Marina (17.3 acres); Ft. Gadsden Creek (78.6 acres); Otter Slide Road (46.4 acres); McIntyre Rural Village (RV) (1,740 acres); Conservation Residential (ConRes) (6,532 acres); Carrabelle East Village (CEV) (201 acres); and Marina Village Center (MVC) (1,000 acres). DCA found Franklin's transmittal insufficient per 9J-11.009(1). On July 13, 2004, Franklin transmitted St. Joe's "site suitability for Proposed St. James Island FLUM amendments"; "traffic study"; "historical data on City of McIntyre"; "St. James Island Forestry Type Map"; and "Archaeological Reconnaissance of the St. James Island/Ochlockonee River Tract." On October 15, 2004, DCA issued an ORC per 9J- 11.010. The ORC made numerous (49) objections, including, but not limited to: the SJI overlay/policies, FLUMAs, wetlands, population projections/need, potable water, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), land use categories/density and intensity standards, affordable housing, water supply planning, water dependent uses, no capital improvements schedule (CIS), and internal inconsistency. DCA coordinated with Franklin and St. Joe on the ORC response (ORCR), which was transmitted to DCA along with Ordinance 2005-20, adopted April 5, 2005, consisting of amended GOPs and FLUM series. The Ordinance replaced the 1991 Plan, as previously amended, and repealed all prior ordinances to the extent of conflict. The Ordinance adopted seven elements--FLUE; traffic circulation (TCE); housing (HE); infrastructure (IE); C/CE; recreation and open space (ROSE); and intergovernmental coordination (ICE)--and a FLUM series. FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted. There was no Capital Improvements Elements (CIE). In its new Plan, Franklin adopted five FLUMAs -- the Eastpoint Sprayfield and St. Joe's RV, ConRes, CEV, and MVC. The Eastpoint Sprayfield was dropped during DCA's compliance review, leaving the four St. Joe FLUMAs. During DCA's compliance review, many ORC objections were considered unresolved. Some issues were resolved on further review, but others remained, as reflected in a May 6, 2005, staff memo opining that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." This memo was written by DCA planners Susan Poplin and Jeff Bielling, who had extensively reviewed the County's transmittal and adoption packages. It was approved by their immediate supervisor, Charles Gauthier, a certified planner with extensive experience with Franklin, who left DCA not long after approving the memo. The memo was then presented to Valerie Hubbard, DCA's Director of the Division of Community Planning (and Gauthier's immediate supervisor), who considered the issues presented in the memo, along with additional information presented by the County, ultimately disagreed with the planners, and issued an "in compliance" Notice of Intent. No CIE A CIE is a mandatory element. See § 163.3177(3)(a); 9J-5.005(1)(c)2, 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2); 9J-5.016. The 1991 Plan had a CIE that was amended by ORD 2003-1 (CIEPs 4.4-4.6 were added). Franklin transmitted a proposed CIE to: change the "initial planning period" in CIEO 3.4 to 2004-2009; delete CIEPs 3.3 and 3.4; make a minor change to CIEP 2.1; and change CIEP 5.4 (LOS for potable water, principal arterial roads, and recreational facilities). DCA objected to the lack of a five- year CIS, which also is mandatory. In the ORCR, Franklin explained the absence of the CIS by maintaining that there were no capital improvements needed for the next five years. The adopted 2020 Plan has no CIS, which DCA found "in compliance" based on Franklin's explanation. However, it also has no CIE, which was not obvious or apparent to DCA in its compliance review because the CIE was not submitted in strike- through/underline format, as required by 9J-11. In addition, several adopted elements cross-reference to the CIE. Franklin contends that it did not adopt a CIE because there were no capital improvements to be shown on a five-year CIS and because of its understanding that many items, including building or paving roads, are not capital improvements. However, it appears Franklin may have inadvertently neglected to adopt the CIE as transmitted. The deletion was not discussed at the adoption hearing. When the deletion of the CIE came to the attention of DCA after the May 6, 2005, staff memo, DCA chose to accept Franklin's explanations as to why the CIE was deleted and why the 2020 Plan was "in compliance" without a CIE. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Notwithstanding Franklin's explanations, Franklin Ordinance 04-45 authorized a referendum on a local tourist development tax, which was approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, to provide for development of a beach park and for other recreational facility infrastructure. Franklin estimated $718,896 in tax receipts for FY 2005-06. The other parties contend that the expenditure of these capital improvement funds need not be addressed in the CIS or CIE in part because they are for the benefit of tourists, not residents. But it is clear from the evidence that both will benefit, and there does not appear to be any exception for capital improvements designed to benefit both. The other parties also point out, correctly, that only capital improvements needed to meet concurrency requirements need to be on the CIS. Besides the possible use of tourist development funds, Franklin's 2005-06 $34,036,313 annual budget includes a number of other items that appear to be capital improvement items: "capital outlay - land $100,000; capital outlay - imp. other than buildings $300,000; walk path Tillie Miller Park $10,000; Carrabelle Rec Park/FRDAP grant $200,000; Rec. Fac. Improvements other than buildings $25,000; Bald Pt. land $50,000; Bald Pt. improvements other than buildings $495,697; road paving-improvements $1,200,000; paving project-CR 30 $1,951,379; boating-improvements other than buildings $94,877; Lanark Village Drainage Improvement $92,059; Airport Fund capital outlay- improvements other than buildings $1,407,069." In addition, Franklin's CR 370 along Alligator Point has repeatedly washed out from storms, and current estimated repair costs are $2.1 million, with $1 million budgeted and FEMA matching funds anticipated. The other parties presented the direct testimony of several witnesses that none of the expenditures Franklin is planning to make in the next few years, even if capital expenditures, need to be on a CIS. Petitioners presented no direct testimony to the contrary. Based on the evidence, it was not proven that beyond fair debate that any of these expenditures were required to be included in a CIS. CIE requirements include GOPs. 9J-5.016(3). Franklin Planner Pierce and St. Joe witness Beck testified that CIE requirements can be found in other elements of the 2020 Plan. However, the 2020 Plan does not contain an explanation of any such combination of elements as required by 9J-5.005(1)(b). In addition, based upon the evidence, while some CIE requirements can be found in other elements, it is beyond fair debate that the other elements of the 2020 Plan do not contain all of the required CIE GOPs. One CIE requirement is to have a policy setting public facilities level of service standards (LOSS), including one for recreational facilities. See § 163.3177(3)(a)3; 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. See also 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2). The 2020 Plan lacks LOSS for recreational facilities. ROSEP 1.2 purports to adopt LOSS "as provided in Exhibit 7-2 of this element," but Franklin did not adopt Exhibit 7-2. See 9J- 5.005(2)(g). Franklin's transmittal D&A proposed updated recreational LOSS using population forecasts for "projected need for 2010." Exhibit 7-2 in Franklin's June 14, 2004, transmittal was based on those 2010 forecasts. There was no projection of need for either five years or to 2020. Franklin's transmittal D&A showed a deficit for bike trails, fresh/saltwater fishing, football/soccer, tennis, and swimming pools through 2010. Franklin Planner Pierce testified Exhibit 7-2 was not adopted because it was inaccurate. He testified that it was based on total population, including incorporated areas, and failed to count some swimming pools and tennis courts. But he did not supply the corrected information, and accurate D&A was not submitted for review. Pierce admitted that no data in evidence showed that Franklin can meet recreational needs through 2020, or that current recreational LOSS are being met. Franklin operates Class 1 and Class 3 landfills located on the east side of CR 65, north of US 98. D&A indicated that there are two-three more years of Class 1 landfill capacity at 2004 collection levels, with household trash being trucked to Bay County under a contract valid until 2007. The Class 3 landfill takes construction debris for a fee. Franklin did not assess Class 1 disposal requirements after the 2007 contract expiration, or Class 3 disposal requirements, and the 2020 Plan is not supported by an assessment of future solid waste disposal requirements through either a five-year or 2020 time frame based upon the projected population. Franklin may need to expand either, or both, of its landfills during the 2010 and 2020 time frames, but there is no discussion of such improvements. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's 2020 Plan without a CIE is deficient, but they characterize the deficiency as merely "technical" and "inconsequential" because: "there are no deficiencies for which to plan, and many Plan provisions ensure capital improvements implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and concurrency management"; and Franklin "has demonstrated that it can adopt a CIS and CIE in the future, if needed." But it is beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan, as it stands now without a CIE, is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a), 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2), and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. Combination Coastal and Conservation Elements Petitioners also contend that the 2020 Plan combines the coastal and conservation elements but does not contain an explanation of such combination, as required by 9J- 5.005(1)(b). In a small jurisdiction like Franklin County, with the vast majority of its land in public ownership, combination of these two elements is appropriate because most of the County’s developable acreage is coastal, and conservation measures must necessarily focus on coastal areas. This combination was previously found in compliance in 1991. No expert witness for Petitioners testified that the combination of these elements is inconsistent with 9J- 5.005(1)(b), or that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" as a result. To the contrary, several experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Two Planning Periods/Timeframes Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not include a planning period covering at least the first five-year period after adoption, as required by Section 163.3177(5)(a). But the Plan contains a number of objectives and policies in the HE, IE, and C/CE that establish a five-year planning period for achieving certain objectives. See HEO 4; IEO 2.16; C/CEOs 5.9, 8.3, 9, 14.9, 15, 15.9, 18, and 21. Petitioners seem to contend that the 2020 Plan fails to include the two required time frames--one at least five years and one at least ten years--because Franklin's analyses included disparate time frames and lacked a uniform 2020 analysis. But there does not appear to be a prohibition against analyzing more time frames than just the long-term planning horizon. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not cover at least two planning periods, one for at least the first five years and another for at least ten years after adoption. Affordable Housing Petitioners contend: "To the extent that FLUE Policies 11.12 and 11.13 required an assessment of affordable housing on SJI, there is no data or analysis to support a finding that an affordable housing assessment was prepared." Pam Ashley PRO, ¶ 42. But FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted by the Plan amendments at issue. Besides, the county-wide assessment would include the area of SJI. Adopted HEO 2 provides: "There will be sites available for 473 units of housing for low and moderate families by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) As stated, the number in the objective clearly is incorrect. Actually, D&A showed a need for 473 units in addition to the 1803 units identified in the 1991 Plan. Adopted HEO 3 makes the same kind of error for mobile homes: "There will be adequate sites for 244 mobile homes in the County by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) It is beyond fair debate that these objectives, as stated, are not supported by D&A. The plan should be corrected to comport with D&A. CHHA Designation Section 163.3178(2)(h) defines the CHHA to mean the Category (Cat) 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See also Rule 9J- 5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). The Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report is the most recent applicable regional hurricane evacuation study (HES) per 9J-5.003(17). According to the HES, Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone boundary "would roughly coincide with US 98 throughout the County. The HES map of Franklin's evacuation zone, which is in GIS format, depicts one minor exception south of US 98, east of CR 30A (which is west of Apalachicola), and another southeast of US 98 (and southwest of CR 370) in the middle of SJI. Both exceptions are inland--i.e., they do not extend seaward to the coast (St. Vincent Sound in the case of the first exception, and Alligator Harbor in the case of the second exception). The adopted FLUM series includes a CHHA map that notes: "The Coastal High Hazard Area shall be designated . . . as all areas seaward of Highway 98 or County Road 30A with the exception of areas depicted as 1 and 2 on this map. The Coastal High Hazard Area for unincorporated Franklin County is based on the Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report." The Areas 1 and 2 exceptions on Franklin's CHHA map purport to be the same two exceptions in the HES map. But unlike the HES map, the two exceptions depicted on Franklin's CHHA map extend all the way to the coast. In addition, they are larger than the exceptions depicted on the HES map, with Franklin's Area 2 exception on SJI clearly much larger. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's CHHA map does not correspond to the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin. However, they characterize the differences as "slight" and attributable to the "representational nature" of the HES map. To the contrary, the HES map, which is in GIS format, fixes precise boundaries that clearly are not matched by Franklin's map in the cases of Areas 1 and 2. Besides, 9J- 5 does not permit Franklin's CHHA to take liberties with the applicable regional study's evacuation zone based on alleged generalized depictions or representations in the regional map. A witness for St. Joe testified that evacuation zones are related to clearly identifiable landmarks and physical features, like US 98, for easier and clearer communication to the public. But that clearly is not always the case, as can be seen from the various HES maps. In any event, there was no evidence that such considerations could justify Franklin's departure from the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone boundaries in this case, and such an argument is not made in the Joint PRO filed by DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe. It is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan's CHHA designation in the CHHA map does not correspond to the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, as required by Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J- 5.003(17). Petitioners also point out that HES was based, in part, upon the National Hurricane Center's Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model in the 1994 Florida Hurricane Surge Atlas-Franklin County, and that HES included areas of Wakulla County north of SJI in the SLOSH Cat 1 area in Wakulla's Cat 1 evacuation zones, but excluded such areas south of the Ochlockonee Bay and River from Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone. They seem to contend that the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin is not as large as it should be. But the evidence implied that the difference in treatment of these areas by HES was the result of lobbying by Wakulla's director of emergency management for their inclusion. In any event, as stated, Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J-5.003(17) accept the Cat 1 evacuation zone delineated by the applicable regional study, regardless of possible error. Inventory/Analysis/GOP for Natural Disaster Planning Petitioners question the adequacy of Franklin's inventory/analysis and GOPs for natural disaster planning under 9J-5.012. Besides citing some D&A, Petitioners make several major arguments: first, the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage; second, Franklin did not plan for projected populations; third, the 2020 Plan makes no provision for capital improvements to build shelters despite adding C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 regarding shelters inside and outside of county; fourth, parts of the evacuation routes out of Franklin are subject to storm surge and flooding; fifth, Franklin's planning ends at the county line; and, sixth, special needs persons were not considered. 45. 9J-5.012(2)(e)1. provides: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. These inventories and/or analyses are found in the C/CE, the regional hurricane evacuation study, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), and the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). The Plan incorporates the hazard mitigation appendix of the CEMP through C/CEP 15.7. Additionally, in C/CEPs 14.1, 14.6, the 2020 Plan recognizes appropriate parts of the LMS, such as the need to maintain and improve evacuation routes throughout the County. 9J-5.012(3) sets out requirements for coastal management GOPs, including the requirement in (a) for "one or more goal statements which establish the long term end toward which regulatory and management efforts are directed" to "restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources, and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters"; and the requirement in (b) for "one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which . . . 