The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan (Manatee Plan) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County via Ordinance No. 13-10 on December 5, 2013, are “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Katie Pierola is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mrs. Pierola made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Greg Geraldson is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mr. Geraldson made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted the Manatee Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Robinson Farms is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County and owning real property in the County. It owns the property affected by the 2013 Amendments. The 2013 Amendments The 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map of the Manatee Plan to change the future land use classification of approximately 20 acres of land owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The land is described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 13-10. It is located on the north side of 9th Avenue Northwest, about 600 feet east of 99th Street. The RES-1 classification allows one dwelling unit per acre (du/a). The RES-3 classification allows up to three du/a. The General Introduction chapter of the Manatee Plan, Section D – Special Plan Interpretation Provisions, would be amended to add the following new text: D.5.16 Ordinance 13-10 (ROBINSON FARMS PLAN AMENDMENT) The 20± acre property identified as the Robinson Farms Plan Amendment and designated RES-3 on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 shall be limited to a maximum of thirty eight (38) residential units. Coastal Evacuation Area and Coastal High Hazard Area All 20 acres of the Robinson Farms property is within the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA). The CEA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The evacuation Level A for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional evacuation study applicable to Manatee County, as updated on a periodic basis. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.2.4.2, which addresses the purposes of the CEA, states in part: To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation area requiring evacuation during storm events. To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents. To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage. All but 4.68 acres is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The geographic area below the Category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, pursuant to applicable law, as updated on a periodic basis. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.2, which addresses the purposes of the CHHA, repeats the same purposes that are set forth above for the CEA. Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goal 4.3 of the Coastal Element of the Manatee Plan is: Protection of the Residents and Property Within the Coastal Planning Area from the Physical and Economic Effects of Natural Disasters Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 states: Limit development type, density and intensity within the Coastal Planning Area and direct population and development to areas outside the Coastal High Hazard Area to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural hazards in the area. Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 states: Direct population concentrations away from the Coastal Evacuation Area FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CEA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal Evacuation Area. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) states, in part: The area designated under the CEA Overlay District on the Future Land Use Map shall also be subject to all goals, objectives and policies for any land use category overlaid by the CHHA District, except where policies associated with the CEA Overlay conflict with such goals, objectives and policies. In this event, policies associated with the CHHA Overlay District shall override other goals, objectives and policies. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CHHA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay District. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a) states that, in the event of a conflict between CHHA policies and other policies in the Manatee Plan, the CHHA policies shall override. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments are not based on best available data and analysis as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). However, that rule was repealed in 2011. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis.” This section explains: To 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. Petitioners contend that the proposed reclassification of the Robinson Farms property from RES-1 to RES-3 does not react appropriately to the data which show the Robinson Farms property lies within the CEA and CHHA. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is not the mapping of the CEA and CHHA that creates a conflict with the 2013 Amendments. The conflict is created by the policies which address future land uses in the CEA and CHHA. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments make the Manatee Plan internally inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 which require “population concentrations” to be directed away from the Coastal Evacuation Area. No evidence was presented by Petitioners or by Manatee County on the County’s interpretation of the term “population concentrations.” However, FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. Therefore, assuming as we must that the Manatee Plan is internally consistent, it follows that “population concentrations” in Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 means any increase in residential density. Because the 2013 Amendments increase residential density in the CEA, they are inconsistent with this objective and policy. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CEA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CEA. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CHHA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CHHA. Competing Policies Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that there are other policies in the Manatee Plan, such as those that discourage urban sprawl and encourage infill in the Urban Core Area, which the County must weigh along with the policies discussed above. The County contends that it weighed these conflicting policies and reached a fairly debatable determination that the 2013 Amendments are consistent with the Manatee Plan. Contradicting this argument are FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) and FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a), which state that the CEA and CHHA policies shall override any conflicting goals, objectives, and policies in the Manatee Plan. Urban sprawl, infill, and other policies of the Manatee Plan cannot be invoked to avoid the specific prohibitions in FLUE Policies 2.2.2.4.5(a) and 2.2.2.5.5(a) against any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the CEA and CHHA. Density Offsets Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that the County’s reduction in dwelling units in other parts of the CHHA over the past several years is a valid consideration in determining whether an increase in residential density on the Robinson Farms property is permissible despite the prohibition in FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a). In support of their argument, they cite Department of Community Affairs v. Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 WL 2497934 (Nov. 16, 2006). However, the Leeward Yacht Club case involved the comprehensive plan of Lee County, which did not prohibit increases in residential density in the CHHA. In contrast, the Manatee Plan quite plainly prohibits “any amendment” to the Future Land Use Map that would increase residential density in the CHHA. Previous Proceedings These same parties were involved in a dispute regarding an earlier proposed amendment to the Manatee Plan to reclassify property owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The 2010 Amendment was different in that it affected 28 acres (which encompasses the 20 acres in the 2013 Amendments). The 2010 Amendment would have increased the residential density on the 28 acres from 28 dwelling units to 105 dwelling units, all in the CEA. It would have added 56 dwelling units to the CHHA. Petitioners challenged the amendment and an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge D.R. Alexander (DOAH Case No. 11-0009GM). On April 13, 2011, Judge Alexander entered a Recommended Order which recommended that the 2010 Amendment be determined not in compliance because: The amendment was not based on relevant and appropriate data because the most current SLOSH model results were not used; The amendment was inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) which prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. The amendment was inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 which require that population and development be directed to areas outside the CHHA. The Recommended Order went to the Administration Commission, which ultimately dismissed the case when Manatee County rescinded Ordinance No. 10-02 and the 2010 Amendment. In Manatee County Ordinance No. 11-035, which was the ordinance used to rescind the 2010 Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the 2010 Amendment was internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 because the amendment increased residential density in the CEA and CHHA.
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 2013 Amendments adopted by Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2014, 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 8th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Minix, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Edward Vogler, II, Esquire Vogler Ashton, PLLC 2411-A Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-4948 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Peter Antonacci, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issues to be determined is whether the City of Destin (“City”) has demonstrated its entitlement to place dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the East Pass (“East Pass” or “inlet”) entrance channel conducted pursuant to the Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit Number: 0288799-003-JC (“Permit”), in the swash zone east of East Pass in accordance with the Notice to Proceed (“NTP”); and whether the Inlet Management Plan referenced in the NTP is an unadopted rule as described in section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners, David H. Sherry and Rebecca R. Sherry, own Unit 511 at the Surf Dweller Condominium, 554 Coral Court, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The Surf Dweller Condominium, which is on Santa Rosa Island in the unincorporated community of Okaloosa Island,1/ fronts the Gulf of Mexico, and straddles DEP Reference Monument R-7, which is between three and four miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and is between five and six miles west of the west side of East Pass. The Sherrys use the beach at their condominium on a daily basis for fishing, crabbing, swimming, walking, running, and general recreation. They also walk or run from Monument R-7 along the beaches to East Pass, and occasionally drive to and use the beaches on the east side of East Pass. Petitioner, John S. Donovan, owns Units 131 and 132 at the El Matador Condominium, 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The El Matador Condominium is on Okaloosa Island, fronts the Gulf of Mexico, and is approximately five miles west of Monument V-611, and is more than six miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Donovan generally walks the beaches west of his condominium, but does occasionally walk along the beach to Monument V-607, which is the location of a seawall constructed by the Air Force on sovereign submerged lands to protect an Air Force tracking facility. Intervenor, Thomas Wilson, resides at 856 Edgewood Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, and owns a secondary residence at 1530 Miracle Strip Parkway, No. 101-B, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in the vicinity of Monument R-14. Mr. Wilson uses and enjoys the gulf-front beaches between his property on Okaloosa Island and East Pass. Petitioners’ stated injuries are related to the allegation that the lateral movement of sand from the East Pass areas of influence is from east to west. Placing dredged material in the eastern disposal site would allegedly deprive the beaches in front of their property -- beaches that are miles from the nearest area of influence or spoil disposal site -- of their natural sand supply by cutting off what they allege to be the natural sand flow, causing the beaches in front of their properties to eventually erode. Petitioners alleged no immediate environmental injuries associated with the NTP. Petitioners’ stated objective in this case is to have any sand dredged from East Past to be placed on the western disposal areas at all times. The City is the applicant for the Permit and the NTP, and abuts the east side of East Pass. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the NTP at issue in this proceeding to the City. The NTP was issued on February 2, 2018, without notice of rights language regarding the right to request a hearing or time limits for doing so. Petitioners received a copy of the NTP on October 1, 2018, and filed a challenge more than 14 days later, on November 30, 2018. East Pass Prior to 1928, the connection from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Gulf of Mexico flowed through what is now Old Pass Lagoon. After a storm in 1928, a high-tide breach of the shoreline near the current location of East Pass was formed. In 1929, a record rain event caused waters to rise in Choctawhatchee Bay. Residents of the area dug a relief channel at roughly the present location of East Pass. The waters releasing through the more hydraulically efficient flow path from Choctawhatchee Bay established a channel, which quickly enlarged to become the prominent inlet to the Gulf of Mexico. The permanent channel, now known as East Pass, is the only navigable passage from Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico between Panama City, Florida, and Pensacola, Florida. East Pass separates the gulf-fronting beaches of the City to its east from the beaches owned by the United States as part of Eglin Air Force Base to the west. The entrance to East Pass is protected by two boulder-mount jetties: a 3,860 foot- long jetty on the west side of the inlet and a 1,210 foot-long jetty on the east side of the inlet. East Pass is an ebb tide dominated inlet, with a sizable amount of sediment moving in and out. When outgoing tidal flow moves though the constriction formed by the jetties, flow velocities are accelerated. When the water, and any entrained sediment, passes the jetties, flow tends to spread out to the east, west, and south, and naturally loses velocity. When the outgoing tidal waters reach a critical velocity where they can no longer carry the sand, the sand drops out of suspension, which forms the ebb shoal. Essentially, the ebb shoal is a large, semi-circular sandbar extending from the mouth of East Pass that was created by the ebb tide carrying sediments south. East Pass is a highly dynamic inlet system. There are processes spurred by the configuration and location of East Pass, tides, waves, and storms that have resulted in currents running to the east and west that change on a frequent basis. The Physical Monitoring Plan (“PMP”), which is part of the Permit, and thus, not subject to challenge in this case, established, for the period of 1996 through 2007, “a trend of west to east longshore transport, resulting in net gain immediately west of [East Pass] and a significant loss of sand along Holiday Isle east of [East Pass].” The PMP further established that a “drift nodal point” existed at East Pass. Longshore transport at uniform coastal locations is generally in one direction. However, when there are wave events coming from varying angles, and where beach contours are not parallel and uniform, or even linear, it is common for transport reversals to occur. The point at which those reversals occur is referred to as a nodal point. That point can be where east and west transport converges, or where it diverges. The shoreline in the vicinity of East Pass has exhibited “quite a few” nodal points over the past decade, resulting in frequent drift reversals and sand transport to the east and the west. The evidence as to the existence and effect of the East Pass drift nodal point, and its affect on the lateral transport of sand in the area, including the East Pass areas of influence, was substantiated by testimony and other evidence introduced at the final hearing. The testimony and evidence that there is no consistent direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass, and no predominant lateral current transporting sand in a westerly direction, is accepted. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. East Pass includes a federal navigation channel. The federal navigation channel requires routine maintenance to prevent it from shoaling. On an average, East Pass is dredged in two-year intervals. The last time that East Pass was dredged was in December of 2013. It has now shoaled with sand and become very hazardous for marine traffic. In December of 2018, the City declared a state of emergency relating to the navigational hazards caused by the accumulation of sand in the navigation channel. The Permit On February 26, 2015, DEP issued the Permit, which authorized the City to perform “periodic maintenance dredging of the federally authorized East Pass and Destin Harbor and navigation channels.” The Permit will expire on February 26, 2030. Notice of the issuance of this Permit was published in the Destin Log, a newspaper of general circulation, on December 24, 2014. No challenge to the issuance of the Permit was filed. As it pertains to the issues in this proceeding, the Permit provides that “Dredged material from . . . maintenance dredging activities will be placed in the swash zones of the beaches east and west of East Pass, as specified in the East Pass Inlet Management Plan.” The specific beach spoil placement sites are, as relevant to this proceeding, located “west of East Pass . . . between [DEP] reference monuments V-611 and V-622; and on 2 beach sites situated east of East Pass . . . from R-17 to R-20.5 and from R-23.5 to R-25.5.” Those areas correspond to what have been identified as the “areas of influence,” which are the beach areas east and west of East Pass that are affected by tidal forces generated by the inlet. The specified beach spoil placement sites, being conditions of the unchallenged Permit, are not subject to challenge in this case. The Permit establishes the criteria by which specific work is to be authorized. Specific Condition 5 provides, in pertinent part, that: 5. No work shall be conducted under this permit until the Permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department for each event. At least 30 days prior to the requested date of issuance of the notice to proceed, the Permittee shall submit a written request for a Notice to Proceed along with the following items for review and approval by the Department: * * * Prior to the second dredging event authorized under this permit, and each subsequent event, the Physical Monitoring Data, as specified in Specific Condition 9, shall be submitted to select the appropriate placement locations. Specific Condition 9 provides that: Following the initial placement of material on Norriego Point, fill site selection shall be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the adopted East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan (July 24, 2013). All physical monitoring shall be conducted in accordance to the Approved physical monitoring plan dated August, 2014. A notice to proceed for specific projects shall be withheld pending concurrence by the Department that the data support the proposed placement location. The purpose of Specific Condition 9 is to identify, using supporting monitoring data from the eastern and western areas of influence, the “adjacent eroding beach” most in need of sand from the inlet. The requirement that physical monitoring data be used to determine which of the beach spoil placement sites identified in the Permit’s Project Description will receive the spoil from any particular periodic dredging event was to implement section 161.142, Florida Statutes. That section mandates that “maintenance dredgings of beach-quality sand are placed on the adjacent eroding beaches,” and establishes the overriding policy of the state regarding disposition of sand from navigational channel maintenance dredging. East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan The East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan (“East Pass IMP”) was adopted by Final Order of DEP on July 30, 2013.2/ The East Pass IMP was not adopted through the rulemaking procedures proscribed by chapter 120, Florida Statutes, or DEP rules. Despite a comprehensive Notice of Rights advising persons whose substantial interests could be affected of the means by which the East Pass IMP could be challenged, it was not. There are 44 maintained inlets in Florida. About half have individual inlet management plans. The East Pass IMP is not applicable to any inlet other than East Pass. The East Pass IMP does not require that any quantity of dredged material from the dredging of East Pass be placed at any particular location other than as established in the Permit. Rather, the disposal site is to be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the best monitoring data available for the beaches in the area of influence of East Pass. The critical element of the IMP, and that in keeping with the statutory requirement that sand be placed on “adjacent eroding beaches” is the “strategy” that “the recent erosion of adjacent beaches observed over a minimum of five years shall define the placement need in terms of location and volume.” The East Pass IMP, being applicable only to East Pass, is not of “general applicability.” Furthermore, the East Pass IMP does not implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. The Notice to Proceed On January 30, 2018, the City filed its Request for Notice to Proceed (“Request”). The Request addressed the criteria in Specific Conditions 5 and 9 of the Permit. Upon review, DEP determined the conditions of the Permit were satisfied and issued the NTP on February 2, 2018. The analysis of data submitted as part of the Request was designed to show areas of erosion and accretion within the eastern and western areas of influence in order to identify “critically eroded beaches.” The shoreline of Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass has historically been stable. To be sure, as is the case with any shoreline, there will be some areas of erosion and some areas of accretion. After Hurricanes Ivan and Opal, areas of Santa Rosa Island experienced erosion. DEP declared the shoreline to be critically eroded after the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons, which prompted Okaloosa County to commission a study to monitor the health of the Monuments R-1 through R-16 beach segment, a segment that includes Petitioners’ residences. Despite the fact that no post-storm beach restoration occurred in the area, the beach recovered naturally and gained sand following the post-storm recovery. In addition, Santa Rosa Island is known for “beach cusps,” which are crenulate3/ shapes along the shoreline. Depending on the season and storm conditions, those beach cusps can have a localized erosive effect on the beach, but those tend to be seasonal. They do not negate what the evidence shows to be the overall stable to accretional conditions of the beaches west of East Pass from Monument V-622 to Petitioners’ residences. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches west of East Pass have large dunes; multiple dune lines; tall, and thick vegetated dunes indicating established dune growth; pioneering vegetation indicating active, healthy dune growth and accretion; partially buried signs indicating dune advance; and broad and expansive beaches. Those features are indicative of a stable and accretional shoreline. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the western spoil disposal site was convincing and is accepted. At present, the Santa Rosa Island shoreline is not deemed by DEP to be “critically eroded.” The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches west of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the west of East Pass are stable and accretional, are not subject to erosion caused by East Pass, and are not “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. The shoreline east of East Pass, including the eastern area of influence and the proposed dredge material disposal sites at Monuments R-17 to R-20.5 and R-23.5 to R-25, except for the area immediately abutting the eastern jetty, is highly erosional. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches east of East Pass exhibit the following signs of significant and ongoing erosion: extensive dune erosion; exposed sea oat roots; reduced beach elevation; reduced beach width; crenulate bays; newly built dune walkovers that replaced old walkovers claimed by erosion; dune walkovers in close proximity to the shoreline indicating that the shoreline had receded to the walkover; and beach scarping at the shoreline indicating active erosion. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the eastern spoil disposal sites was convincing and is accepted. The eastern areas of influence are currently designated to be “critically eroded” by DEP, a designation maintained for more than 10 years. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches east of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the east of East Pass are critically eroded, a condition that is influenced by East Pass and or its navigational channel, and are “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. Data in Support of the NTP The data submitted by the City to DEP in support of the Request included monitoring data for the eastern beach placement areas from the West Destin Four-Year Post-construction Monitoring Report and earlier annual post-construction reports covering the period from October 2012 to July 2017, and additional data from the Holiday Isle Emergency Beach Fill Two-Year Post-construction Report. DEP was also provided with historical monitoring data for the area west of East Pass, including the Western Beach Monitoring Report, which covered 2006 to 2017, and the Potential Borrow Area Impact Report, which included data from 1996 through 2012. DEP has also received recent profile data from April 2019. These reports, and the data contained within them, cumulatively provide more than 20 years of survey date, and demonstrate convincingly that the shoreline to the west of East Pass has been stable or accreting, and the areas to the east are eroded. The data submitted in support of the Request was sufficient to meet Specific Condition 9 that fill site selection be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the East Pass IMP. Petitioners argue that the City failed to comply with the PMP, which requires, among other things, that the analysis of the dredged material disposal area include “preconstruction survey data and the most recent survey conducted at least five years prior.” The PMP establishes that “[p]reconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 90 days before construction commences. A prior beach monitoring survey of the beach and offshore may be submitted for the pre-construction survey if consistent with the other requirements” of the PMP. The City submitted a prior beach monitoring survey of the beach and offshore that is consistent with the PMP. Petitioners argue that the City violated a temporal limitation which provides that the City “may submit a prior beach restoration monitoring report for the west or east beach areas (Walton-Destin or Western Destin Beach Restoration Project) if the monitoring data is collected within 1 year of the proposed maintenance dredging event and if consistent with the other requirements of this condition.” Petitioners acknowledge in their PRO that the beach restoration monitoring report was timely when the Request for NTP was submitted. The information contained therein was sufficient to support the notice of proposed action on the NTP. The otherwise compliant data is no longer within one year of the proposed dredge. In that regard, the litigation in this case, initiated by Petitioners, has been ongoing for almost one year. Work authorized by the NTP cannot go forward when subject to challenge. If the PMP, which is not a rule, is unreasonably read so as not to account for delay caused by litigation, such delay becomes a tool for use by, and a reward for, a person dissatisfied with DEP’s outcome. In this case, the NTP was lawfully issued pursuant to compliant data, surveys, and analysis. As with any permit or license subject to a third- party challenge, the terms of the NTP are tolled pending Petitioners’ litigation, and do not become a ground for denial of the otherwise compliant Request. See § 120.60(1), Fla. Stat. (“An application for a license must be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period of time for agency action is provided by law. The 90-day time period is tolled by the initiation of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Any application for a license which is not approved or denied . . . within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, . . . is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license.”).4/ Furthermore, DEP has now received recent profile data from April 2019. The evidence establishes that the data provided to DEP as part of the Request includes the latest physical monitoring data over a period of greater than five years, and that the data collection met the standards for conducting physical monitoring. Fill Site Selection The NTP authorized “placement of dredged material in the swash zone east of East Pass.” In accordance with the Permit, that authorized area extends eastward from R-17 to R-20.5 and from R-23.5 to R-25.5, in Holiday Isle. The evidence is persuasive that placing dredged material on the eastern side of East Pass would not result in erosion on the western side of East Pass. Dredged material placed in the western beach placement area, and in the “shadow” of the western jetty, will tend to remain in that area. It would take a very long time, if at all, for that material to migrate further to the west. However, dredged material placed to the east of East Pass would, if the lateral shoreline drift is east to west as asserted by Petitioners (though not supported by a preponderance of the evidence as set forth in paragraphs 11 through 13), be introduced into the ebb shoal and likely move faster to the west as opposed to it being placed directly at the base of the west jetty. As such, placement of the dredged material on the eastern beach placement areas would, more likely than not, accomplish the beach effect objectives set forth in the Petition. The Eglin AFB Beach Restoration Project Petitioners relied heavily on photographs taken in 2010 and 2019 from roughly the same location in the vicinity of Monuments V-607 to V-608 to demonstrate that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are eroding. The area depicted is outside of the area of influence of East Pass, and outside of the western beach placement area under the Permit. Those photographs depict a wide expanse of beach in 2010, with a seawall well upland from the shore in 2010. Then, in 2019, a photograph depicting the same stretch was offered that showed the same seawall, now at or below the water line. The photographs were, ostensibly, designed to depict naturally occurring erosion in the area. Mr. Clark testified that the seawall and boulder mound structure depicted in both photographs protect an Air Force mission-critical tracking facility. The seawall was originally constructed in 1979 after Hurricane Frederick, was constructed at that time to extend into the water, and was maintained in that configuration through the 1990s. One could not walk around the original seawall. Rather, for most of its history, passage around the seaward side of the seawall could only be accomplished by swimming or wading. The original seawall was damaged by Hurricane Opal, and destroyed by Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis in 2004 and 2005. The Air Force, needing to reconstruct the wall, applied for and received a joint coastal construction permit, allowing the structure to be constructed on sovereign submerged land below the line of mean high water. The seawall was rebuilt and, as stated by Mr. Clark, “it was in the water.” In 2010, the Air Force performed the small Eglin Air Force Base Beach Restoration Project, which placed artificial fill in front of the seawall, thereby creating a temporary beach. That beach fill project was “a one-shot deal,” did not involve any subsequent maintenance, and is now essentially gone, as was expected. Mr. Clark was neither surprised nor concerned with the fact that the area returned to what he described as its natural state, with the seawall below mean high water. The 2019 photograph was presented as evidence of erosion caused by East Pass. That was not the case. Rather, the 2010 photograph was evidence of an artificial and singular event, and the 2019 photograph depicts the natural state of the shoreline. Rather than depicting erosion, the 2019 photograph depicts a return to the stable shoreline that exists all along Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass. The photographs of the site of the 2010 Eglin Air Force Base Beach Restoration Project do not support a finding that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are anything but stable, if not accretional, nor do they support a finding that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are eroding. Ultimate Factual Conclusion Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the location of the spoil disposal be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the East Pass IMP and the PMP. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the City submitted physical monitoring data consistent with the requirements of Specific Condition 9. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the eastern areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at R-17 to R-20.5 and R-23.5 to R-25.5, are critically eroded, a condition influenced if not caused by the East Pass, and constitute East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the western areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at Monuments V-611 to V-622, are stable, if not accreting, and are not East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the City met the standards for the NTP as proposed for issuance by DEP on February 2, 2018. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. Thus, the NTP should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Approving the February 2, 2018, Notice to Proceed for the maintenance dredging of East Pass as authorized pursuant to Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Lease No. 0288799-003-JC, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein; and Denying the City of Destin’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expenses and Costs pursuant to section 120.595(1). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 14th day of October, 2019.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent should issue a permit for coastal armoring to protect Petitioners' homes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners are "property and/or riparian owner[s]" within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a). Petitioners own two single family residences situated on contiguous sites on highway A1A in Orchid Island, Indian River County, Florida. Each site fronts the Atlantic Ocean and extends landward from the mean high water line. Petitioners' homes are major habitable structures within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 16B- 33.002(54)(a) and 16B-33.005(3)(b) and (c). 