7. [m]aintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times " To support their contention that the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage, Petitioners cite a statement in the CEMP that flooding is the greatest potential hurricane damage. The also cite D&A in Franklin's 6/2004 transmittal package that evaluated areas subject to coastal flooding and observed: Areas subject to coastal flooding resulting from storm surges are shown in Map 6.4. The map portrays substantial risk from flooding outside the Category 1 storm zone By limiting the CHHA to the Category 1 storm surge zone the county may not be planning to mitigate the substantial flooding risks posed by storm surges and Category 2 and 3 storms . . . . However, there was no evidence that Franklin, DCA, or anyone else ever came to the conclusion that the CHHA was inadequate for that reason. In any event, as stated in the discussion on the CHHA, state law defines the CHHA to coincide with the Cat 1 evacuation zone as drawn by the applicable regional hurricane evacuation study. See Finding 38, supra. Petitioners base their contention that Franklin did not plan for projected populations on a reference in the LMS to Franklin's future land uses as of 2000, instead of its future land uses in 2020. But is clear that Franklin also considered the four SJI FLUMAs with their future land uses for 2020. As to shelters, Petitioners essentially argue that the CIS is inadequate. But C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 require assessments of shelter availability inside and outside Franklin, pursuit of agreements with neighboring counties to provide out-of-county shelters, and exploration of the possibility of locating some shelters in Franklin (even though the entire county will be evacuated in the event of a Cat 2-5 storm). There was no D&A as to a need for capital funding within the next five years for inclusion in a CIS. Regarding the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin, there was evidence that US 319 is subject to flooding at the Ochlocknee River during a storm, that US 98 is subject to storm surge and flooding at the Ochlocknee Bay, and that the four SJI FLUMAs are expected to move the critical link in Franklin's evacuation plan from US 98 near Lanark Village to US 98 at the Ochlocknee Bay. But there was no evidence that Franklin failed to consider the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin. To the contrary, the evidence was clear that Franklin is planning for the complete evacuation of the county to take place before those routes are impacted by storm surge or flooding. The USACE guidance for HES states in part: Each jurisdiction's existing hurricane evacuation routes are evaluated. In choosing roadways for the hurricane evacuation network care should be taken to designate only those roads that are not expected to flood from rainfall or storm surge while evacuation is in process. There was no evidence that HES did not follow this guidance. Under C/CEO 14 of the 1991 Plan, reasonable hurricane evacuation standards of 16 hours for Cat 1 and 24 hours for Cat 2-5 storm events were adopted. The 2020 Plan amends C/CEO 14 to read: Hurricane Evacuation - The County shall conduct its hurricane evacuation procedures to ensure that Countywide evacuation clearance times do not exceed 16 24 hours for Category 1 & 2 storms and 24 30 hours for Category 2, 3, 4 and 5 storms. 9J5-012(3)(b)(7). (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) Actual hurricane evacuation times are based on models that estimate the amount of time it would actually take to evacuate the County. These models include consideration of behavioral tendencies and tourist occupancies. Without the SJI FLUMAs, actual hurricane evacuation clearance times for the entire County are 4 ½ hours for a Cat 1 evacuation and 8 ¼ hours for Cat 2–5 evacuations, with high tourist occupancy and a slow public response. With the additional populations from the SJI FLUMAs (none of which fall within the CHHA), actual clearance times would increase slightly to five hours for Cat 1 and 10 ½ hours for Cat 2 – 5 evacuations. However, today’s actual evacuation times of 4 ½ hours and 8 ¼ hours can be maintained or reduced with the use of reasonable mitigation measures found in C/CEP 14.1--namely, encouraging the use of SR 65 and SR 67 as alternatives to US 98 and SR 319. Petitioners contend that Franklin's hurricane evacuation standards actually have been lowered as a result of the amendment to C/CEO 14 by the addition of the word "clearance." But there was no evidence that the 1991 Plan's C/CEO 14 actually planned for something other than clearance from Franklin. Regardless whether evacuation plans changed by addition of the word "clearance," Petitioners question whether it is wise to plan only to clear Franklin before the arrival of tropical storm conditions when evacuees still must pass through Cat 1 evacuation zones in other counties, e.g., Wakulla, before reaching a place of safety. As they point out, the HES envisions the need for a regional evacuation in the event of a major hurricane with the majority of evacuees in the region evacuating to Leon County, and states: "For the near term, it may be most appropriate for the coastal counties, especially Franklin and Wakulla, to use the clearance times for Leon County rather than using their own specific figures." Moreover, HES stated: Until the roadway improvements are completed on the Crawfordville Highway and Capital Circle, the evacuation clearance times calculated for Franklin, Wakulla and Leon Counties can exceed one full day of heavy evacuation traffic movement for a worst-case storm if all those who wish to leave the area are to be accommodated. This timeframe easily extends beyond the maximum amount of warning and preparation time provided by the National Hurricane Center under a Hurricane Warning. This D&A in and of itself does not prohibit Franklin from using times to clear the county in its evacuation planning. But use of clearance times would require regional evacuation needs to be coordinated among the various counties and incorporated in the CEMP and LMS. There was no evidence in this case that such coordination has not occurred or that the various counties are not planning for evacuees to pass through all evacuation zones and reach places of safety soon enough to get out of harm's way. Petitioners also argue that special needs persons have not been considered. This argument is based on the supposed testimony of St. Joe's witness, Collins, that there is no provision in the 2020 Plan for the evacuation of persons with special needs. Actually, Collins' testimony was that there is a Plan provision that "definitely affects the evacuation" of persons with special needs, and not just indirectly, in that adult living facilities within the CHHA are prohibited. He also testified that the CEMP deals with those issues. Mr. Gauthier, the former DCA chief of comprehensive planning was subpoenaed by Petitioners and explained why, in his opinion, the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of inconsistency with 9J-5.012. He based his opinion on the incorrect CHHA designation, failure to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA, and C/CEO 14's establishment of a clearance time standard greater than actual clearance times. While the CHHA may not be designated accurately, assuming a correct definition, there was at least fair debate as to whether the 2020 plan directs population concentrations away from the CHHA. As indicated, none of the FLUMAs are in the CHHA, either as designated or as it should have been designated. Elsewhere, both the 1991 and the 2020 Plans limited residential density in the CHHA to a maximum of one DU/acre, which arguably does not constitute a population "concentration." For the reasons described in the preceding findings, the evidence in this record did not prove beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan is inconsistent with 9J- 5.012 and not "in compliance." SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs RV consists of 1,704 acres on the 2020 FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(l). It is presently designated agriculture (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres), and parts are in silviculture. FLUEP 2.2(l) is designed as a rural village that focuses on the historical heritage and natural surroundings of the Crooked River, with the objective being to create a rural village center in proximity to the river and a supporting rural community of river cottages and single-family (SF) lots. FLUEP 2.2(l) lists seven allowable uses, including residential, some commercial, and recreational uses. Non- residential maximum intensity is expressed in terms of FAR and set at .20; maximum overall gross residential density is 1 DU/5 gross acres. FLUEP 2.25 does not apply. RV can be all residential. Franklin Planner Pierce testified that, at most, 340 acres can be used for non-residential uses. He calculated this by multiplying the total acreage by the FAR. He also testified that, if 340 acres are non-residential, a maximum of 272 residential DUs could be developed on the remaining 1,363 acres. If all 1704 acres of RV are residential, the maximum residential use would be 340 DUs. Clustering is allowed but not required. At least 25 percent (426 acres) must be in "common open space" (including roads and other infrastructure); 50 percent "common open space" is required for cluster developments. Central water and wastewater is mandatory, and SMSs must meet OFW standards. As transmitted, the ConRes FLUMA was 6,531 acres to the east of RV and along the Ochlocknee River and Bay. As adopted, it is 2,500 acres. The parts of the transmitted version adjacent to RV and along the river and Bear Creek were eliminated in the adopted version. The land is presently "Agriculture" (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. As described in FLUEP 2.2(m), ConRes is generally intended for large, private tracts of land that are appropriate for low density residential development and the protection of natural and cultural resources. A stated important objective is to allow for low density residential development that accentuates and celebrates the natural environment and is designed to fit into the natural setting instead of altering the natural setting to fit the design of the development. It allows detached SF residential use, passive and active recreational uses, related infrastructure, silviculture, and accessory use for residents and guests, and other similar or compatible uses. Free- standing nonresidential or commercial uses intended to serve non-residents are not permitted. Neither "active" nor "passive" recreational uses are defined in FLUEP 2.2(m). "Timeshare" or "vacation rentals" may be allowed. Maximum gross density is 1 DU/5 gross acres, and maximum overall impervious surface coverage cannot exceed 15 percent of the land area. No FAR is included or, arguably, required because ConRes is primarily a residential concept. Septic tanks are allowed but may not be located within 500 feet of the Ochlocknee River, Ochlocknee Bay, or Bear Creek. "Aerobic systems" to provide a higher level of treatment apparently are not required, as they are on St. George Island and Alligator Point. IEP 1.2 states: "The County shall adopt a policy that mandates aerobic septic systems on a county-wide basis." Apparently, this has not yet occurred. SMSs must meet OFW standards. MVC is 1,000 acres presently "Agriculture" on the FLUM (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. The land is to the immediate east of ConRes along the Ochlocknee Bay and west of the US 98 bridge over the bay. MVC is described in FLUEP 2.2(n). The intent is to create a southern coastal fishing village focused on a marina, which is a required use. In addition to the marina, the village may contain a mix of related activities including retail, office, hotel, restaurant, entertainment, and residential uses. "Public and private utilities" are allowed but are not defined; they probably contemplate those needed for MVC itself. Clustering is not required. Residential use may not be required, but it certainly is expected of a "southern coastal fishing village." Residential use may be any combination of SF, multi-family (MF), condominiums, private residence clubs, time shares, and other forms of fractional ownership. The maximum FAR for non- residential use is .30. The maximum residential density is "2 DU/gross acres", maximum ISR (impervious surface ratio) is .80, minimum "common open space" is .25, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Central water and wastewater is required. SMSs must meet OFW standards. CEV in the 2020 Plan FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(o) addresses 200 acres presently designated Agriculture (allowing 1 DU/40 acres residential use); the land is in silviculture. The CEV FLUMA represents the first phase of development. CEV is generally intended to create a self-sustaining community with a mixture of functionally integrated land uses anchored by a village center. It is to complement the existing community of Carrabelle and create places to live, work and shop in the context of promoting moderately priced housing and economic development opportunities. Allowable uses are limited to SF and MF residential, retail commercial, service-oriented commercial, office, business and industrial park, passive and active recreation, schools and other civic facilities, public and private utilities, and houses of worship. There is no definition limiting the type of industrial use allowed, but Franklin Planner Pierce interpreted FLUEP 2.2(o) to mean industry like a truss factory or a cement batching plant, not heavier industry. Performance standards are 1-3 DU per gross acre gross residential density, maximum non-residential intensity of .25 FAR, commercial and business park intensity of .25 FAR, minimum common open space of .25, minimum civic space of .10, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Density, Intensity, and Mixed-Use Standards Petitioners contend that the 2020 Plan provisions, including the SJI FLUMAs, are not "in compliance" for failure to identify densities and intensities of uses and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category, as mandated by 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a)("distribution, location and extent"). See also 9J-5.013(3)(b)("type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses"). However, it is clear that residential densities are provided for each category, and Petitioners concede in their PROs that the mixed-use residential category in FLUEP 2.2(e) has policies/standards for the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement (of distribution), and the density or intensity of each use. In the ORC, DCA objected to Franklin's proposed plan for failure to identify non-residential intensities and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category. In response, Franklin added FAR standards and FLUEP 2.25. DCA's 5/06/2005 staff memo acknowledged the FARs and accepted them. The staff memo also acknowledged FLUEP 2.25 and accepted it as providing a percentage distribution mix of uses for mixed-use residential, mixed-use commercial, MVC, and CEV. However, the staff memo criticized the mixed-use categories for not requiring some residential use. Petitioners contend that, since FLUEP 2.25 does not apply to RV and ConRes, those categories fail to provide a percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses. But it is at least fairly debatable that RV and ConRes are not true mixed-use categories, such that 9J- 5.006(4)(c) does not apply. Petitioners also contend that, since ConRes does not have FAR standards, intensity of non-residential uses is not provided for that category. In that regard, Petitioners argue that FLUEP 2.2(m) allows "free-standing non-residential or commercial uses" in ConRes and that Franklin Planner Pierce was unable to state how much of those uses are allowed in ConRes. Actually, FLUEP 2.2(m) disallows such uses if "intended to serve non-residents." It is not clear from the policy that such uses are allowed at all in ConRes since other allowable uses are described as "similar or compatible uses." If such uses are allowable by negative implication, they would have to serve only residents. Arguably, non-residential intensity standards are not required in ConRes. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan do not meet the requirements of 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a), and they put on no expert testimony that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" for those reasons. Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan create mixed-use land use categories without the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, or without the density or intensity of each use. Predictable Standards for MVC and CEV Petitioners attempted to prove that wildly varied development scenarios could result from application of FLUEP 2.25 to MVC and CEV. The evidence did not disclose any reason to believe that uses will be combined so as to maximize certain types of uses and result in lopsided development scenarios. Assuming that were to occur, the evidence was not clear what the maximum possible density and intensity of particular uses could be under various scenarios. This is partly because Franklin's Planner Pierce seemed to interpret MVC and CEV as establishing a maximum gross residential density on the entire acreage (1000 acres for MVC and 200 acres for CEV), regardless how much land actually was devoted to residential uses. Using that interpretation (which runs counter to Mr. Pierce's interpretation of the RV FLUEP), taken to an extreme 2000 DU of residential could be developed in MVC even if 900 acres were used for non-residential uses (e.g., marina and other commercial or office) and only 100 acres were used for residential, and 600 DU of residential could be developed in CEV even if 180 acres were used for non- residential uses and only 20 acres were used for residential. Given those results, such an interpretation does not seem logical. In addition, the applicable Franklin zoning code provisions were not clear. Also, factors such as FAR and ISR limitations and the necessity for "common open space" were not applied in a clear or consistent manner in the testimony. It can, however, be found that, in the unlikely event that lopsided development were to occur, large amounts of either residential or non-residential uses theoretically could develop in MVC and CEV depending on the development scenario. In calculating some alleged development scenarios for MVC and CEV, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) also may have been applying the minimum common open space requirements and FAR intensity standards incorrectly. In some instances, they seemed to treat the minimum common open space requirements as if it were a separate allowable land use within the FLUMA and subtract the common open space minimum from total gross acreage to calculate acreage remaining for allowable land uses in the FLUMA. But it is not clear why minimum common open space requirements could (and should) not be incorporated within acreage devoted to the various allowable uses. In some instances, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) seemed to apply minimum FAR to gross acreage in the FLUMA to calculate maximum acreage that can be devoted to non-residential land uses. (This also was done for RV. See Finding 58, supra.) But it is not clear why FAR intensity standards should not be applied instead to the discrete acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses to determine the maximum allowable floor area coverage within the acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the unlikely possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV makes those FLUMAs and related policies, or the 2020 Plan, not "in compliance." Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of the possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV. Failure to Consider/React to Best Available Data FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 required consideration of eight key areas. These areas included protection of natural resources and cultural heritage, promotion of economic development and emergency management, provision of adequate public facilities and services and affordable housing, and inclusion of intensity standards and allowable uses. Based on all of the documents in the record, the updated 2020 Plan was supported by consideration of each of the eight key areas listed by FLUEP 11.12 and, for the four SJI FLUMAs, by FLUEP 11.13. Petitioners contend that Franklin's 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data existing as of the date of adoption, April 5, 2005, as required by: Section 163.3177(8)("elements of the comprehensive plan, whether mandatory or optional, shall be based upon data appropriate to the element involved") and (10)(e)("Legislature intends that goals and policies be clearly based on appropriate data"); 9J- 5.005(2)(a)("shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element" and "[t]o be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue"); and 9J-5.006(1)(FLUE data requirements). In support of that contention, they cite to a few of the voluminous data in the record submitted by St. Joe and used by Franklin that are not the best available or have errors or a weakness (an unknown source). But their argument concedes that the best available data are in the record, and no expert witness testified that the 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data. To the contrary, Petitioners' expert questioned the quality of the analysis of the data in the adoption package. Meanwhile, expert witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available evidence. Petitioners also contend that inconsistent data was used in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a)("[w]here data are relevant to several elements, the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections"). While their PRO does not cite any specifics, during the hearing Petitioners directed Mr. Gauthier to two examples. One was that Florida Land Use Cover Classification System data was used to identify wetlands in the FLUE, while National Wetlands Inventory data (supplemented with hydric soils analysis) was used to identify wetlands for the SJI FLUMAs. But those data were used in the same element, not in different elements. The other was that a traffic study in the 6/2004 transmittal package used a projection of 2,965 residential units in the SJI FLUMA while Franklin Planner testified to a different number--3,400. But the higher number represented a theoretical maximum, which is not necessarily the data on which traffic analyses should be based. No expert testified that this constituted the use of inconsistent data in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a). To the contrary, witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available data and professionally acceptable analyses, that the County appropriately responded to the D&A in preparing the Plan update, and that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Suitability of SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs Petitioners contend that none of the SJI FLUMAs are "inherently suitable for development at the permitted density and intensity." In their PRO, they based their contention in large part on FSU's analysis of various criteria, including proximity of three of the FLUMAs to the relatively pristine Ochlocknee River and Bay and their natural resources, presence of wetlands, soil types, floodplains, vegetative cover, habitat for Florida black bear and other wildlife, and alleged karst hydrogeology. They also cite DCA's 5/6/2005 staff memo, the concerns of Drs. Chanton and Livingston about density and intensity increases, and Mr. Gauthier's testimony that he is "concerned and believe[s] that there are compliance problems . . . based on suitability." The evidence might support the proposition that there are more suitable places in Franklin for development, including in the middle of SJI, where St. Joe also is contemplating possible development in the future, and nearer to Apalachicola and Carrabelle. But the middle of SJI would not be suitable for a marina village, and there may be other aspects of St. Joe's planned developments that could not be accommodated on other land available for development. In addition, Franklin wants to protect the land within the Apalachicola River and Bay basin. In any event, the question presented in this case is not whether there are more suitable lands for development. Rather, the question is whether, based on all the evidence presented, it is beyond fair debate that the locations of the FLUMAs are unsuitable. "Development suitability" is defined as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of the land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." FLUEP 1.2 requires review of FLUMAs "to insure [sic] that the proposed uses, in the various categories, do not conflict with the prevailing natural conditions including": (a) soil conditions; (b) topography; (c) drainage; (d) wetlands; and (e) floodplains. In their PRO, Petitioners criticize the soil suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as being "based upon a subset of on-site soils termed 'predominate' with no percentage quantification and no analysis of the other on-site soils" and as misrepresenting and selectively quoting from the soil survey. See Pamela Ashley PRO, ¶73. But the soils in the SJI FLUMAs were re- analyzed at length during the final hearing. The evidence was that there are upland soils in each SJI FLUMA. In the ConRes FLUMA, the only SJI FLUMA allowing septic tanks, suitable soils and a 500-foot setback from principal surface waters should provide adequate attenuation to accommodate on-site sewage systems. There are soils in each SJI FLUMA that are not the best for the proposed development. These soils are potentially limiting but arguably can accommodate the proposed development, given appropriate site planning and engineering, together with the 2020 Plan's provisions that operate to protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. It was fairly debatable that the soils in the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the topography of the SJI FLUMAs in that parts are subject to inundation during a Cat 1 storm. But the evidence was that low-density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the CHHA, and it was fairly debatable that the topography of the FLUMAs is suitable for the proposed development. As for drainage, each SJI FLUMA requires an SMS employing OFW design criteria. OFWs have special resource value and need heightened protection. A 1991 Plan provision required County SMSs to collect and treat runoff from the first 1.5 inches of rainfall regardless of the area drained. This provision exceeds OFW criteria and applies to each SJI FLUMA. The SMS design criteria, buffers, setbacks, and the nature of development anticipated in each SJI FLUEMA are intended to work in concert to minimize surface water impacts. Employing these elements is anticipated to allow the development of the FLUMAs without impacting surface waters. If there is no measurable pollutant loading to nearby waters, aquatic flora and fauna should experience no impact. Fewer significant seagrass beds are located in waters north of where MVC is located, and it should be possible to site a marina facility there in deeper water without significant seagrasses. The strict SMS design criteria assure the collection and treatment of stormwater for water quality purposes. The SMSs also will provide important sources of groundwater recharge and help protect water quantity. Runoff collected in SMSs is retained on-site and returned to the groundwater component of the hydrologic cycle (minus losses to evaporation and evapotranspiration). The retention of stormwater on-site offsets the potential loss of runoff resulting from increased impervious surfaces, facilitating aquifer recharge. With proper engineering, runoff from each of the SJI FLUMAs could be collected within the required SMSs resulting in minimal or no adverse effect on aquifer recharge on SJI. Recharge rates on SJI vary from high (15 to 20 inches per year) to moderate (10 to 15 inches per year) to low (less than 5 inches per year), depending on location. As indicated, the confining layer between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer in eastern Franklin thins from west to east but is not believed to degenerate into karst features. See Findings 4-5, supra. Rather, the confining layer in eastern Franklin County appears to vary in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. Assuming no karst features or other anomalies creating a direct conduit to the Floridan, groundwater moves vertically throughout SJI at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year. This rate would provide sufficient time for the natural breakdown (attenuation) of residual pollutants from on-site sewage and stormwater treatment systems as well as any additional pollutants that may be generated such that development within the SJI FLUMAs should not threaten the Floridan aquifer. Lateral flow of groundwater from beneath the SJI FLUMAs also should not pose a risk to surface waters. In contrast to unconfined karst, where the movement of groundwater to and through the Floridan aquifer may be rapid, groundwater appears to move laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin, providing adequate time for the attenuation of any added pollutants prior to any such groundwater seepage reaching surface waters. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the amount of wetlands in the FLUMAs. RV has 1,324 wetland acres (78 percent) with 380 acres (22 percent) of "interspersed" uplands; ConRes has 525 wetland acres (21 percent) with 1,975 acres of uplands (79 percent); MVC has 276 wetland acres (28 percent) and 724 upland acres (72 percent); and CEV has 66 wetland acres (33 percent) and 134 upland acres (67 percent). In response to ORC criticism, Franklin's wetlands policies were amended to address "high quality" and "low quality" wetlands and give a higher level of protection to the former. Petitioners criticize the 2020 Plan for not identifying and mapping the high and low quality wetlands. They also rely on Gauthier's opinion that "the wetland policies are flawed, in that they're vague and not specific and there are significant gaps" as a result of exceptions and waivers. They also contend that the 2020 Plan fails to direct development away from wetlands, which will result in degradation of water quality in the Ochlockonee River/Bay and Apalachicola Bay system primarily from increased urban runoff and nutrification. But it is at least fairly debatable that the amended wetlands policy will increase wetlands protections and that wetlands in the FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed under the amended wetland policies. Each SJI FLUMA allows “clustering,” which concentrates DUs in a portion of the overall site without increasing the overall number of units. Clustering is mandatory in ConRes and CEV. Clustering is advantageous to the extent that it encourages open space, reduces impervious surface, reduces pollutants generated from more widespread development, and enhances aquifer recharge. However, the advantages could be illusory to the extent that clustering simply allows the wholesale transfer of density from a portion of the site where development is unsuitable and should not be anticipated (e.g., high-quality wetlands) to other portions of the site. Such a result would be of particular concern in RV, which is 78 percent wetlands, if all 340 DUs were to be concentrated on 375 acres of uplands, effectively at a density of almost one DU/acre, interspersed among 1,330 acres of high- quality wetlands. (The concern would be even greater if non- residential uses in RV were surprisingly high, and if the interpretation of "gross density" suggested by Franklin's planner for MVC and CEV were applied to RV, thereby further increasing the effective residential density interspersed among high-quality wetlands.) C/CEP 10.1 requires that the County's site plan review process be amended to take into consideration natural constraints, including wetlands, and restricted depending upon the severity of those constraints. Because no site plan has been proposed for any of the SJI FLUMAs, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the privately-owned wetlands may actually be disturbed. It is at least fairly debatable that, given the relatively low overall densities, the extent of available uplands (at least in ConRes and MVC), the arguably-enhanced wetland protections, and properly-implemented clustering, wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed and that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs for failure to quantify floodplains (although admittedly depicting them on maps and citing FIRM maps), for "inaccurate and generalized narrative," and for stating "that development is allowed 'but flood considerations must be evaluated'." Pamela Ashely PRO, ¶ 76, citing the ORCR. As to "areas subject to coastal flooding" (the hurricane vulnerability zone), all of the SJI FLUMAs are subject to Cat 3 evacuation and the vast majority are within the Cat 3 SLOSH surge area. But some effort was made to focus development outside of the floodplains. Besides, development within floodplains is not prohibited by state or federal law. Rather, development within a floodplain must be constructed above certain elevations and provide compensating flood storage for any displaced flood plain area. The evidence was that low density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the these areas, and it was at least debatable that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of floodplains in the FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as to "vegetative cover" and "wildlife habitats" for only addressing bald eagle nests and bear sightings and road kill locations, and for generally stating that St. Joe's silvicultural use has "vastly altered" or otherwise displaced the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. IWHRS data and best available bear data was not addressed in the suitability analysis. However, all of this D&A was presented and analyzed during the hearing. The SJI FLUMAs comprise a fraction of the 1.2 million acres of habitat supporting the Apalachicola black bear population, of which SJI bears are also a fraction. In response to the ORC, Franklin and St. Joe made some accommodation to the black bear by significantly reducing the size of the ConRes FLUMA and removing the Bear Creek area from the FLUMA. The SJI FLUMAs also preserve the possibility of a bear corridor of appropriate dimensions connecting Bald Point State Park on the east end of SJI with the Crooked River Tract and the larger publicly-owned bear habitat to the west. Along with the availability of public lands, residential clustering will help facilitate bear movement through SJI notwithstanding the development of the SJI FLUMAs. Bears should still frequent the FLUMAs when food supplies are ample, even during construction. Even with the accommodation and a corridor, the proposed development will impact the black bear. Road kills occur where bears and roadways mix. (Generally, the more people there are in and near bear habitat, the more problems will arise from bear encounters with people, and the more likely that the resolution of such problems will not benefit the bears.) But the SJI FLUMAs themselves are not considered critical bear habitat, and their development alone should not result in a significant adverse impact on the bear population. While the gulf sturgeon, a protected species, is known to pass through nearby waters, neither the Ochlocknee River nor Bay has been designated critical habitat for the fish. No surface water impacts that would affect the sturgeon were proven. Based on the evidence, it is at least fairly debatable that the SJI FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of the black bear, the Gulf sturgeon, and other wildlife now using SJI. Based on the foregoing, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the SJI FLUMAs are unsuitable for the proposed development, notwithstanding the issues raised by Petitioners as to soils, topography, drainage, wetlands, floodplains, vegetative cover, and wildlife and their habitat. Deletion of FLUEP 11.12 and 11.13 The County deleted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 as part of the Plan update. This decision was appropriate because the substantive aspects of FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were considered and would be incorporated within the various provisions of the updated Plan, once effective. Also, the assessments required under those policies must be made regardless of whether policies are included within the Plan because they are required under 9J-5. All of the expert planners--including Mr. Gauthier--testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance” notwithstanding deletion of those policies. Once FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 are no longer necessary, it is the County’s prerogative to include them in or remove them from the Plan. FLUEP 11.12 required the preparation and adoption of an overlay plan for SJI, which would result in an overlay map and policies. Although an overlay plan was prepared, it was not adopted as part of the 2020 Plan but rather was included as an appendix to the Technical Data and Analysis Report submitted in support of the 2020 Plan update. Potential adoption of the overlay as part of the Plan was a concern to many of the citizens attending the visioning meetings. There was confusion as to what adoption of an overlay into the Plan actually meant and whether it established development entitlements. The County has the discretion to adopt or remove Plan provisions that duplicate or exceed statutory and regulatory requirements. Utilization of the overlay as D&A is consistent with state planning requirements. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan would not be "in compliance" without the SJI overlay.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that Franklin's 2020 Plan update, with SJI FLUMAs, is not "in compliance" at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2006.