2/ Each home is a two story residence that includes a garage, swimming pool, and patio. The foundation of each home is a nonconforming foundation within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.007(4). 3/ Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit was prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 161.053(5), Rule 16B-33.008, and other agency requirements. Respondent determined that the application was complete on or before August 14, 1990. Respondent is the agency responsible for assessing applications for coastal armoring permits. Respondent recommends action to the Governor and Cabinet. The Governor and Cabinet sit as the agency head and take final agency action. Respondent was formerly known as the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"). On July 1, 1993, the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") was created, and DNR was reorganized into DEP. 1993 Laws Of Florida, Chapter 93-21. Intervenors represent the interests of marine turtles and their nesting habitats. Intervenor, Center For Marine Conservation (the "Center"), is a nonprofit organization that researches marine life. The Center has 8,000 contributing members in Florida that enable it to conduct research and conservation activities. Intervenor, Donna Devlin, is an officer of the Center and citizen of the state. Intervenor, Caribbean Conservation Corporation ("CCC"), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation engaged in sea turtle research and conservation in Florida. The CCC receives support from private foundations and the contributions of its 5,000 members. Background Petitioners began construction of their homes prior to March 4, 1987. At the time construction began, the coastal construction control line defining that portion of the beach-dune system subject to fluctuations based on a 100 year storm surge (the "CCCL") 4/ was located seaward of Petitioners' homes. On March 4, 1987, the CCCL was reestablished and moved landward of Petitioners' homes. By that time, construction had progressed sufficiently, and both houses were grandfathered by applicable regulatory restrictions. The foundation of each home is a nonconforming foundation within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.007(4). The foundations are not designed to resist the predicted forces associated with a one-hundred-year storm event, do not elevate the support structures of the homes above the breaking wave crests or wave uprush projected for such a storm, and do not meet other applicable design criteria. On Thursday, March 9, 1989, a Northeast storm impacted the east central coast of Florida. The storm lasted approximately five days 5/ and eroded the shoreline in Indian River County including that portion in front of Petitioners' homes. The dune fronting Petitioners' homes was severely undercut by wave action from the storm. The dune in front of Petitioners' property suffered 10 feet of bluff line recession. On Saturday, March 11, 1989, Petitioner, Machata, telephoned Respondent at its Tallahassee office for authority to protect his home from the forces of the storm. Mr. Machata was referred to the Division of Emergency Management. Mr. Machata telephoned the Division of Emergency Management at 10:30 a.m. on March 11, 1989, and spoke with Mr. Bill Whiney. Mr. Whiney advised Mr. Machata that the Division was aware of the storm and had delegated emergency management to Mr. Douglas Wright, Director of Emergency Management, Indian River County. Mr. Wright conducted a site inspection within an hour of Mr. Machata's telephone call. The dune was being undercut, and waves were striking near the top of the dune. Mr. Wright did not get near the bluff line for fear that the dune would collapse. Mr. Wright authorized the temporary placement of large quarry rocks on the seaward side of the dune. The rocks were placed at the toe of the dune on Saturday and Sunday, March 11 and 12, 1989. Mr. Wright instructed Petitioners to contact Respondent on Monday, March 13, 1989, for a permit to construct a permanent rock revetment or other bulkhead. On Wednesday March 15, 1989, an inspector for Respondent confirmed that construction of a rock revetment had begun without benefit of a permit from Respondent. Respondent advised Mr. Machata to stop construction of the rock revetment pending application for, and approval of, a coastal armoring permit. Mr. Machata immediately ceased further construction. At that point, a rock revetment 110 feet long had been placed along the toe of the dune in front of Mr. Machata's house. On July 19, 1989, Petitioners filed an application for a permit to complete construction of the rock revetment. Following several meetings and correspondence between Petitioners and Respondent, Respondent determined that the proposed revetment failed to comply with applicable requirements. At the behest of Respondent, Petitioners agreed to apply for a permit to construct and maintain the steel sheet pile bulkhead at issue in this proceeding. Respondent agreed to recommend approval of the steel sheet pile bulkhead, in place of the rock revetment, if Petitioners demonstrated their homes are vulnerable to a 10 to 15 year return interval storm event (a "RISE"). The return interval of a storm is its statistical probability of occurrence. A lower return interval indicates a greater probability of occurrence and a higher rate of frequency. A high frequency storm is a storm with a return interval of 25 years or less. Storms with a return interval greater than 25 years are major storms with greater storm force. 6/ On April 17, 1990, Petitioners submitted an application for a permit to construct and maintain a vertical steel sheet- pile bulkhead 303 feet long. The proposed bulkhead is located as far landward as possible. It is 10 to 15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and vegetation line and 23 feet seaward of Petitioners' existing patios. All work on the bulkhead is to take place landward of the steel wall. The proposed bulkhead is designed to withstand the force of a high frequency storm with a return interval of 25 years. The design, engineering, and construction required to protect Petitioners' homes reflects the storm force associated with a high frequency storm. The steel wall will be constructed with 300 to 400 individual sheets of corrugated steel placed in the shore parallel direction. Each sheet is 25 feet long, 18-24 inches wide, 3/8 inches thick, and weighs approximately 1000 pounds. The sheet piles will be stockpiled on site and transported to the dune by a crane equipped with a vibratory hammer. The first sheet pile will be placed at one end of the proposed bulkhead and partially driven into the sand with the vibratory hammer. The next sheet pile will be threaded and interlocked with the first through the coupling joints and partially driven into the sand. After 50 feet of the proposed wall is put in place, the piles in that 50 foot section will be driven to their design depth. The remaining portion of the wall will be completed in 50 foot segments using the same procedure. Once the sheet piles are in place, 20 foot long steel tie rods will be placed through and connected to the piles near their top. The tie rods will be on the landward side of the piles arranged perpendicular to them. The tie rods will be spaced 15 feet apart, on center, along the entire length of the sheet pile wall. The tie rods will be encased in poured concrete. The other end of the tie rods will be secured to a concrete anchor buried in the soil (a continuous "deadman"). The deadman will run parallel to the sheet pile wall approximately 20 feet landward of the wall. The deadman is constructed with concrete formed and poured in place with reinforcing steel. The steel pile wall is connected to the deadman with tie rods to increase the stability of the sheet pile wall and to achieve the designed level of protection. Forty foot return walls at each end of the bulkhead will run landward of Petitioners' lot lines. The return walls ensure the stability of the bulkhead during storm attack by preventing erosion of sand landward of the bulkhead. A concrete cap will be poured in place on top of the sheet pile wall. The proposed bulkhead is less impactive than other rigid coastal armoring devices that provide equivalent protection. This form of armoring was proposed, in place of a rock revetment, at Respondent's request. It is uncontroverted that the design and construction of the proposed bulkhead meets all applicable engineering and structural design criteria. On May 22, 1990, Respondent issued a letter of intent to approve the proposed bulkhead and gave landowners adjacent to Petitioners' property notice of Respondent's intended action. Adjacent property owners did not object to the proposed bulkhead. Respondent's Division of Beaches and Shores recommended approval of Petitioners' application subject to stated conditions. On August 14, 1990, an agenda item recommending approval of Petitioners' application was considered by the Governor and Cabinet. The agenda item represented that Petitioners' homes are vulnerable to a 15 year RISE. After hearing arguments, the Governor and Cabinet denied Petitioners' application without explication. Immediately following the denial of Petitioners' application, the Governor and Cabinet directed Respondent's staff to develop a coastal armoring policy for the state. Armoring applications completed as of August 14, 1990, including Petitioners', were expressly exempt from the new policy. The Governor and Cabinet adopted a coastal armoring policy on December 18, 1990 (the "1990 policy"). The 1990 policy prohibits all coastal armoring within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Petitioners' homes are located within the Refuge. A qualifying structure located outside the Refuge must be vulnerable to a five year RISE to qualify for coastal armoring. A notice of vulnerability caveat states that an applicant who constructs his or her home after the notice of the public hearing for the CCCL in the county in which the home is located is presumed to have notice of vulnerability and is disqualified from obtaining a coastal armoring permit. 7/ Since Petitioners' application was completed on or before August 14, 1990, the proposed bulkhead is expressly exempt from all of the provisions of the 1990 policy. No other applications were complete on or before August 14, 1990. A Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit was filed with Respondent's clerk on November 1, 1990. On November 19, 1990, Petitioners timely filed a petition for a formal administrative proceeding in accordance with Section 120.57(1). Agency Requirements Respondent consistently applies a multi-tiered test to assess applications for coastal armoring permits. The first tier consists of two parts. First, armoring must be proposed for a major habitable structure within the meaning of Rule 16B- 33.002(54)(a) and 16B-33.005(3)(b) and (c). Second, the applicant must state and "clearly justify" the "necessity" for protecting a major habitable structure, within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(1), and must show that the direct and cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system and marine turtles clearly justify the proposed armoring. If both requirements of the first tier are satisfied, Respondent then considers alternatives to the proposed armoring. Isolated rigid coastal armoring that does not close the gap in existing armoring, such as the proposed bulkhead, must be the only "feasible" means of protecting a major habitable structure. 8/ It is uncontroverted that Petitioners' homes are major habitable structures. Therefore, the issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Petitioners' have "clearly justified" the "necessity" for protecting their homes, whether the direct and cumulative impacts clearly justify the armoring, and whether the protection sought is the only "feasible" alternative. The phrase "clearly justify" is the test of both the "necessity" for armoring and the direct and cumulative impacts of armoring. Section 161.053(5)(a)3 requires Respondent to consider whether the direct and cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system clearly justify the proposed armoring. Rule 16B-33.005(7) states that: the proposed armoring may not have an adverse impact on the beach-dune system at the specific site; and a number of similar structures on the coast may not have a significant adverse cumulative impact. 9/ The cumulative impact doctrine has been applied as a policy of equitable distribution in permitting cases involving environmental control statutes. 10/ The doctrine is intended to distribute permitted activities without contravening applicable standards or the public interest. The cumulative impact of the proposed bulkhead on the beach-dune system and on marine turtles is not imposed in addition to other applicable requirements but is a factor to be considered in determining whether the proposed bulkhead is clearly justified within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3 and applicable rules. 11/ The terms "necessity", "clearly justify", and "feasible" are not defined in applicable statutes and rules. 12/ Respondent has issued written memoranda and uttered unwritten policy statements to provide guidance in defining the quoted terms. Respondent attempted to explicate the quoted terms in this proceeding. Necessity: Vulnerability To High Frequency Storms Under the 1990 policy, the "necessity" for armoring must be clearly justified by demonstrating vulnerability to a five year RISE. However, the proposed bulkhead is exempt from the specific RISE imposed by the 1990 policy. Respondent asserts that a 10 or 15 year RISE was used to assess vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy and should be applied in this proceeding. In order to ascertain the specific numeric standard of vulnerability applicable in this proceeding, if any, it is necessary to consider the emergence of the vulnerability requirement prior to the adoption of the 1990 policy. 13/ Emerging Vulnerability Requirement In November, 1984, a severe storm caused major erosion over wide expanses of the east coast of Florida (the "Thanksgiving Day storm"). A number of applications for coastal armoring followed. Respondent's staff prepared a report proposing specific policy directives to provide guidance in reviewing applications for coastal armoring. The policy directives were approved by the Governor and Cabinet on March 19, 1985. However, the Governor and Cabinet expressly directed staff to review armoring applications on a case-by-case basis and did not adopt a specific policy (the "1985 directive"). The first application for a coastal armoring permit to go before the Governor and Cabinet following the 1985 directive was filed by Seaplace Association, Inc. The application was for a buried, sloping rock revetment and returns seaward of the two- story Seaplace condominium. The Seaplace application was recommended for approval by Respondent and considered by the Governor and Cabinet as an agenda item on February 23, 1988. The agenda item prepared by Respondent stated that Seaplace was vulnerable to a RISE of less than 10 years. This was the first agenda item where vulnerability to a specific RISE was included in Respondent's justification for a proposed coastal armoring permit. At the time that the agenda item was considered, Respondent's director stated that Respondent imposed a 20 year RISE to assess vulnerability in coastal armoring applications. The Governor and Cabinet denied the Seaplace application without explication. Following the denial of the Seaplace application, a storm impacted the shoreline in front of Seaplace causing erosion and further threatening the condominium. After a meeting with Cabinet aides, Respondent recycled the prior agenda item to reprint the document with no changes and brought the item back before the Governor and Cabinet with the same stated vulnerability. The Governor and Cabinet approved the Seaplace application on May 24, 1988, without explication. In approving the Seaplace application, the Governor and Cabinet neither explicitly nor implicitly adopted a specific RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy. The agenda items considered by the Governor and Cabinet on February 23 and May 24, 1988, did not recommend that the Governor and Cabinet adopt a 10 year RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability in all armoring applications but merely stated that Seaplace was vulnerable to a 10 year RISE. When the Governor and Cabinet considered the Seaplace application, they were informed by Respondent's director that Respondent used a 20 year RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability. When the Governor and Cabinet intend to adopt a policy, notice is given to the public prior to consideration of the proposed policy. No such notice was given prior to approving the Seaplace application on May 24, 1988. On February 7, 1990, Respondent issued internal memorandum PM-27-90 as a policy statement to guide staff in assessing the justification for rigid coastal armoring structures. Memorandum PM-27-90 states: . . . Existing policy on the use of rigid coastal protection structures is contained in Subsection 16B-33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. The general policy restricts use of such structures . . . and permits them only if they are fully justified as the only feasible means of protecti[on]. . . . This policy [PM-27-90] provides guidance on the determination of justification for such structures. 2. Threat determination * * * b) The structure proposed to be protected is . . . exposed to direct impacts from hydrodynamic forces associated with high frequency storms and in danger of imminent collapse from such storms. (emphasis supplied) Memorandum PM-27-90 did not prescribe a specific RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability in all coastal armoring applications. It merely required a qualifying structure to be exposed to direct impacts from "a high frequency storm." A high frequency storm can have any return interval up to 25 years. The requirement in PM-27-90 that a qualifying structure be in imminent danger of collapse imposes neither a specific RISE nor an additional requirement for assessing vulnerability. After PM-27-90 was issued, for example, Respondent agreed to recommend approval of the proposed bulkhead if Petitioners demonstrated that their homes are vulnerable to either a 10 or 15 year RISE. When Memorandum PM-27-90 was superseded by the 1990 policy, it lost any general applicability it may have had within the meaning of Section 120.52(16). Since Petitioners' applications are the only applications exempt from the 1990 policy, the applicability of PM-27-90, if any, is not general but is limited to this proceeding. 14/ Respondent required, under the emerging policy in effect prior to the 1990 policy, that qualifying structures be "exposed to direct impacts from . . . high frequency storms." No numeric standard narrowed the scope of a "high frequency storm" to a specific RISE. Nor was a specific RISE identified in final agency action taken on specific applications prior to the adoption of the 1990 policy. While Respondent wishes to deviate from the general requirement for vulnerability that was in effect prior to the 1990 policy by imposing a specific RISE in this proceeding, Respondent failed to explicate a justification for such a deviation. 15/ In cases involving an eroding shoreline, the selection of a specific RISE to assess vulnerability is not intended to determine whether coastal armoring is going to be permitted. Rather, it is intended to determine when such armoring will be permitted and perhaps what form the armoring will take. 16/ The shoreline in the area of the proposed project is an eroding shoreline. Between 1972 and 1992, the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes eroded at an annual rate of 1.7 feet. Respondent conducted shoreline surveys by registered surveyors at Respondent's monuments R-25 through R-30 in Indian River County. Petitioners' homes are located between monuments R-27 and R-28 and are closest to R-27. The field survey data is more reliable than historic shorelines from 1880-1968 depicted on maps submitted by Respondent and Intervenors during the formal hearing. Between 1972 and 1992, the bluff line at R-27 receded 42 feet. There was 50 feet of bluff line recession at R-25, 40 feet at R-26, and 43 feet at R- Between June, 1986, and March, 1992, five to six feet of dune recession occurred at R-27 with no evidence of dune recovery during that period. Since 1972, a significant decrease in the bluff line near Petitioners' homes has been caused by storms. The Thanksgiving Day storm caused 15 feet of bluff line recession. The storm in March, 1989, caused 10 feet of recession. The bluff line at the northern boundary of the Machata home receded 10 feet between 1987 and 1989. The bluff line at the southern boundary of his home receded seven feet during the same period. While the bluff line and mean high water line generally recede at the same rate, the mean high water line at R-27 receded 19.7 feet, or 3.4 feet a year, between 1986 and 1992, and 14.71 feet, or 2.6 feet annually, at R-28. Inlets constructed by government agencies cause 85 percent of the erosion along Florida's southeast coast. The Sebastian Inlet is the principal cause of erosion of the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes. The erosion rate of the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes can be expected to fall below one foot a year only if the Sebastian Inlet Management Plan to transfer sand is fully implemented. No evidence was presented to show when the plan will be implemented, if at all. As the shoreline erodes from the effects of the Sebastian Inlet and natural erosion, Petitioners' homes will eventually be vulnerable to a five year RISE. In the absence of any intervening changes, Petitioners will then satisfy the vulnerability requirement in the 1990 policy. However, Petitioners are expressly exempt from the specific vulnerability requirement in the 1990 policy and should not be required to wait until they comply with that requirement. Petitioners do not have to wait until their homes are vulnerable to a five year RISE if vulnerability is assessed using a 25 year RISE. A 25 year RISE is consistent with the design life of the proposed bulkhead. Rule 16B- 33.007(6)(b) requires that armoring: . . . should be designed for the minimum wave loads which are applicable for the design storm conditions which justify the [armoring]. . . . The design life of the proposed bulkhead is 25 years, but Respondent asserts that Petitioners must show that their homes are vulnerable to a 10 or 15 year RISE to clearly justify the necessity for the proposed bulkhead. Respondent failed to explicate a justification for deviating from Rule 16B- 33.007(6)(b) either by accepting a design life that is inconsistent with Respondent's vulnerability requirement or by assessing vulnerability with a RISE that is less than the 25 year design life of the proposed bulkhead. Absent the requisite justification for Respondent's deviation, Petitioners need only show that their homes are vulnerable to any high frequency storm including a RISE of 25 years. 17/ Vulnerability Clearly Justified By Computer Models Assuming that a specific RISE applies in this proceeding, Respondent asserts that either a 10 or 15 year RISE should apply. Respondent presented conflicting evidence concerning the specific RISE that should be applied to assess the vulnerability of Petitioners' homes. One of Respondent's experts, a professional engineer and administrator within the Division of Beaches and Shore, testified that Respondent's policy requires vulnerability to a 10 year RISE. However, the Division Director testified that Respondent's policy requires vulnerability to a 15 year RISE. The testimony of the Division Director was credible, persuasive, and consistent with Respondent's original recommendation of approval. Respondent, without deviation, determines whether a qualifying structure is vulnerable to a specific RISE through the application of computer models. Computer models analyze certain scientific parameters to mathematically simulate storm surge elevation and erosion for a high frequency storm. 18/ If the computer model shows that the eroded profile of the storm would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes, then their homes are vulnerable to the specific RISE assumed for the storm. Applicable statutes and rules do not prescribe the computer model to be used in assessing the vulnerability of a qualifying structure. Since 1988, Respondent has relied exclusively on the Dean erosion model for such purposes. The Dean erosion model is named for its developer, Dr. Robert Dean at the University of Florida. 19/ The original Dean model supporting Respondent's recommendation that the Governor and Cabinet approve the proposed bulkhead shows that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would reach the foundation of Petitioners' homes. Therefore, each home satisfies the 15 year RISE imposed by Respondent to assess vulnerability in this proceeding. Another computer model commonly used to assess vulnerability to a high frequency storm is the EDUNE erosion model. The EDUNE model utilized by Petitioners' coastal engineer shows that the eroded profile of a 10 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. Therefore, each home satisfies the 10 year RISE imposed by Respondent to assess vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy. 20/ Since less severe storms occur more frequently, Petitioners' homes are necessarily vulnerable to more severe storms that occur less frequently including storms with return intervals of 15 to 25 years. Computer models must be calibrated for high frequency storm events in order to accurately predict the erosion limits of such storms. The results of an erosion model that has not been properly calibrated may not be reliable. The Dean erosion model has not been calibrated for high frequency storm events. Dr. Dean is currently under contract with Respondent to develop the data base necessary to calibrate the Dean erosion model for high frequency storm events in each county in Florida. Dr. Dean has not completed his calibration for all counties in Florida including the site of the proposed bulkhead. Both the EDUNE model utilized by Petitioners' expert and the original Dean model utilized by Respondent were calibrated using erosion data from the Thanksgiving Day storm. However, neither erosion model utilized local calibration factors for the proposed project site. No storm hydrograph for the Thanksgiving Day storm is available for Indian River County and no site specific data is available for the proposed site. In the absence of local calibration data, the accuracy of any erosion model depends on the selection of proper input variables. A change in any input variable can alter the results of the model and affect its accuracy. The principal input variables for the Dean and EDUNE computer models are: the existing beach profile; the scale parameter, or A factor; the storm surge hydrograph; the storm surge run-up; and the erosion factor. Other input variables include wave height and parameters defining the eroded profile above the storm surge elevation. Each input variable is a specific number. Applicable statutes and rules do not prescribe numeric values to be used in calibrating erosion models. Instruction manuals prescribe some, but not all, of the numeric values to be used in the absence of local calibration data. The selection of proper input variables, in the absence of local calibration data, requires the exercise of professional engineering judgment. The reasonableness and competency of the professional judgment used in selecting proper input variables directly affects the accuracy of computer model results. An erosion factor of 1.5 was properly used in the original Dean model which showed that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. The Bureau of Coastal Engineering applies the Dean model exclusively for Respondent to predict erosion from high frequency storms and to assess the level of vulnerability for a qualifying structure. An erosion factor of 1.5 is the erosion factor approved by the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and consistently used in the Dean model. Use of an erosion factor of 1.5 is consistent with reasonable and appropriate professional judgment and Respondent's long standing practice. Due to differences in computer models, an erosion factor of 2.5 was properly used by Petitioners' expert in his EDUNE model to show that the eroded profile of a 10 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. This is the appropriate and reasonable erosion factor to be used for the EDUNE model in the absence of local calibration data. The A factor is another input variable used in erosion modeling. The A factor defines the shape of the shoreline profile. The A factor is determined by numerically fitting the shoreline to the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. A higher A factor produces less erosion in the computer model. If the shoreline steepens beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave and the A factor is determined by fitting the shoreline to a depth beyond the nearshore breaking wave, the A factor will be increased and the erosive force of the projected storm will be decreased. The A factors used in the original Dean model and the EDUNE model were properly determined by fitting the shoreline to the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. Respondent's manual states that an A factor between 0.14 and 0.16 is most reliable. Use of an A factor of 0.15 is consistent with Respondent's manual and reasonable and appropriate professional judgment. The Revised Dean Model Respondent prepared a revised Dean model for the formal hearing. The return frequency approach used in both the original Dean model and EDUNE model measures the predicted force of a storm by emphasizing its storm surge elevation. The volumetric approach used in the revised Dean model measures storm force by emphasizing the erosive force of a storm. Both storm surge elevation and erosive force are threats to Petitioners' homes. However, the storm surge of an actual storm may or may not be proportional to its erosive force. The Thanksgiving Day storm, for example, had a storm surge elevation equal to a high frequency storm with a return interval of 15 years but an erosive force 2.8 times greater than a major storm such as hurricane Eloise in 1975. 21/ If a computer model is calibrated for a greater erosive force, the model can be used to demonstrate that the storm surge elevation of a less severe storm, with a lower RISE, produces an eroded profile that reaches the foundations of Petitioners' homes. Conversely, if a computer model is calibrated for a lesser erosive force, the model can be used to demonstrate that the storm surge elevation of the same storm produces an eroded profile that does not reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. The revised Dean model prepared by Respondent for the formal hearing used an erosion factor of 1.0 to project the eroded profile. It showed that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would not reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. In the absence of site specific data including storm surge elevation and a storm surge hydrograph for the Thanksgiving Day storm, use of an erosion factor of 1.0 was inconsistent with reasonable and appropriate professional judgment, Respondent's long standing practice, and the terms of Respondent's instruction manual. 22/ The A factor of 0.19 used by Respondent in the revised Dean model was neither appropriate nor reasonable. Respondent determined the A factor in its revised Dean model by fitting the shoreline profile to a depth substantially beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. The shoreline steepens beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. As the shoreline steepens, the A factor increases. By determining the A factor on the basis of the steeper profile, Respondent overestimated the value of the A factor and underestimated the erosive force of a 15 year RISE. The revised computer model prepared by Respondent assumed an erosive force that was disproportionate to the actual storm used to calibrate all of the computer models. Both the original Dean and EDUNE models were calibrated with erosion data from the Thanksgiving Day storm. The Thanksgiving Day storm had an erosive force that was disproportionate to its storm surge elevation and 2.8 times greater than a major storm such as hurricane Eloise in 1975. To the extent the volumetric approach in the revised Dean model assessed vulnerability by a standard other than storm surge, Respondent deviated from the storm surge criteria in existing statutes and rules. The CCCL is statutorily intended to define that portion of the beach-dune system subject to a specific storm surge. 23/ Respondent's rules describe design criteria for coastal armoring 24/ and conforming foundations 25/ by reference to storm surge. Respondent's rules also describe design criteria for qualifying structures by reference to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads during a storm surge. 26/ Evidence presented by Respondent to explicate its deviation from storm surge criteria in assessing vulnerability was neither credible nor persuasive and failed to overcome credible and persuasive evidence supporting the results of the original Dean model and EDUNE model. 27/ Respondent's inability to replicate the results of the EDUNE model is not a reasonable and appropriate basis for relying upon the revised Dean model and rejecting both the EDUNE model and the original Dean model. It is not possible to replicate modeling results without knowing each and every input variable used in the model to be replicated. Respondent did not know all of the input variables used by Petitioners' expert in the EDUNE model. In attempting to replicate the results of the EDUNE model, Respondent used input variables not used by Petitioners' expert. Notice Of Vulnerability The 1990 policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet includes a notice of vulnerability caveat. The caveat provides that an applicant who constructs his or her home after notice of the public hearing for the CCCL in the county in which the home is located is presumed to have notice of vulnerability and is disqualified from obtaining a coastal armoring permit. Petitioners' applications are expressly exempt from the 1990 policy. Since Petitioners are not substantially affected by the 1990 policy, within the meaning of Sections 120.535(2) and 120.57(1)(b)15, it is not necessary to determine whether the notice of vulnerability provisions in the 1990 policy are generally applicable within the meaning of Section 120.52(16). The 1990 policy was adopted by the Governor and Cabinet three years after Petitioners began construction of their homes. At the time construction began, Respondent had no rule or policy giving notice to Petitioners that their construction activities may adversely affect their future ability to obtain a coastal armoring permit. Respondent advised Petitioners by separate letters issued on April 13 and 14, 1987, that their homes were exempt from the permitting requirements of the revised CCCL. At the time the CCCL was reestablished on March 4, 1987, Respondent determined on the basis of actual site inspections that Petitioners' homes were under construction within the meaning of former Rule 16B-33.002(56). 