The Issue Miami-Dade County's Krome Avenue is a two-lane, undivided highway. In October 2002, the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County (the Commission) passed Ordinance No. 02-198. The ordinance adopted an amendment composed of several parts to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Among the parts of the amendment were changes and additions to the CDMP initiated by an application ("Application No. 16") that relate to Krome Avenue (the "Plan Amendment.")1 Quite detailed, the Plan Amendment, in essence, makes changes that re-designate a substantial segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The Plan Amendment's additions add all of Krome Avenue as a Major Route among the CDMP's designated evacuation routes in the year 2015, create new policies related to approval of use of land in the vicinity of Krome Avenue designated as a four-lane roadway and create a new policy related to planned capacity improvement to the roadway, including widening to four lanes. The issue in this growth management case is whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance" as defined in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Preliminary Statement Under cover of a letter dated January 17, 2003, the Department of Community Affairs (the "Department" or "DCA") forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a petition that requested a formal administrative hearing. The petition was "forwarded [to DOAH] for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes." The petition was filed by the Sierra Club and John S. Wade, Jr., against the Department and Miami-Dade County (County) after the Department had issued a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendment transmitted by the County "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the "Act" or the "Growth Management Act") contained in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The petition alleges that the Plan Amendment is "not in compliance as defined in section 163.3184(1), Fla. Stat., because it is inconsistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, the state comprehensive plan, with appropriate strategic regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, FAC." Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, p. 4, paragraph 16. For relief, the petition requests, inter alia, that the administrative law judge enter a recommended order finding that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance. Upon receipt of the petition, DOAH assigned it Case No. 03-0150GM. Charles A. Stampelos was designated as the Administrative Law Judge to conduct the proceedings. A Notice of Hearing was issued that set the case for final hearing in March and April 2003. In February, the case was continued until September 2003 and in July 2003, the case was re-assigned to the undersigned. Prior to final hearing, two petitions to intervene were filed: the first, by Monroe County in support of Petitioners2; the second, in support by the City of Homestead in support of DCA and Miami-Dade County.3 Both were granted subject to proof of standing. Prior to hearing, a number of unopposed motions for continuances were granted. In addition, three motions were filed by the County: one for summary final order, a second to relinquish jurisdiction and issue a recommended order and the third a motion in limine. The three motions were denied. The case proceeded to final hearing in September 2005 in Miami, Florida. The evidentiary portion of the final hearing opened with the introduction and admission of most of the joint exhibits admitted over the course of the hearing. All in all, 60 joint exhibits were offered and admitted. They are marked as Joint Exhibit Nos. 1-17, 19-27, 29-31, 34-44, 46-49, 51-57, and 59-67. Petitioners commenced the presentation of their case-in- chief first. They presented the testimony of seven witnesses: Dickson Eazala, Comprehensive Planner with Miami-Dade County; Kay Bismark, an expert in the Redland area real estate market; John S. Wade, Jr., Petitioner; Rodrick Jude, Chair of the Sierra Club's Miami Group Executive Committee; Thomas Van Lent, an expert in the field of southern Everglades hydrology and restoration; Charles Pattison, Executive Director and Planner for One Thousand Friends of Florida and an expert in comprehensive planning and compliance under the Growth Management Act; and, Diane O'Quinn, Director of Miami-Dade County's Department of Planning and Zoning, an expert in the field of comprehensive planning. Petitioners offered 13 exhibits, marked as Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 9-13, 17-19, 21-23, and 29-30. Petitioners' Nos. 18 and 23 were rejected and then proffered by petitioners. The rest of the exhibits offered by Petitioners were admitted. Intervenor Monroe County presented the testimony of Timothy McGarry, Director of Growth Management in Monroe County and an expert in land planning. Monroe County offered two exhibits, marked as Monroe County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. Miami-Dade County presented the testimony of Thomas Pelham, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and review of plans and plan amendments for compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5; Alice Bravo, District Planning and Environmental Management Engineer for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and Jonathan Lord, Emergency Management Coordinator with Miami- Dade County's Office of Emergency Management. Miami-Dade County offered two exhibits, marked as Miami-Dade County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. The Department of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Paul Darst, Senior Planner in the Department, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and the review of comprehensive plan amendments with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 97-5. The Department offered one exhibit, marked as DCA Exhibit No. 1. It was admitted. After a number of motions granted to extend the time for the filing of proposed orders, the parties filed timely proposed recommended orders on February 3, 2006. This Recommended Order follows.
Findings Of Fact Krome Avenue Less than a mile south of downtown Florida City, at a "fork in the road" for a driver headed north, Krome Avenue branches off of US 1 (South Dixie Highway). It heads in a northwesterly direction for a short distance, turns due north through Florida City and the City of Homestead and then bolts northward across a considerable stretch of western Miami-Dade County. With only a slight directional variation at an intersection with Kendall Drive, the road continues its due north run until its last several miles when it turns northeasterly before it merges with US 27 (Okeechobee Road) just shy of the Broward County line. Over its 37-mile span, there are a number of significant features of the two-lane undivided roadway. Known also as 177th Avenue, it serves as the main street for the City of Homestead, a municipality hard-hit by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It treads along the edge of the Everglades Protection Area. In the south, Krome Avenue's locus varies in distances relatively close to Everglades National Park. In the case of Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3) to the north, the roadway abuts the Everglades sector's politically-drawn east border. For most of its length north of US 41 or the Tamiami Trail it fragments wetlands designated as "Environmental Protection" with WCA-3 to the west and an extension of the historical Everglades to the east. It also traverses the Redland, an expansive tract of prime agricultural land packed between suburbs and the fabled River of Grass. Krome Avenue's cross of the Redland renders it a route essential to agricultural interests in the area. The roadway is used to transport harvested row crops and as a means to get produce from fruit and vegetable groves to market in the face of competitive pressure from Mexico and Central America, competition generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) since its adoption during the Clinton Administration. Lately, Krome Avenue has been a shipping lane for bush, flower and tree products from recently-arisen container nurseries dedicated to ornamental horticulture. The burgeoning nursery business supports the landscaping needs of the real estate and building industries in a county that has experienced explosive residential and commercial growth recently due in substantial part to stimulation from a financing environment of low interest rates that has persisted for more than half a decade. Due to Krome Avenue's proximity to the Everglades, any proposed and adopted amendments to the CDMP or local zoning action that might promote improvement of the roadway draws attention of some involved in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (the "Project" or "CERP"). The Project, called for by Congress to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a joint effort with the state and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) involves the expenditure of prodigious governmental funds and utilization of ground-breaking science. Of considerable interest to many communities, residential, commercial, environmental, agricultural, and scientific, to name some of the more obvious, CERP is the subject of government involvement at all levels. Of concern is anticipation that improvement to Krome Avenue supported by CDMP amendments threatens to contribute to rises in the value of property that is being sought or may be sought for governmental acquisition to further CERP at a time when there are various forces in play to reduce funding for the Project. A Significant Roadway Krome Avenue's is Miami-Dade County's westernmost roadway of statewide significance. The CDMP recognizes this status: it classifies the roadway as a state principal arterial roadway. The state likewise recognizes Krome Avenue's significance. FDOT has designated Krome Avenue a corridor in the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS)4 developed to address requirements for a National Highway System imposed by the Congress' Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Plan Amendment makes it is a hurricane evacuation route for residents and the transient population of south Miami-Dade County and provides an alternative evacuation route to Monroe County and the Florida Keys, an area sensitive to effects generated by residential development in south Florida. Despite its import to local, state and national transportation systems and the recognition of that import in the last several decades, the roadway has remained an undivided rural two-lane highway. Its configuration and the transportation demands that have increased in recent years have led to concerns about safety on much of Krome Avenue. Krome Avenue Safety The 33-mile segment of the corridor between Southwest 296th Street and US 27 exhibits a vehicular crash rate that is consistently higher than the statewide average for highways with the same characteristics. A significant portion of those crashes have resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. Between 1995 and 1999, there were 966 total vehicular crashes, of which 106 resulted in severe injuries and 16 resulted in fatalities. The number of crashes resulting in fatalities increased significantly after 1999. Between January 2000 and July 2002, there were an additional 26 crashes resulting in fatalities. Between 1995 and 2002, a total of 59 people died on Krome Avenue in the 42 crashes involving fatalities. Fatal crashes occurred in four segments of Krome Avenue as indicated here: Road Segment Crashes Deaths Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 16 26 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 3 4 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 16 21 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 7 8 Of the 42 fatal crashes between 1995 and 2002, 15 were the result of head-on collisions. Another 15 were the result of centerline crossovers, where a vehicle traveling in one direction crossed over the roadway centerline and struck a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Crossover collisions differ from head-on collisions in that the point of impact is usually at an angle. Head-on collisions and crossover collisions on Krome Avenue are due at least in part to its configuration as a two- lane, undivided road. Because crashes occurred throughout the 33-mile corridor and not just at intersections, independent transportation engineering consultants retained by FDOT to analyze conditions on Krome Avenue recommended that a safety improvement plan should be considered for the entire corridor. (See paragraphs 18. to 28., below.) Daily traffic volumes on Krome Avenue increased steadily between 1995 and 2001, growing at a rate of over 10 percent per year. In 2001, weekday traffic volumes were approximately 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles between S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 296th Street and approximately 9,000 vehicles between US 27 and Southwest 8th Street, as illustrated in the following table: Road Segment Avg. Daily Traffic 2001 Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 14,100 Long-range traffic projections indicate that by the year 2020, weekday traffic volumes will be between 18,000 and 21,000 vehicles south of S.W. 8th Street, and approximately 12,000 vehicles to the north. No projection suggests that traffic will decrease. Indeed, traffic models for Miami-Dade County have systematically underestimated actual traffic volume. Many intersections on Krome Avenue operate with unacceptable levels of delay, which affect drivers’ overall travel times. These conditions are reasonably expected to degrade over the coming decades. The increased traffic volume and attendant diminution in Level of Service mean that a large percentage of motorists on Krome Avenue are not able to travel at desired speeds. Slow- moving vehicles impede drivers’ forward progress, but because Krome Avenue is a two-lane road with a high volume of traffic traveling in both directions, drivers are not able to pass those vehicles. The result is an increase in driver frustration. The number of head-on crashes on Krome Avenue indicates that many drivers, as they get frustrated, are more willing to attempt risky passing maneuvers. Because passing generally involves higher speeds, crashes that result from risky passing maneuvers are more likely to result in fatalities or severe injuries. The problems associated with driver frustration are further exacerbated by the increasing volume of large trucks on Krome Avenue. The number of trucks as a percentage of overall traffic varies between 26 percent and 32 percent of daily traffic. Trucks contribute to delays at intersections and, thus, to overall delays in travel times. Trucks have difficulty turning off of Krome Avenue, thereby encouraging vehicles to attempt to pass them; those vehicles in turn pose a hazard to oncoming traffic, because they are obscured by the truck. Finally, the high percentage of trucks on the road contributes to an increase in the severity of crashes involving trucks. In general, because of the difference in size and speed between trucks and automobiles, the two types of vehicles should be separated as much as possible especially by a median separating lanes of traffic proceeding in opposing directions. The 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan In 1999, FDOT produced the Krome Avenue Action Plan (the "Action Plan.") The Action Plan followed by nine years the Florida Legislature's adoption of the FIHS of which Krome Avenue is a part. FIHS standards require that FIHS roadways be designated as controlled access facilities and that they be configured with a minimum of four lanes divided by a restrictive median (the "FIHS Directive"). Attempts to bring Krome Avenue into compliance with the FIHS Directive met with difficulties described in the Executive Summary of the Action Plan: To begin the long-range planning process required to achieve this directive, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) programmed various phases of improvement for Krome Avenue in their tentative work program. This work program was adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the Miami-Dade County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and provides funding for a more detailed study of the corridor. This action set off a string of controversial meetings and hearings regarding the consistency of the TIP, the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), and local government comprehensive plans. In response to the controversy, the MPO modified their TIP to eliminate consideration of Krome Avenue as a four (4) lane divided roadway with landscaped medians throughout the facility. In February 1997, FDOT began analyzing the Krome Avenue corridor and developing the Krome Avenue Action Plan. During the public involvement process, several alternatives were developed to preserve Krome Avenue as a two (2) lane roadway. The results of sixteen (16) months of public involvement activities and engineering analysis identified the need to preserve the rural character of the corridor while providing safety and operational enhancements to the existing roadway. Joint Exhibit 19, pgs. i-ii, (emphasis supplied). In light of difficulty in reaching "consensus and public acceptance for any improvement alternative," id., p. ii, the Action Plan was conducted "as a precursor to the requisite Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to avoid the expenditure of the large sums of public funds in a study effort, with no resulting project." Id. The Action Plan required that Krome Avenue be maintained as a two-lane road, and it recommended improvements, such as adding additional lanes and traffic signals at intersections; implementing an access management plan to limit the number of driveways and cross-street connections to Krome Avenue and to restrict turns off of the roadway; enhancing road shoulders; providing passing zones; adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities; improving pavement markings and signs; and widening the areas from the edge of the roadway that are free of obstructions, known as clear zones, to prevent crashes that result from drivers running off of the road. The Action Plan was premised on traffic volume projections for the year 2010 that were exceeded or were nearly exceeded by the traffic actually observed in 2001, nine years before the final projection. In addition, the amount of traffic observed in 2001 was close to the amount of traffic projected for 2020: Road Segment 2010 KAAP Forecast 2020 KAAP Forecast 2001 Avg. Daily Traffic Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,349 10,475 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 12,730- 16,351 13,486- 18321 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 11,921- 16,917 12,629- 17,921 14,100 Furthermore, after the Action Plan, that is, after 1999, the number of fatal crashes increased significantly. The increase was noted in an "Existing Level of Service Study" prepared for District VI of FDOT by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., (the "Kittelson Report"). The Kittelson Reports In 2002, FDOT retained Kittelson & Associates (“Kittelson”), independent transportation planning and engineering consultants, to report on Krome Avenue. Kittelson produced two reports in August and October of that year (the "First Kittleson Report" and the "Second Kittleson Report"). The First Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service Study” and the Second Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Future Conditions Analysis and Mitigation Measures.” See Joint Exhibits 15 and 49. The 1999 Action Plan, prepared in the wake of public controversy and concerns regarding consistency between the CDMP and the FIHS Directive, directly addressed those concerns and reached a compromise in the conflict. As stated in the last paragraph of its Executive Summary: Although the improvements in the Krome Avenue Action Plan do not result in a facility that meets all FHS standards, the Action Plan represents the best compromise among a wide range of diverse interests including hundreds of interested residents, agency staff, and elected officials. Joint Exhibit 19 (emphasis supplied). Unlike the Action Plan, however, Kittelson's focus, as stated in the opening sentence of its Executive Summary in the First Kittleson Report, was squarely on level of service and safety issues: "The purpose of this study is to perform a detailed Level of Service and safety analysis for existing conditions along the SR 997/Krome Avenue (177th Avenue) corridor." Joint Exhibit 15, pgs. II and 2. In the Second Kittleson Report, Kittleson summarizes its finding with regard to the increase in the number and severity of crashes on Krome Avenue: . . . [I]t is clear that traffic volume growth and increasing levels of congestion have contributed to driver frustration and attempts to make risky passing maneuvers on Krome Avenue. This has probably led to an increase in the number and severity of crashes in the corridor. Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Second Kittleson Report recognized that short of widening to a divided, four-lane roadway, there are a number of congestion and safety measures that could be considered to enhance mobility and safety, some of which were recommended by the 1999 Action Plan and some that were in addition to that plan. But the Second Kittleson Report argued for consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four-lane divided roadway: . . . [T]here are four factors that, in combination, argue for the consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four lane divided section: The fact that Krome Avenue is on the Florida Intrastate Highway System and the requirement that it be designated as controlled-access facility with a cross-section that provides for at least four lanes with a restrictive median. The likelihood that the high percentage of trucks that use the entire length of the corridor Id. contribute to an increase in crash severity when trucks are involved in crashes. The increasing levels of roadway and intersection congestion and the difficulty in mitigating these levels of congestion short of providing for additional north-south through movement capacity. The crash experience on Krome Avenue exceeds the statewide average for this type of roadway. The high number of crashes and the increase in crash severity (as demonstrated by an increase in the number of fatal crashes largely due to head-on and angle collisions) that likely would be mitigated by physically separating the directions of travel with a median. In a section of the Second Kittelson Report under the heading of "Availability of Passing" Kittelson details the problems with passing on a two-lane undivided Krome Avenue, the contribution these problems make to head-on collisions and the high speeds at which passing maneuvers occur. The report concludes that several measures should be considered to counter safety issues associated with passing maneuvers, among them, the addition of passing lanes and a median separated two-lane section. The first countermeasure recommended, however, is the creation of a four-lane section: A four-lane section eliminates the need for drivers to judge the adequacy of gaps in opposing traffic and use the opposing lane to perform the passing maneuver. The length and placement of a four-lane section can vary (for example, a four-lane section can be located between intersections or on a specific stretch of roadway). It is noted that in areas where access to roadside properties exists or is planned, a four-lane section should be median separated and that left-turn lanes need to be provided to minimize crossover crashes and rear-end crashes. A properly designed four-lane section can be expected to nearly eliminate head-on crashes (a crash type that often results in severe injuries or fatalities) and reduce the total number of roadway crashes associated with passing maneuvers. Joint Exhibit 49 (emphasis supplied). The Second Kittleson Report notes that "[w]hen considering potential countermeasures, it is important to note that one treatment does not have to be applied to the entire corridor." Joint Exhibit 49, p. 36. The reason is that there are a number of issues including safety that should be examined. The Second Kittelson Report reaches the conclusion, therefore, that "[a]n alternative analysis that considers issues such as available right-of-way, environmental impacts, safety benefits, operational benefits, and community concerns should be completed in order to decide what the preferred treatment should be." Id. In light of four factors stated above and specifically, the solution to head-on collisions offered by upgrading a two-lane undivided highway to a four-lane divided highway, Kittelson in the Second Kittleson Report recommends, "that a Project Development and Environment process be conducted to consider the range of solutions for improving the operational and safety characteristics of Krome Avenue." Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Kittleson reports, therefore, went a step beyond the 1999 Action Plan. They call for improvement of some or all of Krome Avenue to a four-lane section with a restrictive median as one of the solutions, among a range of solutions, to safety on Krome Avenue. Before such an improvement can take place, however, FDOT must conduct a Project Development and Environment Study (a "PD&E Study.") FDOT's Position FDOT is solely responsible for funding and building improvements to Krome Avenue. FDOT has neither a rule nor an un-codified policy that it will not consider funding or building an improvement to a road under its jurisdiction when improvement would be inconsistent with an applicable local comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, as made clear in the 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, FDOT is plainly sensitive to undertaking expensive studies necessary to roadway improvements that are inconsistent with local comprehensive plans. A PD&E Study is resource-intensive in time, money and FDOT commitment. Inconsistency with a local comprehensive plan is not a prescription for action on roadway improvement; rather it tends to produce a situation laden with complication as FDOT's District Engineer testified at hearing: (Tr. 768) Q. . . .[I]f this plan amendment which authorizes the widening, on the comprehensive plan, to four lanes, if this amendment is rejected, what happens next? A. . . . [W]e would have to stop and consider the circumstances, the situation, a lot of different factors before we decided whether or not to proceed with the ... study. FDOT has long been aware of safety problems on Krome Avenue. In the wake of the Kittelson Reports commissioned after a rapid rise in life-threatening traffic accidents on Krome suspected to be due, at least in part, to its configuration and a strong recommendation that widening and median placement be considered among a range of improvements, a PD&E Study was not commenced. As of the time of hearing a PD&E Study had still not been commenced. Evacuation Route In considering the data related to safety on Krome Avenue, including the Kittelson Report, the Commission considered Krome Avenue's status as an evacuation route. Since the early 1990s, Miami-Dade County has experienced significant population growth along its southern and western fringes, between the Broward County line and the Homestead/Florida City area. This growth is reasonably expected to continue. Because Krome Avenue is one of only three continuous north-south routes in Miami-Dade County, it is important to persons evacuating the City of Homestead and other surrounding areas in southern and western Miami-Dade County and Monroe County. Krome Avenue is an evacuation route not only for hurricanes but also for “all hazards,” such as a meltdown at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plan. Nonetheless, it is not designated by Monroe County as part of the official evacuation route. Krome Avenue had been used to evacuate southern Miami- Dade County during Hurricane Andrew. It had also been used to transport relief personnel, vehicles, and supplies in the aftermath of that storm. Given the growth of Miami-Dade County’s population, the other north-south routes, the Florida Turnpike and US 1, would be extremely congested if all of southern and western Miami-Dade County evacuated—much more so if Monroe County evacuated at the same time. Moreover, it is not only people who live in mandatory evacuation zones who evacuate during an emergency: an increasing number of people evacuate voluntarily. Additional capacity on Krome Avenue is necessary to accommodate both mandatory and voluntary evacuees. Miami-Dade County’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, prepared by the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”) in October 2000 and adopted by the County Commission, currently designates Krome Avenue as a primary north-south evacuation route for the Florida Keys and south Miami-Dade, in the event of a hurricane or an emergency related to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. Designated evacuation routes are roads that OEM encourages people to use in an emergency, and they are selected based on recognizability, carrying capacity, and where they end. To maintain consistency between the Emergency Management Plan and the CDMP, the Plan Amendment amends the map of “Designated Evacuation Routes-2015” in the Transportation Element to add Krome Avenue as a “Major Route.” Monroe County’s Director of Growth Management, Timothy McGarry, opined that Krome Avenue was not necessary to accommodate evacuation from Monroe County, because the Florida Turnpike provided adequate capacity. But McGarry based his opinion on the amount of Monroe County’s population that has historically evacuated, which is 50 percent. McGarry would not say that the Florida Turnpike would provide adequate capacity if 100 percent of Monroe County’s population were to evacuate. Moreover, McGarry conceded that, in formulating his opinion, he had not considered what would happen if both Monroe County and southern Miami-Dade County evacuated at the same time. A four-lane Krome Avenue would increase the capacity of Miami-Dade County’s Primary Evacuation Route System and facilitate relief efforts to south Miami-Dade and Monroe County. Moreover, if residents of both Miami-Dade County and Monroe County are evacuated, the additional capacity would allow OEM to direct Miami-Dade residents to Krome Avenue, thus opening the Turnpike and US 1, which provide the only exit routes from the Florida Keys, for residents and tourists evacuating Monroe County. The CDMP and the UDB Miami-Dade County is one of the only counties in the State of Florida to have an “urban development boundary" (UDB.) In the Land Use Element of the Adopted Components of the Year 2000 and 2010 CDMP dated December, 1988, the UDB is described: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from areas where it should not occur. * * * The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accommodate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. Joint Exhibit 56-A, pgs. I-35 and I-36. Thomas Pelham, Miami- Dade County's expert in comprehensive planning, explained the difference between a UDB and an Urban Services Area: The urban service area concept is the local government's designation of the areas in which it . . . will provide urban services. The urban growth boundary is a technique by which a line is drawn beyond which urban development will not be allowed. Tr. 662-3. With regard to the UDB, the parties stipulated, The CDMP currently contains policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the Urban Development Boundary (the "UDB"), particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Pre-hearing Stipulation, p. 14, para. 13. The UDB appears on the CDMP's Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map ("LUP map") as a broken line that on its northern end commences on the border with Broward County. It runs primarily north-to-south along the breadth of developed Miami-Dade County, within several miles of the Everglades and environmentally protected lands, and through the Redland to a point southwest of Florida City and Homestead where it turns sharply east for five to six miles and then heads in a primarily northeast direction around Homestead Regional Airport to meet the coast along Biscayne Bay near Black Point Park. Other counties have at most an “urban service area” or “urban service boundary,” which merely designates the areas in which the government will provide urban services. In contrast to the UDB, an urban service area does not prohibit urban development outside its boundary. A comprehensive plan with an urban services area typically provides only that the landowner, rather than the government, is responsible for providing urban services outside the urban services area. Miami-Dade County had the UDB before the Florida legislature adopted the laws requiring comprehensive plans, in 1985. The UDB thus predates the CDMP, which was adopted in 1988. Neither Chapter 163 nor Rule 9J-5 requires an urban development boundary. In providing a UDB in the CDMP, therefore, Miami-Dade County is making use of a technique to discourage urban sprawl that exceeds the requirements of Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. Miami-Dade County has rarely expanded the UDB in areas not designated as Urban Expansion Areas (“UEAs”). In the last 10 years, the UDB has only been expanded once. That amendment, for the Beacon Lakes project, approved an industrial use where rock mining and cement manufacturing had already taken place. All along its path, Krome Avenue is outside (or to the west of) the UDB. The CDMP does not specify any procedures for applications to move the UDB, beyond the requirements applicable to plan amendments generally. Instead, the procedures for moving the UDB are set forth in Section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County Florida (the “County Code”). That section requires an affirmative vote from two-thirds of the total membership of the County Commission. There are no restrictions on how frequently the County Code may be amended. Changes to the County Code may be accomplished by ordinance at any legislative meeting of the County Commission. The entire process can take as little as three months. Changes to the CDMP, by contrast, are subject to more rigorous procedures: applications may only be filed twice a year; they require review by the Regional Planning Council and DCA; they require two public hearings before the Planning Advisory Board; they require two public hearings before the County Commission; and the entire process takes one year. In its “Statement of Legislative Intent,” the CDMP provides: 3. The CDMP is intended to set general guidelines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. * * * 6. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and necessitate a choice between, different goals, priorities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the Land Use Element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board’s responsibility to provide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 14. The CDMP currently contains substantive policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the UDB, particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Land Use Objective 1 provides: The location and configuration of Miami-Dade County’s urban growth through the year 2015 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity, development of well designated communities containing a variety of uses, housing types and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 15. Land Use Element Policy 1P provides: Miami-Dade County shall seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 16. Land Use Element Policy 1Q provides: While continuing to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County, Miami-Dade County shall explore and may authorize alternative land uses in the South Dade agricultural area which would be compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, and which would promote ecotourism related to the area’s agricultural and natural resource base including Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 17. Land Use Element Policy 2B provides: Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial resource for services and facilities in Miami-Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 18. Land Use Element Policy 8C provides: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, economic development, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Miami-Dade County shall continue to promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 19. Land Use Element Policy 8F provides: Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objective and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period of headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective 7, herein. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 20. Land Use Element Policy 8G provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of the EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy 7F. The adequacy of non-residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 21. Land Use Element Policy 8H provides: When considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a countywide need exists, The following areas shall not be considered: The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area located west of the Turnpike Extension between Okeechobee Road and NW 25 Street, and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW 157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street; Water Conservation Areas, Biscayne Aquifer Recharge Areas, and Everglades Buffer Areas designated by the South Florida Water Management District; The Redland area south of Eureka Drive; and The following areas shall be avoided: Future Wetlands delineated in the Conservation and Land Use Element; Land designated Agriculture on the Land Use Plan map; Category 1 hurricane evacuation areas east of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge; and The following areas shall be given priority for inclusion, subject to conformance with Policy 8G and the foregoing provision of this policy: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Land contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 22. Interpretation of the LUP Map: Policy of the Land Use Element provides: Urban Development Boundary (p. I-45) The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2005 from areas where it should not occur Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process . . . . [U]rban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Transportation Element. . . . Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated-Managed Growth (p. I- 59) [C]ritical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2005 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2015 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single- purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Ultimate Development Area (p. I- 64) The 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map identified the areas that will be urbanized within those time frames. As indicated throughout this Plan, these are the areas of the County where financial resources should be directed from the maintenance and construction of urban infrastructure and services. Growth of Dade County, however, is not projected to cease after the year 2015. Therefore, prudent long-term planning for infrastructure may need to anticipate locations for possible future extension. For example, it may be desirable to reserve rights-of-way in certain growth corridors as well as on section, half-section, and quarter-section lines, well in advance of need so that opportunities to eventually provide necessary roadways are not irrevocably lost. It is difficult to specify where and how much of Dade County’s total area may ultimately be converted to urban development. . . . It is reasonably safe to assume, however, that the areas least suitable for urban development today will remain least suitable. Theses areas include the remaining high-quality coastal and Everglades wetland areas in the County, and the Northwest Wellfield protection area. The areas more appropriate for, and more likely to experience sustained urban pressure are the heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands in the Biscayne-Snake Creek and Bird-Trail Canal Basins, the agricultural areas of southwestern and southeast Dade, and the impacted wetlands south of Homestead and Florida City. When the need for additional urban expansion is demonstrated after the year 2015, such expansion should be carefully managed to minimize the loss of agricultural land and to maximize the economic life of that valuable industry. Accordingly, urban expansion after the year 2015 in the South Dade area should be managed to progress westerly from the Metrozoo area to Krome Avenue north of Eureka Drive, and on the west side of the US 1 corridor southerly to Homestead only when the clear need is demonstrated. . . . Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 23 (emphasis supplied). Of particular import to this proceeding, Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement requires avoidance of improvements which encourage development in certain areas. With regard to development in Agriculture and Open Land areas, transportation improvements which encourage development are to be avoided but avoidance is subject to an exception, "those improvements necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urbanized areas." Areas designated Environmental Protection, on the other hand, are to be "particularly avoided." Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement provides: Dade County’s priority in the construction, maintenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged development of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transportation improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 24 (emphasis supplied). Policy 1A of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, and sanitary sewage disposal, and for committing financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 25. Policy 1H of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: New water supply or wastewater collection lines should not be extended to provide service to land within the areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map. New water or wastewater lines to serve land within these areas should be approved or required only where the absence of the facility would result in an imminent threat to public health or safety. The use of on- site facilities should be given priority consideration. In all cases, facilities should be sized only to service the area where the imminent threat would exist, to avoid inducing additional urban development in the area. This policy will not preclude federal, State or local long-range planning or design of facilities to serve areas within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) or Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Public health and safety determinations will be made in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County (Environmental Protection) and Section 2-103.20, et. seq., (Water Supply for Fire Suppression) Code of Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 26. Policy 5A of the Capital Improvements Element provides: As a priority, previously approved development will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority for investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 27. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment consists of several components grouped as follows: a. changes in Plan designations in the Land Use Element on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Subelement that increase the lanes on a segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (the "Lane Increase Changes"); b. changes in the Transportation Element's Traffic Circulation Subelement that add Krome Avenue as a Major Route in the Designated Evacuation Routes 2015 (the "Evacuation Route Change"); c. addition of new policies that require among other matters a super-majority of the County Commission for zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve certain uses within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes (the "New Super-Majority Policies"); and d. addition of a new policy that requires adoption of a binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor before capacity improvements to Krome Avenue outside the UDB (the "New Binding Access Control Plan Policy"). The parties stipulated to the following narrative description of the Plan Amendment: 31. As part of the October 2002 Plan Amendment, the County Commission approved Application 16. Application 16 made the following changes to the CDMP: Changed the Plan designations of Krome Avenue (SR 997/SW 177 Avenue), between US 27 and SW 296 Street, as follows: In the Land Use Element, on the Land Use Plan map change from Minor Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes); and in the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, Figure 1, “Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network”: Change from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. In the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, added Krome Avenue between US 27 and US 1 to Figure 7, Designated Evacuation Routes 2015, as a Major Route. Added the following new Policy 3F to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production and permitted residential uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinate use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. The term “direct agricultural production” includes crops, livestock, 15 nurseries, groves, packing houses, and barns but not uses such as houses of worship, schools, sale of produce and other items, and outdoor storage of vehicles. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3G to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than limestone quarrying, seasonal agriculture or permitted residential use in an area designated as Open Land on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3H to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than seasonal agricultural use in the Dade-Broward Levee Basin or permitted residential use in an area designated as Environmental Protection, on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 4E to the Traffic Circulation Subelement: Notwithstanding the designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway on the CDMP Land Use Plan Map or as a four-lane roadway in the Traffic Circulation Subelement, no construction associated with the four- laning, or other capacity improvement, of Krome Avenue outside the Urban Development Boundary shall occur until FDOT has prepared, and the Board of County Commissioners has adopted, a detailed binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor. This plan should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations. Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 28. Land Uses Near Krome Avenue North of S.W. 56th Street, the bulk of land uses around Krome Avenue are Environmental Protection and Open Land with almost all of the adjacent land north of US 41 designated Environmental Protection. South of S.W. 56th Street the land is designated as Agriculture and Environmental Protection except for near Homestead and Florida City where the land use designations are Residential Communities (of mostly low density), Business and Office and some Industrial and Office. Krome Avenue currently provides the western boundary of an Urban Expansion Area (UEA) for the year 2015 between what would be an extension of S.W. 42nd Street and an extension of S.W. 112th Street. The CDMP directs that urban infrastructure and services be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, as far west as Krome Avenue, sometime between 2005 and 2015. In addition, the area two miles east of Krome Avenue, between S.W. 12th Street and S.W. 8th Street, is designated as UEA. What the Plan Amendment Does Not Do Of particular import to this proceeding, given the case presented by Petitioners, is what the Plan Amendment does not do. The Krome Avenue Amendment does not change any land uses. It does not alter the existing Conservation Element or any other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources. It does not add Krome Avenue to the Capital Improvements Element or provide funds for or authorize construction on Krome Avenue. Furthermore, any future attempt to change land use in the vicinity of Krome Avenue, if anything, will be more difficult because of the New Supermajority Land Use Policies contained in the Plan Amendment. The New Supermajority Policies work in tandem with the substantive policies to provide the standards for land use changes within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes. For example, existing Land Use Policy 8H states that the areas surrounding Krome Avenue, particularly areas west of the road, be avoided or not be considered if Miami-Dade County proposes expanding the UDB. Because the only procedural requirements for moving the UDB are currently contained in the County Code, which may be amended from time to time, adding the Supermajority Requirement to the CDMP with its more rigorous amendment procedures, tends to make it more difficult to change the planning and zoning designations on a property. The Lane Increase Changes There are serious safety problems that rise to the level of literally "life-or-death" on the segment of Krome Avenue subject to the Lane Increase Changes. The Lane Increase Changes do not mandate that the portion of Krome Avenue that they govern be four-laned. They simply allow four-laning if a PD&E Study is conducted by FDOT that determines four-laning is the best way to address the safety issues. While the Lane Increase Changes give a designation to the Changed Segment of Krome Avenue that would allow it to be four-laned, it will not be four-laned until it is determined on the basis of further study in the future that four-laning is the best alternative for improving the Changed Segment. The Lane Increase Changes, without regard to the New Supermajority Policies, are supported by adequate data and analysis. This data and analysis consists of studies and commentaries by FDOT, including the Kittelson Reports and the 1999 Action Plan. The Lane Increase Changes do not authorize construction of improvements to the road. They do not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." (Tr. 671) It is only actual development that would cause potential urban sprawl that might threaten agriculture or pose a danger to the Everglades. Before any development could take place, additional amendments would have to be made to the CDMP. Those amendments would be subject to the same process as the Plan Amendment has undergone and is now undergoing. In other words, the potential dangers feared by Petitioners could not materialize without adoption of additional plan amendments. Furthermore, the fears held by Petitioners are mitigated by the New Supermajority Policies. DCA Review The entire package of amendments in the second round of 2002 for the CDMP, which included Application 16, is referred to by DCA as "Miami-Dade County 02-2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments." See Joint Exhibit 11. Initial staff review of Miami-Dade County 02-2 culminated in a August 5, 2002 memorandum (the "Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum") to the Chief of the Bureau of Comprehensive Planning from a Senior Planner. The staff analysis is summarized in the memorandum: Staff has identified two potential ... objections with the Krome Avenue (FIHS facility) segment[5] amendment concerning internal inconsistency with the CDMP objectives and policies, and lack of supporting data and analysis addressing public safety. Joint Exhibit 11, p. 1. With regard to the "safety" data and analysis, staff wrote, "the amendment is not supported with adequate data and analysis which demonstrates consistency with the CDMP policies which allow for capacity improvements outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) only upon showing the amendment is 'necessary' to address public safety." Id., p. 3. The CDMP objectives and policies were summarized as follows: The corridor runs through Agriculture and Open Land use categories. In order to promote the agricultural industry, the CDMP clearly states, under its Agriculture land use category, facilities which support or encourage urban development are not allowed in the amendment area. The subject segment of the roadway currently runs north-south through an extensive area of active farmlands, except the northern portion between US 41 (SW 8th Street) and SW 56th Street which is designated as Open Land in the CDMP's FLUM. The CDMP also states that Open Land designated land, is not simply surplus undeveloped land, but rather land that is Id. intended to serve for production of agriculture, limestone extraction, resource- based activity such as production of potable water supplies or other compatible utility and public facilities or rural residential development at no more than 1 du/5 acres. The amendment area is also a prime candidate for conservation, enhancement of environmental character, and for acquisition by federal, state, regional, county or private institutions that would manage the areas for optimal environmental functions. Beyond SW 8th Street to Okeechobee Road is the environmental and wellfield protection areas through which the upper Krome Avenue runs. One mile west of the segment is the Everglades National Park Expansion Area (Attachment 3) which is authorized by the Congress for federal acquisition. Agriculture is the existing primary use of the corridor area as shown in (Attachment 4). The concern with regard to inconsistency was expressed in this way: Id. Staff is concerned that expansion of Krome Avenue will increase market pressure in the western MSA's within the UDB, resulting in the premature extension of the UDB. Staff concurs with County staff that the widening will cause appraisals to increase property values in the corridor, causing farmers to sell agricultural lands for urbanization. It is also likely that property values will increase on environmental/open lands which should be maintained for water management, resource protection and other functions related to Everglades protection. Within two weeks of the Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum, DCA issued the ORC Report. In a cover letter, Bureau Chief Charles Gautier wrote the following synopsis of the ORC: The Department is concerned that the widening of Krome Avenue or a segment of it will undermine the County's ability to control urban sprawl and impacts to agriculture and environmental lands. While we share concerns regarding accidents and fatalities on Krome Avenue, we recommend that the County fully evaluate all possible alternatives designs, including implementation of the FDOT 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, before considering the four lane option to address public safety. Department staff is available to assist your staff as they formulate the County's responses to the objections and recommendations for the amendment. Joint Exhibit 20, 1st page of the cover letter dated August 16, 2002. Miami-Dade County responded to the ORC Report by clarifying its interpretations of provisions in the CDMP, particularly LUE 2B, and by providing additional data and analysis. Department staff struggled with the response, but ultimately concluded that Miami-Dade County's interpretations were defensible and recommended the Plan Amendment be found in compliance. See Joint Exhibit 16. On December 18, 2002, the Department wrote to Miami- Dade County that it had determined the Plan Amendment to be in compliance. Accordingly, a Notice of Intent to determine the Plan Amendment in compliance was published in the Miami Herald on December 20, 2002. The Petition After the issuance of the notice of intent by the state land planning agency (DCA) to find the Plan Amendment in compliance, this proceeding was initiated by the filing of a petition as allowed by Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The petition was filed by Sierra Club and John S. Wade and joined by Intervenor, Monroe County. The issues presented by the petition that remain after the parties entered a preheating stipulation filed with DOAH are stated in a section of the stipulation entitled, "D. Issues of Law and Fact That Remain to Litigated." Material Issues of Ultimate Fact While not exhaustive, the parties agree that the following are the major issues of disputed fact: Whether the amendment is consistent with legal provisions concerning the discouragement of urban sprawl. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the agricultural industry in south Miami-Dade County. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the restoration of the Everglades. Whether the plan amendments is necessary to address public health and safety and serve localized needs. Issues of Law Whether the Plan Amendment is in compliance. Whether the Plan Amendment maintains the Plan's internal consistency and reflects the plans goals, objectives and policies, per 163.3177(2) Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a)&(b), F.A.C., specifically in regard to: Transportation Element Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 2B. FLUE Policy 8F. Transportation Element(TE) Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 3B. Whether the Plan Amendment is supported by data analysis as required by Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8), and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), F.A.C. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(g)(1)-(10) and (13), and Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(h), (i), and (j)(6), (18), and (19) because it fails to coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services; ensure the protection of natural resources; and discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d), (f), (i) and 9J-5.019(4). Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(6), FAC because it fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fails to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations that would prevent the urban sprawl and impacts to agricultural, rural and environmentally sensitive lands caused by the four-laning of Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3177(6)(a)- (g), (8) & (10(e), Fla. Stat. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council as a whole, and directly conflicts specifically with: Strategic Regional Goal 2.1 (1) Policy 2.1.4 (2) Policy 2.1.10 (3) Policy 2.1.14 Strategic Regional Policy 2.2.1 Strategic Regional Policy 3.9.1 Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, including: Goal 15 (a) (LAND USE); Policy 15(b)1; Policy 15(b)6 Goal 16(a) & (b)(URBAN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION) Goal 17(a) (PUBLIC FACILITIES); Policy 17(b)1 Goal 19(a); Policy(b)12 Goal 22(a) & (b) (AGRICULTURE) Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section D. The Parties The Sierra Club is a national organization with close to 800,000 members. Qualified to do business in the State of Florida, 30,000 or so of the Sierra Club's members are in its Florida Chapter. About 2800 Sierra Club members live and work in Miami-Dade County where the Miami Group of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club holds regular meetings. The Miami Group is a "wholly owned subsidiary . . of the national organization." (Tr. 235) "[A]s opposed to some other organizations which may have separate chapters . . . separately . . . incorporated in their local jurisdictions," the Miami Group, the Florida Chapter and the national organization of the Sierra Club "speak with one voice . . . ." Id. Organized to explore, enjoy and protect particular places around the globe, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystem, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives, the Sierra Club has taken numerous actions in support of restoration and preservation of the Everglades. The Sierra Club has been involved on many occasions in growth management issues in different parts of the state. It is particularly concerned about public policy issues that affect Miami-Dade County, including increased urban sprawl, the loss of agricultural lands, clean water, clean air, open space, parks and recreation and the associated loss of quality of life. A substantial number of Sierra Club members use areas surrounding Krome Avenue to recreate and regularly traverse the area on their way to the Everglades, Biscayne National Park, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as well as using the area for biking, hiking, bird watching, and picking tropical fruits and vegetables. A substantial number of members also regularly use and enjoy Everglades National Park and Florida Bay and use Krome Avenue en route to these destinations. Representation of its members' interests in administrative proceedings to enforce growth management laws is within the corporate purposes of Sierra Club. In keeping with its purposes, the Sierra Club commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of its transmittal to DCA and its adoption. John S. Wade, Jr., operates an interior foliage or a "container" nursery business at 20925 S.W. 187th Avenue "in the center of the Redlands area," tr. 210, one mile due west of Krome Avenue. Mr. Wade has been extensively involved in county planning issues for many years. A member of the Sierra Club, he is also an individual Petitioner in this proceeding. Mr. Wade commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of transmittal to DCA and their adoption. Mr. Wade believes that the Plan Amendment affects his interests in that it will have a negative impact on wildlife which he enjoys and on his nursery business. The parties stipulated that Mr. Wade is an "affected person" with standing to bring and maintain this action under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Roads and Land Use: General Impact Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, establishes an important link between planned road infrastructure and future land use decisions. The future transportation map, furthermore, plays a critical role in the future land use pattern of a local government, particularly with regard to roadways. The impact of a road-widening amendment is relevant to land use or environmental policies. There is, moreover, no question that improved or expanded transportation infrastructure does nothing to diminish the potential for development in surrounding areas as a general matter. In general, widening a roadway promotes development in surrounding areas served by the roadway. Growth management laws, therefore, generally discourage the provision of roadway capacity in areas where a local comprehensive plan discourages development. The general principles of the effects of roadway capacity and improvements to roadway infrastructure, including road widening, are also reflected in the State Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5, and the CDMP, itself. Petitioners and Monroe County emphasize this point in the following paragraphs of their proposed recommended order now found as fact in this Recommended Order: []. Goal 19(a) of the SCP requires that future transportation improvements aid in the management of growth. Fla. Stat. 187.201(19)(a). []. Policy 19(b)(12) of the SCP requires that transportation improvements in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands be avoided. Fla. Stat. 187.201 (19)(b)(12). The Regional Policy Plan states that "roadways also aid in attracting development to new areas." Jt. 7@ 36. Rule 9J5 recognizes limits on extending infrastructure as a development control that can inhibit sprawl. Conversely, making improvements or extensions to infra- structure [when considered in isolation] can encourage urban sprawl. Darst V9@ 972. The CDMP's data and analysis contains the following language: Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated- Managed Growth (p. I-59) "Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary.Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single- purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives." (Pre- Trial Stip. @ 18) (emphasis added) Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7. Miami-Dade County, the Department and the City of Homestead do not contend otherwise. In the words of Thomas Pelham, distinguished expert in comprehensive planning whose testimony was presented by Miami-Dade County, the transportation map is "always relevant" (tr. 709) to issues of encouragement and discouragement of urban development. Furthermore, as Miami-Dade County concedes and as Mr. Pelham testified, new roads and improvements in roadway infrastructure "can aid in attracting development in new areas anywhere." Tr. 713 (emphasis supplied). For that basic reason, if a local government adopts a plan amendment that increases roadway capacity and the intent is not to attract development to the area around the roadway, the local government may opt to adopt additional protective policies. For example, in such a situation, the local government could take a clarifying step toward discouragement of urban development in areas served by the roadway planned for improvement: simultaneous adoption of a policy that prohibits consideration of the additional planned capacity of a roadway in subsequent future land use map decisions. Such an additional policy was not adopted as part of the Plan Amendment. In Mr. Pelham's opinion, however, it was not necessary, because of "the strong policies that already exist in the [CDMP]." Tr. 714. These strong policies include, of course, the existence of the UDB, a planning concept associated with Miami-Dade County in a unique manner in the State of Florida due to its strength and the length of existence over time. They also include CDMP policies related to lands designated as "Agriculture" or "Environmental Protection" whose purpose is to preserve and protect. The impact of roads on land use patterns in general, moreover, does not necessarily translate into expected impact in any specific case because of facts peculiarly associated with the specific case. As Mr. Pelham testified, "[t]here is absolutely nothing inconsistent with the four-lane divided highway in rural areas and agricultural areas. We have them all over the country, and in fact, you can identify numerous ones in this state alone." Tr. 676. Three prominent examples in Florida of four-lane divided highways that have not led to development were provided at hearing: Alligator Alley (the segment of Interstate 75 known also as Everglades Parkway) that stretches nearly the width of the Florida Peninsula from Collier County not far from the City of Naples at its western terminus through Big Cypress National Preserve across the boundaries of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation and the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation into Broward County on the east; the Florida Turnpike running from deep in South Florida northward and westerly to Wildwood in Sumter County; and Veteran's Parkway, US 19, from Pasco County to Crystal River "that goes through vast stretches of rural and agricultural lands . . . ." Tr. 677. The construction of these four-lane divided highways have not promoted urban development in lands immediately adjacent to significant sections of these highways. That these highways did not promote urban development flows from their purpose. Their purpose, quite simply, is other than to support urban development. Their purpose is to provide efficient commercial transportation and to be safe for the transportation of people or as expressed at hearing, "to be conduits for people to go from one [point] to another without interruption in an efficient manner." Id. Furthermore, access to these rural, divided four-lane highways is restricted or tightly managed for several reasons. One of the benefits of restricted access is that it discourages urban development. While Miami-Dade County did not adopt a policy that a widened Krome Avenue was not to be taken into consideration in subsequent decisions to amend the future land use map, as Petitioners suggest it could have, New Transportation Policy 4E was added to the Plan Amendment in order to discourage urban development. That policy requires a detailed, binding controlled access plan for the Avenue corridor to be prepared by FDOT and adopted by Miami-Dade County prior to the commencement of any construction associated with four-laning or a capacity improvement. Adoption of such an access control plan will have a deterrent effect on urban development along whatever part of Krome Avenue may at some point in the future be widened to four lanes. The effect of the adoption of a binding access control plan was explained at hearing by Mr. Pelham: It means that most of the traffic on it is not going to be entering or leaving the highway to shop at retail commercial establishments or to go into office parks to work, or to frequent any of the other kinds of urban development that could spring up along the road. It will be a deterrent to anyone who wants to seriously talk about locating a business there because they're going to realize that the public does not have readily easy access to it. [New Transportation Policy 4E] will certainly help insure that [Krome Avenue] remains a primarily rural facility rather than the typical urban highway that's lined with urban development. Tr. 679. From a planning perspective, in addition to being an impediment to urban development, the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy is also a sufficient guideline to discourage urban development. Incorporation of the professional land planning concept of access control makes the policy clear to transportation planners and FDOT and to any party or entity called on to implement the plan especially when the last sentence of the new policy is considered: "[The binding access control plan] should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations." This sentence indicates that while access to Krome Avenue is not prohibited, access is to be governed by "a strictly limited access plan," tr. 681, a "strong benefit [of the Plan Amendment] and a strong disincentive or deterrent to urban development." Tr. 679. Urban Sprawl Internal DCA memoranda and the ORC Report reflect a concern by Department staff that the re-designation of Krome Avenue could encourage urban sprawl with serious negative impacts to the Redland and agricultural lands and the Everglades and areas designated to be protected environmentally. The concern of staff is not to be taken lightly. Re- designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway with four-lane capacity will allow parties who seek to develop along Krome Avenue in the future to point to the new "planned" capacity as a factor in support of an amendment to the CDMP that would allow such development. "That's a . . . common argument for why a plan amendment . . . increasing densities in that area . . . [would be] appropriate." Tr. 494. The planned roadway will be more than just fuel for argument. According to Charles Pattison, Petitioners' comprehensive planning expert with significant credentials and experience, the planned capacity increase is without doubt a "key factor," tr. 494-5, for consideration of decision-makers in support of future CDMP amendments that allow urban development. Still, the existing policies that protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, including the UDB and related policies, will also have to be taken into consideration. So will the results of FDOT's PD&E Study and the actual improvement undertaken under the guidance of the study by FDOT, if any, and in whatever form it may take. The policies should not fail to protect agricultural and environmentally protected land merely because of this plan amendment. The policies will not cease to be operative because of the re- designation of Krome Avenue even if FDOT ultimately decides to improve Krome Avenue by widening all or part of it to four lanes. Stated alternatively, in Mr. Pelham's words, existing policies "militate strongly against any urban development ... [outside] the urban growth boundary." Tr. 675. For this reason, among others, Mr. Pelham characterized the concerns of DCA staff and the fears of Petitioners, as "sheer speculation, suspicion and mistrust of . . . government . . . [of] a county that has a strong record of not extending its urban growth boundary." Id. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind what the re- designation of Krome Avenue does and does not do. It does not constitute the ultimate decision or authorization necessary to widen or improve the capacity of Krome Avenue. It does not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." Tr. 671. It is that development which "would cause potential urban sprawl problems that might threaten agriculture, that, theoretically, might pose a danger to the Everglades." Id. Development of that property would require plan amendments, vulnerable to challenges like this one and subject to scrutiny under the Growth Management Laws, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5. Amendment of the CDMP, therefore, to "allow widening of an existing road to address safety or congestion or level of service or evacuation problems, in and of itself, does not pose any of those threats or harms." Tr. 672. Rule 9J5 Urban Sprawl Indicators Urban sprawl is evaluated according to 13 "primary indicators" set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) (the "Primary Indicator Rule.") Applying the Primary Indicator Rule, the Department analyzes first, "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality" whether a plan amendment "trips" or "triggers" any of the 13: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g). If a plan amendment trips or triggers one or more of the Primary Indicators, the Department then considers the extent to which the tripped indicators suggest that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, or put conversely, induces sprawl. If the Department determines from review of the tripped indicators that the amendment does not discourage urban sprawl proliferation or in induces sprawl, then it turns its attention to the development controls in the comprehensive plan or in the proposed plan amendment. Evaluation of the development controls is made to determine whether they offset the amendment's inducement of urban sprawl. If the inducement is not sufficiently offset by development controls, then, the Department determines the amendment is not: consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and the remainder of [Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5] regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(a). It is possible that if only a few of the 13 Primary Indicators were clearly "tripped" then a determination could be made that a plan amendment "does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Normally, however, if few primary indicators are tripped, "it's going to be a tough argument to make that [there is] sprawl inducement." Tr. 919. The Department's Position re: Primary Indicators The Department's position is that the Plan Amendment does not trip in any way 10 of the 13 primary indicators listed in the Primary Indicator Rule. The main reason they are not tripped, in its view, is because the amendment, in and of itself, does nothing more than plan for the improvement of Krome Avenue up to a capacity of four lanes. For example, the first primary indicator is whether the plan amendment "[p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. As Mr. Darst testified, "[T]his is an amendment for the widening of the road and it's not a land use amendment." Tr. 913-4. In and of itself, the amendment does not allow or designate any development. Primary Indicator 4 is not tripped because "premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses" is not at issue in this case. An analysis of Primary Indicator 5 can only take place "within the context of features and characteristics unique" to Miami-Dade County, including the UDB and the protective policies of the CDMP and the Plan Amendment, itself. Primary Indicators 9 through 13, are not tripped. Primary Indicators 9 through 12 are not relevant to this case. Primary Indicator 13 is not tripped because although small amounts of functional open space might be taken for widening Krome Avenue, the amount would not be significant relative to the amount of functional open space adjacent to Krome Avenue. Of the other three primary indicators tripped in the Department's view by the Plan Amendment, they are tripped only minimally. Primary Indicator 6 is tripped because with Krome Avenue widened "trips shift there from another road," tr. 916, so that maximum use is not made of the other road, an existing public facility. The same is true of Primary Indicator 7, which relates to future public facilities. Primary Indicator 8 is tripped because funds will have to be expended to construct any widening and because of an increase in law enforcement expenses. The involvement of Primary Indicator 8, however, is minimal and without significant impact. Despite the Department's position, the re-designation of Krome Avenue, at a minimum, has at least the potential to "promote" development so as to trip Primary Indicators 1, 2, and As Mr. Pattison testified, the planned increased capacity of Krome Avenue is, by the very nature of increased roadway capacity, a key factor for consideration of proposed amendments that would allow increased development of lands surrounding Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is not in compliance for failure to comply with urban sprawl requirements depends on whether the tripped Primary Indicators are offset by development controls. Development Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j, (the "Development Controls Rule") states "[d]evelopment controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determination in (5)(g) above," that is, whether a plan amendment does or does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Determination that urban sprawl indicators have been tripped, therefore, is not, standing alone, sufficient to find that a plan amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. The Development Controls Rule lists 22 types of development controls to be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl. The CDMP contains development controls to discourage urban sprawl and development in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection. They are the UDB, see Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j)21., and the two policies related to it: Land Use Element Policies 8G and 8H. Evaluation of the development controls in the CDMP leads to a determination that the tripped Primary Indicators, Primary Indicators 1, 2, and 3, triggered by the Plan Amendment's potential to promote development that could lead to urban sprawl and Primary Indicators 6, 7 and 8, all "minimally" tripped, are offset by the development controls. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment, itself, contains additional policies that constitute development controls: the New Land Use Policies requiring super-majorities of the Board of County Commission for approval of re-designations near Krome Avenue and the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(j)15. and 22. Petitioners view the New land Use Policies as inadequate development controls because they do not set forth measurable or predictable standards to govern county commission decisions. Other than to require super-majorities for re- designation of land uses near Krome Avenue ("procedural" standards), the New Land Use Policies do not contain standards that govern county commission decisions. But there are a plethora of standards elsewhere in the CDMP. These other standards have been determined to be meaningful and predictable and there is nothing in the New Land Use Polices that allows the commission to disregard them. New Policy 4E which requires an access control plan prepared by FDOT prior to construction of any capacity improvement to Krome Avenue is viewed by Petitioners as "so vague as to fail to meet the definition of an objective or policy or to provide meaningful or predictable standards." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 18. But a reading of the policy contradicts the allegation. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with land use policies requiring coordination with the surrounding environment and requiring meaningful standards for more detailed regulations, and, therefore, that it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(6). The CDMP contains meaningful and predictable restrictions on land use in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. The Plan Amendment does nothing to deter those restrictions. Furthermore, among new policies in the Plan Amendment is the addition of procedural safeguards to the substantive criteria, thereby strengthening the existing standards. The Plan Amendment, therefore, retains meaningful and predictable standards for more detailed regulation, and if anything, strengthens the chance for their application to protect lands designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. Increasing Land Values and Speculation Petitioners argue that widening Krome Avenue to four lanes will adversely affect farming in the Redland and the Everglades by increasing land values and speculation. These arguments do not take into account that regardless of improvements to Krome Avenue, most of the area north of 42nd Street has little appeal to developers. Its designation as Environmental Protection makes it difficult if not impossible to develop. Despite extreme development pressure elsewhere in the county, to date there has been little pressure to develop the area due to the success of the comprehensive plan, particularly its policies against development in the area. Asked at hearing about such pressure, Miami Dade County's Director of Planning and Zoning, Diane O'Quinn responded, ". . . I haven't seen it. Not at all . . . because we've got very strong environmental policies in the comp plan." Tr. 625. Furthermore, considerations of increasing values and land speculation are not compliance issues under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Were they compliance issues, there are other forces at work that are encouraging an increase in land values in the Redland: in particular, the economics of the agriculture industry and the increasing demand for residential housing throughout Miami-Dade County. Agricultural uses in the County have been declining since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Up to then, the predominant forms of agriculture had been row crops (tomatoes, for example) and lime, avocado and mango groves. Andrew destroyed many groves. They were not replanted because of expense and the length of time it takes from planting for the groves to bear fruit and increasing competition from foreign producers. Within a year or two of the hurricane, the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was passed and produce from Mexico and Central America was introduced in great volume into U.S. markets. The south of the border competition generated by NAFTA, especially with regard to tomatoes and limes, reduced the value of the type of produce that had been predominant in the Redland prior to Andrew. Ten years later, the University of Florida's Florida Agricultural Market Research Center in the Summary and Recommendations Section of its Miami-Dade County Agricultural Land Retention Study (the "Agricultural Land Retention Study") described the market for agricultural commodities produced in Miami-Dade County as "fiercely competitive," Joint Exhibit 55, p. xiv, because of Latin American produce and predicted, "[e]conomic globalization and trade liberalization will continue. It is unlikely that the U.S. trade policy will be altered to any appreciable degree in the foreseeable future to protect domestic fruit and vegetable industries." Id. at xiii. Testimony at hearing established that these predictions have been accurate through the time of final hearing in late 2005. The Study, completed in April 2002, also reached this conclusion: Population growth and concomitant urban development appear inevitable for Miami-Dade County. Based on the capitalization of relatively low financial returns to agriculture in recent years, especially row crops, only about twenty-five percent of the current land prices is justified by returns to land in agricultural uses. The remaining seventy-five percent represents future anticipated value in non-agricultural or I agricultural residential use. Further, as supply of developable land dwindles, prices will undoubtedly increase. These price increases, if accompanied by chronically low financial returns to agriculture, will motivate landowners to convert to agricultural land to higher-valued uses. Joint Exhibit 55. p. xiii. This observation continued to have validity more than three years later at the final hearing in this case in late 2005. Following Andrew, land prices that had been stagnant for many years at $5,000 per acre or so increased three and four fold. The increases made it relatively expensive to buy land, plant and grow. The combined effects of Andrew and NAFTA reduced row crop and grove produce profitability. The agricultural industry shifted to ornamental horiculture nurseries. At the time of hearing, land prices had risen so much that even the nurseries whose products have been in demand for residential development have begun to become economically infeasible. Soon after 1992, the SFWMD also began buying property for Everglades restoration projects west of a levee on the west side of Krome that runs parallel to the roadway. These purchases too increased land values in the area. The recent rise in prices is also due to the low interest rate environment that began to have a wide-spread effect in early 2000. The low interest rate environment spurred demand for single-family homes. Furthermore, with the stock market decline that commenced in early 2001, investors began shifting from equities to real estate and demand for second homes increased. Miami-Dade County's excellent weather attracts people from all over the world and this has fostered increased foreign investment in the local real estate market. The combination of all these events led to acquisition of land for residential development throughout Miami-Dade County by developers. The diminution in the amount of vacant residential land naturally turned the attention of developers to agricultural areas and to the Redland where density is limited to one hours per five acres. The increased demand for housing led to price escalation so that five-acre parcels in the Redland became relatively inexpensive. The confluence of these factors accelerated the subdivision of agricultural properties into five-acre residential estates in the Redland. This trend began with Krome Avenue as a two-lane road and it is reasonably expected to continue, regardless of whether Krome is improved to four lanes or not. The trend toward development of five-acre residential estates will likely stave off further urbanization of the Redland. As the area is developed at one house per five acres, it becomes difficult to reassemble acreage to create subdivisions of higher density. For properties in the Redland that do not directly abut the road, the price of land is unrelated to Krome Avenue. Rather, it is based on the increasing demand for five-acre estates. The New Land Use Policies will likely restrain speculation based on the re-designation of Krome Avenue. One of the components of value is the probability of rezoning. Often much more important to land values are other factors: the land use plan designation and the history of land use in the surrounding areas. The planning and zoning restrictions, particularly in the light of the New Land Use Policies, send a signal to the market that the area around Krome Avenue is not slated for urbanization. The restrictions thereby limit increase in value and dampen speculation based on the potential widening of Krome Avenue. The trend in converting agricultural lands to residential uses has been in the making in Miami-Dade County for at least 30 years. The interplay between the agricultural and housing markets is the result of far larger forces than whether Krome Avenue is re-designated for improvement up to a divided four-lane roadway making any such re-designation of minor impact. As Mark Quinlivan, an expert in the field of real estate valuation in particular with regard to the areas along the Krome Avenue Corridor and the Redland, summed up the situation at hearing: So the trend is and has been for the last few years . . . to convert [the Redland] to five acre estates. Once they are converted to five acre estates and the homes are actually built, there is really not much else that can be done. Now you can't tear down the house and re-subdivide it if you could rezone. . . . [W]hether you put Krome as two lanes, four lanes, six lanes this trend is way beyond this amendment . . . Tr. 264. Environmental Impacts Although whether Krome Avenue will ever be improved to four lanes north of US 41, most of which crosses lands designated Environmental Protection depends on an environmental evaluation and other factors subject to an FDOT PD&E Study, it must be assumed for purposes of this compliance determination that it is allowed to be four lanes. The same assumption must be made for all of Krome Avenue subject to the Plan Amendment. Were a new plan amendment to be applied for, however, to re- designate land adjacent to Krome Avenue, road capacity would be a "minor" consideration because development control "policies in the plan are very strong and they're much more important and that would override the fact that there happens to be road capacity available." Tr. 737. The County recognizes the importance of maintaining a buffer between urban development and the Everglades. This recognition is reflected in CDMP policies. The CDMP, moreover, attempts to prevent the loss of environmentally sensitive lands. In the 1990's Congress required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to reverse as much as possible the anthropogenic damage inflicted upon the Everglades. The result was CERP, a joint federal/state plan to restore the Everglades by completing sixty-eight individual projects by 2038 costing many billions of dollars. Adopted by an Act of Congress in 2000, CERP directs the Corps to restore the Everglades using CERP as a guideline. With the exception of 10 of the projects authorized by the act, each of the other 58 individual CERP projects must undergo a specific process of planning and then Congressional authorization and appropriation. There have been no Congressional authorizations since 2000. The 58 projects not authorized in 2000 still await final planning and design and Congressional authorization and appropriation. Because of a design of Krome Avenue improvement has not been proposed, it is not possible to determine whether the widening of Krome Avenue will physically impact CERP projects. The concern advanced by Petitioners is that improvement to Krome Avenue will not only decrease the availability of land availability to CERP but will also raise land values. The concern is appropriate because, in general, the primary strategy of CERP is the acquisition of privately-owned land to dedicate to water storage, wetland restoration, and other related uses. "Most [CERP] projects have land acquisitions as the single largest factor in their cost." Tr. 415. Escalating real estate costs is a significant issue for CERP project managers attempting to stay within budget. As land acquisition costs increase, it becomes more difficult to get adequate funding or even authorization of a project. Furthermore, the federal authorization law requires a re- authorization by Congress if projected initial costs are exceeded by more than 20 percent. One of the critical aspects of CERP is water storage for which significant amounts of land must be acquired. There are numerous water storage restoration projects planned in the vicinity of Krome Avenue dependent on land acquisition. Petitioners recognize, however, that there is a certain amount of speculation in any anticipation of a rise in land values in the area of Krome Avenue. "If widening Krome Avenue raises the value . . . of surrounding lands it will have an adverse affect on the success of the Everglades restoration project." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 95, p. 16 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, as found already, the rise is dependent on re- designation of lands in the area of Krome Avenue, which are subject to policies in the CDMP, such as the existing Conservation Element, that discourage re-designation in a manner that would stimulate a rise in land values. It is sufficient for the CDMP to have policies that direct development to minimize impacts to environmental resources and guide the more detailed analysis that will be performed pursuant to the PD&E Study and further regulations. As Thomas Pelham explained: The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish policies that will be applied to and will govern actual development proposals that come in under the plan. It's not the purpose of a comprehensive plan to do a development permit level analysis. You do that when development permits are applied for . . . until you have . . . a specific proposal for a road, actual alignment, design features, you can't really fully analyze the impacts of it, anyway. . . . [T]he comprehensive plan . . . establish[es]] in advance policies that are reviewed for adequacy for protecting natural resources, the environment, so, that when someone comes in with an actual development proposal, then, it has to be evaluated in terms of the policies in the plan, and if it's not consistent, the law requires that it be denied. Tr. 686-7. The existing Conservation Element and other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources adequately address the potential impacts of the Krome Avenue Amendment vis-à-vis the environment and environmental considerations. South Florida Regional Policy Plan Amendments must be consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) in order to be in compliance. § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. SRPP Goal 2.1 is to achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment into area which are most intrinsically suited for development. This includes areas where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal and where public facilities/services already exist, are programmed, or on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically. SRPP Policy 2.1.4 requires development to be directed away from environmentally sensitive areas. Strategic Regional Goal 2.2 is designed to revitalize deteriorating urban areas. SRPP Policy 2.2.1 requires priority for development in blighted areas characterized by underdevelopment/under- employment that are in need of re-development. SRPP Policy 3.9.1 is designed to direct development and uses of land inconsistent with restoration away from Everglades and adjacent natural resources of significance. State Comprehensive Plan Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes, states the following with regard to the construction of the State Comprehensive Plan: The [state comprehensive] plan shall be construed and applied as a whole, and no specific goal or policy in the plan shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plan. Petitioners do not ignore this provision of the statutes, citing to it in their proposed recommended order. See Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 41. Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole and that it is specifically inconsistent with the following provisions in the State Plan: LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. 6. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. URBAN AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.-- (a) Goal.--In recognition of the importance of Florida's vital urban centers and of the need to develop and redevelop downtowns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally acceptable manner, Florida shall encourage the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. PUBLIC FACILITIES.-- Goal.--Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for an finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.-- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. TRANSPORTATION.-- Goal.--Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. 12. Avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. AGRICULTURE.-- (a) Goal.--Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Id. at pgs. 41-43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the October 2002 Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan of Miami- Dade County adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County as reflected in Ordinance No. 02-198 be determined to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2006.