28/ The letters from Respondent in April, 1987, notified Petitioners that the foundations of their homes were nonconforming foundations and included a caveat that Respondent's staff would not recommend approval of any applications for coastal armoring to protect Petitioners' homes. The letters did not represent that the Governor and Cabinet would not approve their applications for coastal armoring permits. Petitioners began construction of their homes long before the notice of vulnerability policy was adopted in 1990. By the time Petitioner, Machata, received Respondent's letter in April, 1987, the entire substructure of his home was complete including the placement of 20,000 cubic yards of fill, the pouring of all footers, piles, grade beams, and retaining walls. Some plumbing and structural steel for the slab had been installed. When Petitioner, Lanzendorf, received a letter from Respondent, construction of his home was 80-90 percent complete and over $460,000 had been expended. It was not economically or legally feasible for Petitioners to stop construction of their homes when they received the letters issued by Respondent in April, 1987. Petitioners had already expended substantial sums on construction of their homes, and it is improbable that the lending institutions would have allowed construction to stop. The caveats contained in the letters issued by Respondent in April, 1987, were not timely under the circumstances and should have been issued prior to the beginning of construction rather than after substantial construction occurred. Notwithstanding its caveats, Respondent recommended approval of Petitioners' applications after Petitioners demonstrated that vulnerability to a 15 year RISE, but the Governor and Cabinet denied the application. Direct And Cumulative Impacts On The Beach-Dune System The proposed bulkhead, existing armoring, and proposed similar structures will have no significant adverse direct or cumulative impact on the beach-dune system within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3. The proposed bulkhead, existing armoring, and proposed similar structures will neither degrade the beach-dune system along that segment of the shoreline nor threaten the beach-dune system and its recovery potential within the meaning of Rule 16B- 33.005(7). Construction Construction of the bulkhead will not adversely affect the stability of the dune and will not damage vegetation seaward of the sheet piles. The sheet piles will be placed 10-15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and landward of the vegetation line. All construction will take place landward of the sheet piles. Excavation required to construct the proposed bulkhead is minimal. No excavation is required for placement of the tie rods in front of the Machata home. Only minor excavation is required for the deadman in front of the Machata home. The seaward and landward faces of the deadman will be covered with sand and not exposed except for a portion of the deadman in front of the Lanzendorf home. Due to dune elevation differences at the Lanzendorf home, a portion of the landward face of the deadman will be exposed. After removal of the forms used for the cap, tie rods, and deadman, the area between the sheet pile wall and the deadman will be filled with sand to bring the area up to a finish grade of 17.5 feet N.G.V.D. 29/ Any sand excavated to construct the bulkhead will be kept on site and used to build the grade to finish grade. The area between the sheet pile wall and deadman will be planted with native vegetation following placement of the sand. Impacts to dune vegetation landward of the steel wall will be temporary. Planted vegetation will provide protection to the dune from windblown erosion within one growing season. By the second growing season, planted vegetation will be of sufficient density to eliminate the initial impacts of construction. Before construction begins, Petitioners will place beach compatible sand at a 2:1 slope along the entire frontal dune escarpment within the limits of their property lines. The sand will provide additional stability for the dune during construction of the bulkhead and is consistent with the dune restoration plan required as a condition of the permit. The dune restoration plan requires Petitioners to place sand and vegetation in prescribed areas within 90 days of completion of construction. Dune restoration is a standard condition required by Respondent for the issuance of armoring permits. Natural Fluctuation Of The Beach-Dune System The beach-dune system is a balanced, interrelated system in a constant state of fluctuation. Natural erosion and accretion of sediment takes place as a result of coastal winds, waves, tides, and storms. Features of the beach-dune system are subject to cyclical and dynamic emergence, destruction, and reemergence. 30/ The beach-dune system cyclically accretes and erodes as a result of both storm impacts and seasonal changes. During storm events, elevated water conditions carry storm waves inland. Sediment from upland property is eroded. Storm waves carry the eroded material offshore and form an offshore sand bar. The sand bar protects the upland portion of the beach-dune system by tripping incoming waves, causing them to break offshore, and reducing the wave attack on the shoreline. Recovery of the upland portion of the beach-dune system occurs when a milder wave climate returns after a storm. Material from the sand bar is carried back to the upland property by normal wave activity. After the sand is deposited on shore, it is carried upland by wind, trapped by dune vegetation, and the dune previously eroded by the storm is rebuilt. In addition to storm events, seasonal changes cause fluctuations in the beach-dune system. The shoreline typically accretes during the summer when milder waves occur and erodes during the winter when wave action intensifies. When summer returns, the shoreline again accretes. Active Erosion From Armoring Erosion may be passive or active. Passive erosion occurs when the shoreline migrates landward during the natural fluctuation of erosion and accretion. Passive erosion is not an impact of the proposed bulkhead. The proposed bulkhead excludes sand landward of the bulkhead from the natural fluctuation of the beach-dune system. The proposed bulkhead will prevent the loss of sand landward of the bulkhead during storm events with a return interval of 25 years or less. Sand landward of the proposed bulkhead will be released into the beach-dune system in the event of a storm with a return interval of at least 25 years and sufficient force to destroy the proposed bulkhead. The proposed bulkhead will not cause erosion of the beach-dune system during storms with return intervals of less than 25 years unless the bulkhead is exposed and interacts with wave forces. The proposed bulkhead is located 10-15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and, therefore, will not initially be exposed to wave forces. The current annual rate of shoreline erosion near Petitioners' homes is 1.7 feet. At that rate of erosion, the proposed bulkhead would be exposed to wave action in approximately five to ten years in the absence of any mitigating action by Petitioners. If erosion of the shoreline exposes the proposed bulkhead to wave action, active erosion in the form of "scour" and "downdrift" may occur. Scour Scour would be caused by the interaction of the steel wall with storm tides and waves. 31/ Scour associated with a seawall is greater due to increased wave velocity caused by reflection of the wave energy off the seawall. Scour may occur during a storm event in front of the exposed bulkhead. Sand lost to scour will move immediately offshore in front of the bulkhead, as part of the sand bar, and eventually be returned to the shore during the recovery of the beach-dune system. A portion of the scoured sand will be diverted from the sand bar by longshore currents during the storm and redistributed within the littoral system. Downdrift Downdrift erosion occurs when longshore sediment is not transported from updrift to downdrift properties. When downdrift erosion occurs, downdrift properties are deprived of sand that otherwise would be transported from updrift properties. Downdrift erosion may occur if the shoreline retreats landward of the proposed bulkhead, the bulkhead protrudes onto the active beach, and interacts with waves. If all of those circumstances occur, the proposed bulkhead will trap sand on the updrift side of the bulkhead and deprive downdrift properties of sand to the extent of any sand trapped on the updrift side. Downdrift erosion, if any, caused by the proposed bulkhead will be limited to the dune area of the beach and will not result in a loss of sand to the beach-dune system. The amount of decrease in sand on the downdrift side of the proposed bulkhead will equal the amount of increase in sand to the updrift location. Renourishment There are several million cubic yards of sand in the littoral system in Indian River County. Any sand eroded at the location of the proposed bulkhead will be insignificant in comparison to the total amount of sand in the littoral system. Current natural erosion of the shoreline fronting Petitioners' homes causes a significantly greater volume of sand loss than may be caused in the localized area of the proposed bulkhead. Government devices in the region, including the Sebastian Inlet, cause significantly greater erosion to the shoreline in Indian River County than any erosion which may occur from the proposed bulkhead. Petitioners will place sand on the beach to offset or mitigate the sand retention features of the proposed bulkhead. Sand placement will be sufficient to offset any adverse impacts from scour erosion and downdrift erosion. Sand placement is common in Indian River County after storm events. Petitioners will conduct yearly shoreline profile surveys and maintain the shoreline profile in front of the proposed bulkhead through annual sand placement. Sand placement effectively mitigates any direct and cumulative adverse impacts from the proposed bulkhead. The beach profile adjacent to Petitioners' homes showed some recovery of the shoreline in the two year period around 1990. That recovery would not have been prevented by the proposed bulkhead. Proposed Similar Structures Proposed similar structures, within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3 and Rule 16B-33.005(7), include similar armoring under construction, pending applications for similar armoring, and similar structures that may reasonably be expected in the future. No additional armoring is under construction "along that segment of the shoreline." 32/ No pending applications are exempt from the 1990 policy, under review, approved, or vested along that segment of the shoreline. The 1990 policy prohibits all armoring within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and requires qualifying structures outside the Refuge to be vulnerable to a five year return interval storm event. Accordingly, no similar projects may reasonably be expected in the future. Respondent prepared a cumulative impact analysis for the proposed bulkhead in support of its recommendation for approval of the permit. That original cumulative impact analysis concludes that there is no potential for increased armoring within one mile north or south of the proposed project site. Respondent's original cumulative impact analysis is credible and persuasive. Revised Cumulative Impact Analysis Respondent prepared a revised cumulative impact analysis for the formal hearing. Respondent attempted to define proposed similar structures to include, not only similar armoring under construction and pending applications for similar armoring, but also future armoring that may occur if approval of Petitioners' application creates a precedent for armoring similarly situated properties. Respondent assessed the cumulative impact on the beach-dune system from such potential future armoring and attributed the potential impact entirely to the proposed bulkhead. In addition, Respondent expanded the definition of "that segment of the shoreline" in Rule 16B- 33.005(7) from a two mile segment of shoreline in its original analysis to an 18 mile segment in its revised analysis. 33/ Respondent evaluated a five region area beginning from a point south of Vero Beach in Indian River County and running north to a point south of Melbourne in Brevard County. Region 1 contains the proposed project site and is slightly south of midway in the area evaluated. 34/ Region 2 is immediately south of Region 1. Region 3 is immediately south of Region 2. Region 4 is immediately north of Region 1, and Region 5 is north of Region 4. The area evaluated excludes a portion of state-owned shoreline between Regions 4 and 5, including the Sebastian Inlet State Park. 35/ The shoreline within the boundaries of the five regions is 21.5 miles or 113,520 feet. Excluding the state-owned shoreline between Regions 4 and 5, the shoreline evaluated within the five region area totals 92,000 feet or 18 miles. The length of the proposed bulkhead is 303 feet. Respondent determined that there are 87 major habitable structures similarly situated to Petitioners' homes and that 9.8 percent of the shoreline in the area evaluated will be armored. Respondent determined that approval of Petitioners' application would increase armoring by: 280 feet in Region 1; 3,260 feet in Region 2; 4,145 feet in Region 3; 850 feet in Region 4; and 2,510 feet in Region 5. Respondent's cumulative impact analysis is not a valid application of the cumulative impact doctrine. The cumulative impact doctrine requires Respondent to consider the ". . . cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future." 36/ (emphasis supplied) Assuming arguendo that all 87 structures are "similarly situated" with Petitioners' property, armoring of all 87 structures can not reasonably be expected in the future. Respondent did not apply the 1990 policy in its cumulative impact assessment for the proposed project. Regions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. The 1990 policy prohibits all coastal armoring within the Refuge. If the Governor and Cabinet require compliance with the 1990 policy, the proposed project will not create a precedent for armoring within Regions 1, 2, 4, and 5. Any armoring that occurs will be a result of non-adherence to the 1990 policy rather than an impact of the proposed project. Respondent did not apply the 1990 policy to qualifying structures outside the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in Region 3. There are no armoring applications pending for any of the 87 structures identified by Respondent in its cumulative impact assessment, and no applications for any of those structures were complete on or before August 14, 1990. Unlike the proposed project, none of the 87 structures identified by Respondent are exempt from the 1990 policy. More than half of the 87 structures would not be vulnerable to a five year RISE under the 1990 policy. The terms of the permit for the proposed project provide that the permit does not create a precedent for armoring similarly situated structures. Permits issued by Respondent for new structures seaward of the CCCL include a caveat that a particular permit may not be considered as precedent for future applications by similarly threatened structures. Even if Respondent's determination is accepted on its face, a 9.8 percent increase in coastal armoring will not create a significant adverse impact on the beach-dune system. Moreover, several considerations suggest that Respondent's cumulative impact analysis is exaggerated. Respondent has promulgated no criteria in any rule to establish the length of shoreline or the number or size of the regions that must be included in any cumulative impact analysis. Rule 16B-33.005(7) requires that the cumulative impact of the proposed bulkhead must be assessed "along that segment of the shoreline." The prescribed segment of shoreline was expanded from 2 miles, in Respondent's original cumulative impact analysis, to 18 miles in Respondent's revised cumulative impact analysis. 37/ During the formal hearing, Respondent suggested several alternatives for determining the segment of shoreline that should be evaluated in assessing the adverse cumulative impact of the proposed project. Alternatives included: the same general area of the applicants' property; the local area; the entire east coast; the limits of the undeveloped portion of the shoreline on either side of the proposed structure; Vero Beach to the south; two miles on either side of the proposed bulkhead; the coastal cell; the area between two major areas of armoring; areas with similar processes; anywhere on the coast; a two mile segment of shoreline; the area in close proximity; and more areas other than the regions actually used by Respondent in its cumulative impact analysis. In the revised cumulative impact analysis, Respondent included the entire width of the shoreline within the property boundary for each of the structures. Respondent does not allow armoring to extend the entire shoreline of the property on which the armoring device is located. The 87 structures identified by Respondent are not similarly situated to Petitioners' homes. Respondent defined similarly situated structures as those located at a distance from the vegetation line that is similar to the distance between Petitioners' homes and the bluff line. Such a definition fails to take into account actual site conditions for a particular structure. Respondent relied solely on aerial photographs of the five region area to determine the distance between the vegetation line and each of the 87 structures. Aerial photographs provide only an approximation of the distance between the structure and the vegetation line. Respondent did not physically verify distances under actual site conditions ("ground truth"). If Respondent had ground truthed its cumulative impact analysis, site specific variations in the beach-dune system would significantly reduce potential armoring projected by Respondent. By not ground truthing actual site conditions for the 87 structures, Respondent failed to identify those structures that are not vulnerable to a five year return interval storm event due to enhanced dune viability. Respondent could not consider whether the beach-dune system at a particular site provided a structure with more protection due to: greater dune height; the condition of the shoreline; and the viability of the beach-dune system. If the foregoing considerations are taken into account, only 860 feet of shoreline in the five region area, or 0.8 percent, is subject to potential armoring. The impact on the beach-dune system of armoring 0.8 percent of the coastline in the five region area is inconsequential and will not have a significant adverse cumulative impact. It is unlikely that coastal armoring structures will be placed on publicly owned land. The State of Florida owns approximately 11,400 feet, or 22 percent, of the shoreline in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is within the State of Florida Archie Carr Conservation and Recreational Lands ("CARL") Project. The Refuge is ranked 7th on the 1992 CARL priority list. The priority ranking assigned to the Refuge means that Respondent has sufficient funds to acquire properties within the CARL project. Respondent has $10 million a year for the acquisition of land within the Archie Carr CARL project. Respondent could purchase the entire 9.5 miles of coastline in six years. Respondent has already purchased four parcels within the Archie Carr CARL Project totalling 29.88 acres. Respondent is actively negotiating with property owners and continuing to purchase land within the Archie Carr CARL Project. On October 22, 1991, the Governor and Cabinet authorized the purchase of 7.28 acres of land within the Archie Carr CARL Project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is also acquiring property in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Congress appropriated $2 million in 1991 and $1.5 million in 1992 for the acquisition of such property. At the formal hearing, Respondent claimed that it would have to be 100 percent certain that no additional permits for armoring would be issued as a result of the proposed bulkhead in order for there to be no cumulative impact. As a practical matter, such a standard has the effect of a complete ban on all armoring and is clearly more restrictive than the 1990 policy from which the proposed bulkhead is exempt. Applicable statutes and rules do not authorize such a ban. Such a ban contravenes, not only existing statutes and rules, but also the express exemption granted by the Governor and Cabinet. Direct And Cumulative Impacts On Marine Turtles Florida has the second highest incidence of marine turtle nesting in the world. Loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles currently nest on Florida beaches. Green turtles are endangered species while leatherbacks and loggerheads are threatened species. Respondent conducts yearly surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches and compiles the information in nesting summary reports. Nesting densities for each species are generally expressed as nests laid per kilometer of shoreline. Actual leatherback nests surveyed from Canaveral to Key Biscayne totaled 114 in 1991. One was located in the Canaveral National Seashore area. Another 44 and 32 were located on Hutchinson Island and Jupiter Island, respectively. Three nests were located in Boca Raton. Four nests were located in Broward County. Thirty nests were located in the Juno/Jupiter area. 38/ It is improbable that leatherback turtles will nest on the beach-dune system in front of Petitioners' homes. No leatherback turtles have ever been found on the beach in front of Petitioners' homes. Nesting densities for leatherback turtles are greater in St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties than leatherback nesting densities in Indian River County. The Wabasso Beach survey area covers eight kilometers and includes the proposed project site. 39/ Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for leatherback turtles. Nesting densities for leatherback turtles in Wabasso Beach are very low. Only one leatherback nested along the eight kilometers in Wabasso Beach in 1989, resulting in a nesting density of 0.125. There were no nests in 1990. The nesting density in 1991 was 0.62. The number of leatherback turtles that may be found in front of Petitioners' homes, expressed as a percentage of 1991 nesting density for Wabasso Beach, is 0.006. Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for green turtles. In 1990, 2,055 green turtle nests were laid on the beaches from Canaveral to Key Biscayne. Wabasso Beach ranked fourth in nesting quality behind Jupiter Island, Brevard County, and Juno Beach. The likelihood of a green turtle nesting in front of Petitioners' homes is low to very low. Green turtle nesting densities for Wabasso Beach from 1989-1991 were as follows: 14 nests or 1.75 nests per kilometer in 1989; 55 nests or 6.9 nests per kilometer for 1990; and 7 nests or 0.87 nests per kilometer in 1991. Expressed as a percentage of nesting density for Wabasso Beach, the number of a green turtle nests to be found in front of Petitioners' homes was 0.0175 in 1989, 0.069 in 1990, and 0.0087 in 1991. 40/ Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for loggerhead turtles. In 1990, 55,935 loggerhead nests were laid on the beaches from Canaveral to Key Biscayne. Wabasso Beach ranked fourth in nesting density behind Jupiter Island, Juno Beach, and south Brevard County. The nesting density for loggerhead turtles in Jupiter Island and south Brevard County, respectively, was five and two times greater than the nesting density in Wabasso Beach. Loggerhead nesting densities for Wabasso Beach from 1989-1991 were as follows: 1,256 nests or 157 nests per kilometer in 1989; 1,155 nests or 144.4 nests per kilometer for 1990; and 1,758 nests or 219.7 nests per kilometer in 1991. Even though Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for loggerheads, it is likely that loggerhead turtles will nest on the beach-dune system in front of Petitioners' homes. Eleven loggerhead nests were laid on the beach in front of Petitioners' homes in 1990. On average, 13.2 loggerhead nests are laid in front of Petitioners' homes each season. Even if all of the green turtle and loggerhead nests laid in front of Petitioners' homes are destroyed as a result of the proposed project, that unlikely loss would not have a significant adverse impact on the total population of green and loggerhead turtles. Based on the number of nests and the number of times a female nests each season, there are 750 to 1,000 female green turtles and 20,000 to 25,000 female loggerhead turtles in the area between Canaveral and Key Biscayne. The loss of anywhere from 0.0087 to 0.069 green turtle nests and the loss of 13.2 loggerhead turtle nests would be insignificant compared to the overall turtle population for each species. The number of loggerhead nests destroyed in front of Petitioners' home, for example, would be 0.00009 percent of the total nests laid in Florida. Nesting data indicates an upward trend for both green turtles and loggerheads. The proposed bulkhead will not have an adverse impact on the upward trend for either species. Marine turtles do not nest landward of the dune bluff- line or vegetation line. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the dune bluff line and landward of the vegetation line. Construction activities will not take place in the area of the beach where turtles nest and will not occur during the nesting season. Construction activities will not adversely affect the dune, will not cause damage to the dune, and will not destabilize the dune. False Crawls Adverse impacts on marine turtles from the proposed bulkhead, if any, will not occur unless erosion of the dune is so extensive that the proposed bulkhead is exposed. Even an exposed bulkhead will not have an adverse impact on marine turtles if a dry sandy area in the mid to high beach seaward of the bulkhead is available for nesting. If a nesting turtle encounters an exposed bulkhead, she probably will not nest at that site. She will likely return to the ocean, move up or down the beach, find a more suitable nesting area, and make her nest. This process is referred to as a false crawl. A turtle that false crawls at the site of the proposed bulkhead will not have far to go to nest at an unarmored site. The proposed bulkhead is only 303 feet long. The 1990 policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet prohibits all armoring in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Marine turtles frequently false crawl for reasons that are not completely understood. False crawls that occur when the bulkhead is exposed, if any, may not be attributable to the exposed bulkhead. A false crawl is not an abnormal event for marine turtles and is not necessarily harmful to them. Loggerheads may false crawl 50 percent of the time. In Wabasso Beach in 1990, there were 1,114 false crawls associated with 1,155 nests laid. Even on undisturbed beaches, the percentage of false crawls is as high as 50 percent. Marine turtles can successfully nest on the beach in front of the proposed bulkhead. Turtles have a long history of nesting in front of armoring structures in the Town of Jupiter Beach. Since March, 1989, turtle nests have been laid in front of the partial rock revetment at the toe of the dune escarpment along the shoreline fronting the Machata home. There is no evidence that these nests have not been successful. The percentage of false crawls in front of Petitioners' homes has been similar to false crawls on the rest of Wabasso Beach. Marine turtles sometimes emerge at low tide and nest below that portion of the beach inundated by high tide. Such nests are destroyed by the ensuing high tide. Waves and storm action commonly destroy turtle nests even on undeveloped and unarmored beaches. Racoon predation is a significant cause of turtle hatchling and egg mortality. Predation poses a considerably greater threat to eggs and hatchlings than does the proposed bulkhead. Exposed roots at the dune escarpment in front of Petitioners' homes may cause false crawls in the absence of the proposed bulkhead. Natal Beach Marine turtles return to their natal beach to nest. The proposed bulkhead will not adversely affect the ability of marine turtles to return to their natal beach. Female turtles return to a geographic area to nest. They do not return to the specific beach where they are hatched. Female turtles may nest on widely disparate beaches. One loggerhead that nested in the Carolinas also nested in Melbourne Beach. No tagged hatchling has ever returned to the specific beach where it was hatched. There is no agreement among experts on a precise length of beach that comprises a natal beach. However, the length of the proposed bulkhead is considerably smaller than the beach area encompassed by any definition of a natal beach. A turtle that returns to its natal beach and encounters an exposed bulkhead in front of Petitioners' homes can nest in another portion of its natal beach with no adverse impact from the bulkhead. Nest Relocation Marine turtles can be protected from adverse impacts of the proposed bulkhead through nest relocation. Nest relocation has a high success rate. Relocated nests attain hatchling success similar to that enjoyed by natural nests. In some cases, the hatchling success of relocated nests is greater than that of natural nests. Respondent routinely permits the relocation of large numbers of turtle nests. Thousands of nests have been relocated for threatened inundation, beach renourishment projects, beach cleaning, in heavy use areas, where lighting is a threat, and for research activities. In 1988, Respondent authorized the relocation of 199 loggerhead turtle nests in Brevard County for use in hatchling disorientation studies. More recently, Respondent allowed the Rosenstiel School at the University of Miami to relocate 10 nests to study the affect of sand on hatch success of loggerhead turtles. In 1990, Respondent issued permits allowing the relocation of 857 loggerhead turtle nests, containing 94,322 eggs, that were laid on portions of the beach in the City of Boca Raton, Jupiter Beach, Volusia County, Manalipan, and Daytona Beach. While Respondent has issued permits authorizing governmental agencies to relocate many thousands of turtle nests, Respondent maintains that it does not issue permits authorizing private parties to relocate turtle nests. However, Respondent's Division of Marine Resources has approved nest relocation as part of a sea turtle protection plan in the coastal armoring permit for Suntide Condominium. Petitioners have provided reasonable assurances that nesting turtles and their hatchlings will be protected. Petitioners have agreed to a number of permit conditions including the following: implementation of a sea turtle protection plan; implementation of a dune restoration plan within 90 days of the date the proposed bulkhead is completed; removal of the bulkhead once the bluff line recedes to the landward limit of either return wall; locating the bulkhead as far landward as practicable; placement of sand at a 2:1 slope along the entire dune escarpment adjacent to the bulkhead to enhance the stability of the dune; and yearly restoration of the beach profile fronting the bulkhead if surveys indicate that the profile has eroded. Relocation of turtle nests as an element of the sea turtle protection plan and the absence of any significant adverse direct or cumulative impacts provide reasonable assurances that nesting turtles, their hatchlings, and their habitat will be protected within the meaning of Sections 161.053(5)(c) and 370.12, and that the proposed project will not result in a "take" within the meaning of Section 370.12(1)(c)1. Other Considerations: Imminent Collapse; Public Access; And Local Requirements Petitioners' homes are not within the zone of imminent collapse within the meaning of Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") rules. The state is not qualified to issue certificates of imminent collapse under Section 1306(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended. Special permit conditions recommended by Respondent assure public access in the event erosion of the beach results in little or no dry sandy beach for access between the water and the proposed bulkhead. Petitioners are required to provide written evidence that a restrictive notice has been provided in the deeds and covenants and restrictions and recorded with the Clerk of the Court for Martin County. The restrictive notice must provide for a perpetual public access easement across the entire shore parallel width Petitioners' property. The easement must provide appropriate means of access and egress and allow passage along the shoreline. Clearly designated signs advising the public of the easement must be appropriately placed on Petitioners' property. Respondent typically requires applicants to grant public access easements when Respondent issues an armoring permit that may interfere with public beach access. The existing rock revetment in front of Petitioners' homes satisfies local requirements regarding setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Respondent may condition its approval of the proposed bulkhead upon receipt of written evidence that the proposed bulkhead will not contravene local requirements. Respondent has done so in connection with an earlier application by CTP Realty, Inc. (a/k/a Pishock) for a coastal armoring permit in the same region as the proposed project. Only Feasible Alternative Once Petitioners have clearly justified the necessity for the proposed bulkhead and shown that the direct and cumulative impacts clearly justify the proposed bulkhead, Petitioners' must demonstrate that the proposed bulkhead is the only feasible alternative. Alternatives asserted by Respondent in this proceeding include: "do nothing"; sand placement; and home relocation. Do Nothing And Sand Placement Respondent asserts that Petitioners should do nothing and rely on the existing dune for protection against high frequency storms. The "do nothing" alternative is not technically feasible. The existing dune does not provide the necessary protection for Petitioners' homes. The receding bluff line, eroding shoreline, and threat from high frequency storms expose Petitioners' homes to a high level of risk. Respondent also asserts that Petitioners should restore the existing beach profile through sand placement. Sand placement that provides a level of protection equivalent to the proposed bulkhead is not economically feasible. Sand placement at that level would require the placement of sand at a rate of 1.7 to 2.0 cubic feet per foot of shoreline for one half mile on either side of Petitioners' homes and in front of the proposed bulkhead. Due to the eroding nature of the shoreline, sand placement would need to occur more than once a year and would be economically prohibitive. Relocation: Technical Feasibility It is not technically feasible to relocate the Machata home. The structural design of the Machata home is unique. It has a 35 foot clear story from the finish floor up to a major ridge beam that supports the entire roof structure. The ridge beam bears on a bearing wall at its south end and the vertical standing fireplace at its north end. The fireplace in the Machata home is a two story, 38 foot high structure. It is the main support for the entire roof system of the home. The fireplace is constructed with concrete masonry and stone veneer and weighs 250,000 pounds. The fireplace rests on a slab foundation and is supported by six to eight 25 foot long piles. The piles are an integral structural element of the fireplace. Girder trusses on the second floor are connected to both sides of the fireplace. The trusses accept the loading of the second floor framing. The fireplace in the Machata home is cantilevered at the second floor. A cantilever beam off the fireplace supports the second story of the fireplace. The cantilevered nature of the fireplace means the fireplace is top heavy, out of balance, and out of symmetry. In order to relocate the Machata home, it would be necessary to sever the piles from the fireplace support structure. The piles that must be severed bear the loading associated with the cantilevered nature of the fireplace. Severing those piles may cause the fireplace to collapse. If the fireplace collapses, the ridge beam will collapse, and a large portion of the home will be destroyed. There is a wide variation in structural loading in the Machata home. Structural loading exceeds a quarter million pounds at the center of the home. Perimeter wall loads are 3,000 pounds per square foot. Interior wall loads are 1,500 pounds per square foot. Variations in structural loading prevent the home from being moved without tilting. If the Machata home is tilted during relocation, the fireplace will tilt or move off center. Due to the cantilevered and top heavy nature of the fireplace, the center of gravity will shift from the center of the fireplace to a point outside the fireplace. A shift in the center of gravity will create bending stress on the fireplace. The fireplace is not reinforced and not designed to withstand bending forces. The fireplace may crack and break under bending forces and fail. If the fireplace fails, the ridge beam will collapse and a large portion of the home will be destroyed. Relocation of the Machata home will alter the location of the property securing the interest of the mortgagee. Under the terms of his mortgage, Mr. Machata can not damage or substantially change his property. Relocation: Economic Feasibility Relocation of Petitioners' homes is not economically feasible. The direct cost of relocating the Machata home and garage is $315,000. The direct cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $75,000. Direct costs of relocation do not include the cost of restoration after the move. Relocation costs include the reasonable cost of restoring Petitioners' homes to the condition they were in prior to relocation. Respondent failed to explicate a justification for not including such costs in its proposed alternative. Such costs include: rebuilding the swimming pools, patios, retaining walls, driveways, walkways, planters, terraces, and equipment enclosure walls; disconnecting, reconnecting, and refurbishing electrical, air conditioning, plumbing and septic systems; landscaping and repairing or replacing the irrigation systems; repairing or relocating fences; earthwork such as clearing and filling; constructing new foundations; and exterior and interior refinishing and reconditioning. The cost of restoring Petitioners' homes after relocation is: MACHATA LANZENDORF a. Exterior demolition 45,878 11,923 b. Interior demolition 12,375 0 c. Earthwork 88,727 46,033 d. Concrete for retaining walls, planters, equipment enclosure walls, footings, terrace and steps 84,909 5,600 e. Pilings 37,500 15,700 f. Rebuild interior fireplace 52,000 0 g. Exterior refinishing 74,770 10,800 h. House reconditioning 32,700 13,500 i. Pool area 23,500 26,500 j. Deck drain, flashing, water proofing 3,000 1,000 k. Electrical 12,665 8,400 l. Plumbing 12,500 8,500 m. Air conditioning systems 11,000 1,250 n. Site grading, irrigation, landscaping 33,192 14,000 o. Driveway 23,256 8,165 p. Temporary shoring and structural support 7,500 0 q. Consulting fees 12,500 3,500 SUBTOTAL 567,972 174,871 r. Contingencies, wastes, and unknowns 42,597 13,155 s. Overhead and profit 128,217 39,477 TOTAL 738,786 227,503 The cost estimates for restoration are reasonable and customary based on what a general contractor would typically submit on such a project. The cost of restoring the Lanzendorf home after relocation is $227,503. When this cost is added to the direct cost of relocation ($75,000), the total cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $302,503. The cost of restoring the Machata home after relocation is $738,786. When this cost is added to the direct cost of relocation ($315,000), the total cost of relocating the Machata home is $1,053,786. The patios and terraces at the Machata home are not moveable. The costs of relocating the Machata home, therefore, can not be reduced by moving the terraces rather than demolishing and rebuilding them. Estimated exterior demolition costs of $45,878 include the cost of demolishing the terraces, planter walls, pool steps, segments of the driveway and driveway access that would have to be removed to pour concrete runways on which the home would be rolled to its new location. The cost includes trucking and disposal of the demolition material. The pool at the Machata home can not be moved. It is a reinforced mesh, pencil rod structure, sprayed with gunite. The work reasonably necessary to relocate the Machata home and restore it to its condition prior to relocation would require the pool to be demolished and rebuilt. The estimated cost of $37,500 for constructing a new pile foundation for the Machata home includes pilings, steel reinforcing cages, transition caps, and grade beams. The cost of constructing a new foundation would be greater if Respondent requires the new foundation to comply with the requirements of the relocated CCCL. Estimated earthwork costs of $88,727 for the Machata home include: clearing the site; filling the site to elevate the relocated home to flood elevations required by local government and current elevation; and compacting the fill material. It would also be necessary to grade the site, redo the irrigation system, landscape the site and plant sod, and replace fences to restore the site to its condition prior to the relocation. The air conditioning system at the Machata home is a heat exchange system that utilizes two wells. One well is an artisan well. The other is a shallow well. There are numerous connections between the air conditioning equipment and the two wells. The two wells would have to be relocated and reconnected to the air conditioning system. The underground electrical service to the Machata home would have to be disconnected, relocated, and reconnected. Estimated costs of $12,655 include the disconnection and reconnection of all electrical equipment as well as replacement of numerous pool lights at the new location. The Machata home can not be relocated with the fireplace intact. To assure against the structural collapse of the Machata home during relocation, the home must be properly shored. The fireplace must be disassembled and reassembled after the home is relocated. The cost of demolishing and removing the fireplace, temporarily shoring the home, and rebuilding the fireplace, including masonry reinforcement, internal duct work, structural ties, and Kentucky stone facing, is $71,875. Competing Cost Estimates The estimated relocation costs submitted by Intervenors' expert witness were neither credible nor persuasive. The cost estimates were based on visual observation of Petitioners' homes from an adjacent lot. The witness did not enter Petitioners' property to determine the size or quality of various appurtenances including swimming pools, driveways, tile terraces, retaining walls, and landscaping. The witness did not review structural plans for the Machata home. He was not familiar with structural characteristics of the Machata home and did not know the type of air conditioning used. Relocation costs are based on the estimated weight of each house. Estimating the weight of a structure that exceeds 300,000 pounds is integral to a determination of the cost of relocating that structure. The Machata house weighs 1,200 tons. Intervenors' cost estimates for moving the Machata home are based on a projected weight of 300 to 350 tons. When a structure's weight exceeds 150 tons, an accurate weight projection is integral to an accurate determination of relocation costs. The cost estimates submitted by Intervenors are not formal bids. The cost estimates submitted by Petitioners were prepared as formal bids by an expert in marine construction engineering. The formal bids were based on engineering drawings of the bulkhead. Costs set forth in formal bids are more likely to reflect actual costs than costs set forth in a cost estimate prepared for the formal hearing. The cost estimates submitted by Intervenors unnecessarily exaggerate the cost of the proposed bulkhead. For example, the $5,000 estimate for clearing is unnecessary because no clearing will be conducted. The mobilization/demobilization cost of $10,000 in Intervenors' estimate would actually be $2,500. The $12,000 allotted for site restoration is high and could be completed for $3,000 to $4,000. The $10,000 added for the deadman with tie rods is already included in the square foot cost submitted by Petitioners. Considering these and other examples, the total cost estimates submitted by Intervenors are exaggerated by $100,000. The 2:1 Requirement For Economic Feasibility Respondent applies a 2:1 requirement to assess the economic feasibility of alternatives to coastal armoring. If the cost of relocation of the upland structure or dune enhancement does not exceed the cost of the proposed armoring by 2:1, then relocation or enhancement is considered to be economically feasible. Respondent requires compliance with the 2:1 requirement in all applications for coastal armoring, and the requirement has the direct and consistent effect of law. The 2:1 requirement is an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes policy, or imposes a requirement not included in existing statutes or rules and which has not been adopted in accordance with statutory rulemaking requirements (an "unwritten rule"). 41/ Respondent failed to explicate the reasonableness of selecting the 2:1 requirement over other means of assessing economic feasibility. Even if Respondent had justified its policy during the formal hearing, the cost of relocating Petitioners' homes is more than twice the cost of the proposed bulkhead and, therefore, is not economically feasible. The cost of constructing the proposed bulkhead is $136,000 including all labor, materials, and necessary equipment for the bulkhead and return walls. Of the total cost, $51,000 is attributable to the portion of the bulkhead related to the Lanzendorf home and $85,000 is attributable to the portion of the bulkhead related to the Machata home. The total cost of relocating the Machata home is $1,053,777. The total cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $302,464. Agency Requirements Satisfied Petitioners clearly justified the necessity for the proposed bulkhead in accordance with Rule 16B-33.005(1). Their homes are vulnerable to high frequency storms with return intervals as frequent as 10 to 15 years. Computer model results demonstrate that Petitioners' homes are vulnerable to high frequency storm events with return intervals as frequent as 10 to 15 years. The input variables used in the original and EDUNE computer models were reasonably related to Respondent's existing rules, the terms of Respondent's instruction manual, Respondent's long standing practice in all coastal armoring permits since 1988, and reasonable professional judgment. The direct or cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system and marine turtles clearly justify the proposed bulkhead within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3. The proposed bulkhead is adequately designed and will be properly constructed within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(3) and 16B-33.008. The proposed bulkhead is the only feasible alternative and will be located as far landward as possible within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(3)(c).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit subject to conditions stated by Respondent on the record and imposed by the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1994.
The Issue Whether Highgate Park Homeowners' Association (HOA) discriminated against Javier Arrillaga (Petitioner) based on his disability when it denied his application to install permanent accordion hurricane shutters; and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a house in Polk County at 629 Kensington Drive, Davenport, Florida (Property). He resides at the Property with his wife, nephew, and mother. Respondent is a non-profit association operating for the benefit of the Highgate Park community and its members. There are 243 homes in the community (including the Property) and all the homeowners are members of the HOA. The HOA is managed by Richard Drake, a community association manager employed by Century Management. It is governed by a board of directors made up of three people: Scott Cooper, Kerri Hill, and Wesley Shaffer. The board members also serve as members of the HOA's Architectural Control Committee (ACC). Each homeowner in Highgate Park is provided a copy of the HOA's Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Covenants). The Covenants are also available on the HOA 's website. 5 The Property is part of the HOA and subject to the HOA's rules and regulations regarding the appearance of the Property. The ACC is responsible for enforcing some of the Covenants involving modifications or changes to the outside of homes in the community. This includes regulations relating to placement of garbage cans and trampolines, changes in landscaping, and the building of play structures such as basketball hoops and tree houses. The Covenants specifically address the topic of storm and hurricane shutters: (11) Unless installed by the Developer, no awning, canopies or shutters (including hurricane or storm shutters), or other decorative trim, shall be attached or affixed to the exterior of a building without the prior written approval of the ACC. No foil, window tinting materials or shielding materials or devices shall be placed upon any windows or sliding glass doors that are part of a Home, without the prior written approval of the ACC. According to the HOA's board president, "[n]one of the houses have shutters." REQUEST - JULY 12, 2020 On July 12, 2020, Petitioner submitted an "ACC General Application" form (Application) which stated, "Installation of accordion hurricane shutters in all window and doors of my house. Attached are pictures of how the accordion hurricane shutters look like." In the July 12 Application, Petitioner did not mention a disability or that the permanent accordion hurricane shutters (accordion shutters) were required as an accommodation. The accordion shutters Petitioner sought to install were estimated to cost $5,620.00. At the time of the July 12 Application, the HOA did not know that the request to install the accordion shutters was an accommodation for his disability. In response to the July 12 Application, on July 14, 2020, Mr. Drake emailed Petitioner denying his request: The attached ACC Application for Hurricane shutters is not acceptable because the ACC will only accept either: 1.) Removable hurricane panels that can only be installed during a tropical storm/hurricane watch/warning & removed & stored after the tropical storm/hurricane. 2.) Installation of permanent hurricane window and door glass. The email further asks that Petitioner resubmit another Application for one of the two options above so it can be reviewed at the next ACC meeting on July 16, 2020. Although Petitioner claimed he would not be able to hire someone to place and remove hurricane panels during an approaching storm, he offered no evidence that he researched this possibility or obtained estimates for the price of assistance for this service. He also offered no evidence regarding the costs of the removable hurricane panels. Petitioner did not resubmit an Application. Instead, on July 15, 2020, Petitioner emailed the HOA stating the reason he requested the accordion shutters was due to a disability, and that he could not put up and take down the removable panels on his home if there was a storm. He did not address the possibility of installing hurricane proof glass windows and doors. Later, Mr. Drake told Petitioner that installing the hurricane proof windows and door glass would be the best option that the ACC would approve. Petitioner responded, "So now you are breaking disability laws by denying reasonable accommodation. I will be contacting the ADA about this and taking action against the HOA if [I] need to." No further action was taken by the HOA on Petitioner's July 12 Application. Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on August 5, 2020. REQUEST - FEBRUARY 2, 2021 On February 2, 2021, Petitioner filed another Application. This Application was for permission to replace the windows on Petitioner's home. In its letter approving the February 2 Application for the installation of new windows on Petitioner's home, the HOA reminded Petitioner: [T]he installation of the permanent accordion style shutters will not be approved by Highgate Park even after you replace the windows and doors with non-hurricane impact glass for the reasons previously stated and that the option for you to install permanent hurricane windows and door glass remains a viable alternative as it both complies with the HOA Restrictions and accommodates your disability claim. Petitioner did not purchase the hurricane proof windows and doors, but opted to install the non-impact resistant windows and doors. The installation of the new windows and doors cost $8,635.1 1 Petitioner claimed and argued in his PRO that the windows were financed through his mother. The undersigned finds it is irrelevant who paid for the windows. Hurricane proof windows would have cost him $7,150 more, or a total of $15,785. In comparison, it would cost Petitioner a total of $14,255 had he installed the accordion shutters ($5,620) with the non-hurricane impact windows and doors ($8,635) that he had installed. The cost difference between the option of installing the accordion shutters compared to installing the hurricane proof glass and doors was $1,530. There was no evidence at the hearing on how much the removable hurricane panels would have cost. REQUEST - March 26, 2021 After receiving the "No Cause" Determination, but before filing his Petition for Relief, on March 26, 2021, Petitioner filed another Application with the ACC, again requesting permission to install the accordion shutters: Per [FCHR], resubmitting ACC for hurricane accordion style shutters. Disability information is attached for reasonable accommodation request. On April 23, 2021, the ACC denied Petitioner's March 26 Application. Specifically, it found that the accordion shutters did not comply with community-wide standards and would violate the Covenants. The HOA again suggested that the option of installing hurricane proof glass and doors was a reasonable viable alternative to the accordion shutters. Although Petitioner argued in his PRO that the accordion shutters were the only option that would not cause him a financial hardship, he provided no evidence as to his income or why the alternatives suggested by the HOA were cost prohibitive. PETITIONER'S DISABILITY Petitioner testified as to his medical condition and physical limitations. These limitations were consistent with the medical documents attached to the March 26 Application: (1) a letter from the U.S. Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, dated October 22, 2007, indicating Petitioner was deemed "disabled" due to hip dysplasia and degenerative arthritis, and was entitled to benefits; (2) a medical note dated January 29, 2020, listing a number of medical conditions which limit Petitioner's mobility and cause him pain; (3) an FCHR form executed by Petitioner's treating medical provider dated September 23, 2020, indicating Petitioner suffered from physical impairments that limit his ability to breath, hear, perform manual tasks, see, and walk; and (4) an examination report dated December 23, 2019, recommending Petitioner would benefit from a scooter for ease of movement outside the home. In the FCHR form, the medical provider specifically states Petitioner "has limited mobility of his [lower extremities] and decreased upper body strength. He would be unable to repeatedly put up and take down hurricane shutters." Based on this documentation and Petitioner's undisputed testimony regarding his physical condition, the undersigned finds Petitioner suffers from a physical impairment that affects major life activities, including walking and standing. Petitioner offered no evidence (medical or otherwise) that hurricane shutters (permanent or removable) were necessary to alleviate some aspect of his medical conditions or that accordion shutters were necessary for the full enjoyment of the Property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Javier Arrillaga. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Aranda, Esquire Campbell, Trohn, Tamayo, & Aranda 1701 South Florida Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803 Javier Arrillaga 629 Kensington Drive Davenport, Florida 33897 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits requested and the right-of-way permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Staff Report (attached hereto), as amended at the hearing of this cause, which amendments are discussed in the Findings of Fact herein. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. John Moose General Manager of Ascot Groves, Inc. P.O. Box 576 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether two amendments to the Sunny Isles Beach Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 (Plan Amendments) on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties Petitioner resides and owns property within the City. Petitioner provided oral comments and objections to the City during the period beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments and ending with the adoption of the same. The City is a Florida municipal corporation with the authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. Land Use Designations The City was incorporated in 1997. In 2000, the City adopted its initial Comp Plan. As part of the initial Comp Plan, the City established the Town Center Planned Development District (Town Center) as an overlay area, which did not establish any densities or intensities. However, the Town Center overlay did contain underlying land use designations for the area as set forth in Policy 14A and 14B of the Comp Plan, which had established densities and intensities. The Mixed-Use Business land use category established a base density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), with a maximum density of 85 du/acre with density bonuses. Intensity was limited to a maximum of 2.0 floor area ratio (FAR). Community Facilities land use category established a maximum density of 25 du/acre, with the intensity limited to a maximum 2.0 FAR. Recreation Open Space land use category does not allow for development; therefore, there is zero density and intensity. In addition to the densities and intensities permitted for the identified land use categories, pursuant to Policy 14C of the Comp Plan, locations within the Town Center were designated as receiver districts for Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Specifically, subparagraph (c) of Policy 14C established the limits on the use of TDRs by providing that: In no case […] shall the density or intensity on a receiver site exceed thirty (30) percent increase in the maximum permitted by the land use category limitations set in Policy 15B . . . and . . . in no case shall the resulting density bonus increases on any given receiver site exceed the number of dwelling units attainable on the sender site(s) under [comprehensive plan] provisions so as to assure NO net increase in city-wide residential dwelling unit Comprehensive Plan capacities occurs. Policy 14B of the Comp Plan set forth the Town Center's goals and objectives, including: The Town Center is encouraged to become the hub for future urban development intensifications around which a more compact and efficient urban structure will evolve. The Town Center is intended to be a moderate to high intensity design-unified area which will contain a concentration of different urban functions integrated both horizontally and vertically. The center will be characterized by physical cohesiveness, direct accessibility by mass transit services and high quality urban design. The Town Center is located to have direct connections to the 167th Street Causeway and Collins Avenue to ensure a high level of accessibility to the northeast Miami-Dade/bi-county area. Background In 2004, the City established the Town Center Zoning District in its Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which provided a maximum FAR of 5.2, and a maximum density of 75 du/acre. The intensity in the LDRs, as reflected by the FAR, exceeded the amount in the Comp Plan. However, the density in the LDRs was less than what was allowed in the Comp Plan. In 2007, the City proposed a comprehensive plan amendment that would have assigned density and intensity to the Town Center Planned Development District in its entirety. The state land planning agency objected to the proposed plan amendment in part because of a lack of data and analysis related to concurrency, emergency services, and hurricane evacuation routes. Beginning in 2005, the City approved a number of site plans for various development projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with underlying Mixed-Use Business land use designations. At that time, the City reviewed those developments solely for compliance with the City's LDRs for the Town Center Zoning District and without consideration of the maximum density and intensity allowable for the underlying land uses in the Comp Plan. As a result, all the approved projects in the southern portion of the Town Center with an underlying land use of Mixed-Use Business were permitted to be developed with intensities up to 5.2 FAR, which exceeded the allowable intensity of 2.0 FAR set forth in the Comp Plan for the Mixed-Use Business land use category. However, the densities allowed for those approved projects followed the Comp Plan, as the maximum density for the Mixed-Use Business land use category was 85 du/acre, whereas the maximum density allowable in the LDRs was 75 du/acre. Therefore, even though the City had not been evaluating the proposed site plans for compliance with the Comp Plan, all of the developed projects had densities that complied with the Comp Plan. In December 2018, a public hearing was conducted by the City Commission to consider the site plan for a development known as the Infinity Project. The proposed site for the Infinity Project was in the northern half of the Town Center. The City Commission unanimously voted to defer the matter to the January 2019 City Commission Meeting. To date, the application for site plan approval for the Infinity Project in the northern portion of the Town Center has not been approved or considered by the City Commission. While the City was considering the Infinity Project, the City became aware of the inconsistency between its Comp Plan and its LDRs with respect to the density and intensities within the entire Town Center area. As a result, the City began to take actions to remedy this inconsistency. In July 2019, the City Commission considered an ordinance to transmit to the state land planning agency, the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), a text-based comprehensive plan amendment to modify the FAR in the entire Town Center area. The City Commission voted to defer the matter. Instead, on August 28, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading an ordinance establishing a 12-month moratorium on the submission and consideration of any zoning applications in the Town Center District. The City Commission adopted the ordinance on second reading on September 19, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the City Commission also adopted a resolution declaring zoning in progress relating to development and redevelopment in the Town Center Zoning District. The Plan Amendments On October 17, 2019, the City Commission adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-549, transmitting to DEO text-based amendments to the Town Center District that divided the Town Center into two overlay development districts: Town Center South and Town Center North. The text-based amendments also provided for density and intensity in the Town Center South overlay for the first time. Specifically, the maximum density was established at a maximum of 75 du/acre, and the intensity was established at a maximum of 5.2 FAR. These were the same as the LDRs. The Plan Amendments did not amend any portions of Policy 14C of the Comp Plan with respect to TDRs. The purpose of these amendments was to grandfather the various developments within Town Center South, which were previously approved with intensities that were inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Contrary to Petitioner's allegation, the density of each of these developments complied with the Comp Plan at the time of each’s approval. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission also adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 2019-550, transmitting to DEO the FLUM Plan Amendments reflecting the creation of the Town Center South and Town Center North overlay districts, and providing for amendment of the land use designation for certain properties located in Town Center South. Amendments to land use designations for specific properties in the Town Center South overlay area included changing the Bella Vista Park and Gateway Park from Mixed-Use Business to Recreation and Open Space. The Gateway Park Parking Garage changed from Recreation and Open Space to Community Facility. The Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Facility changed from Mixed-Use Business to Community Facility. All these FLUM changes reflected a decrease in density. On October 17, 2019, the City Commission passed Resolution 2019-3006 (Plan of Action), adopting a schedule to bring the City's LDRs into conformity with the provisions of the amended Comp Plan, as provided by section 163.3194(1)(b). On October 30, 2019, the Florida Department of Transportation issued a letter to Alex David, the City’s planning and land use consultant, advising that it had reviewed the proposed text-based Plan Amendments and "found that the amendment will not have an adverse impact on transportation resources and facilities of State importance." On November 15, 2019, the South Florida Water Management District sent correspondence advising that there are "no regionally significant water resource issues" and offered only technical guidance regarding regional water supply planning. On November 25, 2019, the South Florida Regional Planning Council found that the proposed Plan Amendments were generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. On November 22, 2019, the City's Mayor received correspondence from DEO advising that it had reviewed the proposed Plan Amendments and "identified no comment related to adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities within the [DEO's] authorized scope of review." DEO did provide a technical assistance comment. On December 19, 2019, the City Commission adopted both Ordinances on second reading. DEO's technical assistance comment directed the City to clarify that Town Center South and Town Center North were overlay districts and not separate land use categories. The City incorporated that clarification in bold text in the body of the adopted ordinance. The City then forwarded the adoption package of Plan Amendments to DEO for its review. On December 30, 2019, DEO issued a letter to Mr. David advising that the Plan Amendments package was complete and would be reviewed in accordance with section 163.3184(3). On January 28, 2020, DEO issued a letter to the City's Mayor advising that it had completed its review "and identified no provision that necessitates a challenge of the Ordinances adopting the amendment." Petitioner challenged the Plan Amendments on four grounds: (1) the City failed to submit relevant and appropriate data and analysis; (2) the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with the existing Comp Plan; (3) the Town Center South District was a new land use category; and (4) the Plan Amendments should not have been reviewed under the expedited review process pursuant to section 163.3184(2). Relevant and Appropriate Data and Analysis Petitioner alleged that the City did not provide any data or analysis to show it considered the impacts of alleged "massive increase of density and intensity in Town Center South on hurricane evacuation times [. . .]". Hurricane Evacuation Times and CHHA Petitioner's expert witness, Daniel L. Trescott, an expert in comprehensive planning and hurricane evacuation, opined that only increases in density would impact hurricane evacuation times, and that increases in intensity would not adversely affect hurricane evacuation times. Specifically, Mr. Trescott testified that if there was no increase in density then, in his expert opinion, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA). Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that would support a finding that the Plan Amendments would actually increase density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott testified that he did not perform an analysis that would demonstrate potential impacts on density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Also, Petitioner did not introduce any evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendments would diminish future hurricane evacuation times, in the absence of a density increase. In fact, the undisputed testimony of the City's experts established that the Plan Amendments actually decreased the net density allowed in Town Center South. Claudia Hasbun, the City's planning and zoning director, was accepted as an expert in land use planning. Ms. Hasbun testified that the Plan Amendments would decrease the potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South by 462 dwelling units. Ms. Hasbun's analysis demonstrated that after consideration of the density provided by the Plan Amendments, including the land use changes reflected in the FLUM amendment, there was a significant reduction in potential maximum allowable density in Town Center South. Ms. Hasbun testified that the net total number of dwelling units that could ever be developed would decrease by 462 dwelling units for Town Center South because of the Plan Amendments. This analysis encompassed the absolute maximum redevelopment potential, and still reflected a reduction in density in Town Center South. Mr. Trescott confirmed that the potential maximum allowable density that existed under the current Comp Plan was actually greater than would be allowed under the Plan Amendments. He also acknowledged that land use changes reflected on the FLUM amendment would result in a decrease in density within Town Center South. Therefore, the uncontroverted evidence showed that the Plan Amendments decrease density. The City also presented the expert witness testimony of Alex David, the planning consultant with Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. Mr. David testified that there would not be any impact on hurricane evacuation times resulting from the Plan Amendments. The reason was that the potential maximum allowable density resulting from the Plan Amendments was significantly reduced from the existing maximum potential density. Mr. David's testimony was undisputed, and Petitioner's expert witness conceded that there would be a net decrease in maximum potential density resulting from the Plan Amendments. Mr. David testified that a map created from a 2016 Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model was utilized to determine whether any portions of Town Center South were in the CHHA. The referenced SLOSH map was incorporated into the Comp Plan in 2016. Mr. David testified that the SLOSH model does depict five very minimal areas of Town Center South within the CHHA. However, those areas either have an underlying land use designation of Recreation Open Space, cannot be developed for residential purposes and have no density, or they are located on parcels that have already been developed (or in one case is currently being developed) at higher elevations. The parcels developed or being developed at higher elevations have the appropriate mitigation to remove them from the CHHA. As a result, under the 2016 SLOSH model map in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located in the CHHA. During the hearing, Mr. Trescott suggested that the City should utilize the map developed from the 2017 version of the SLOSH model, rather than the 2016 version adopted in the Comp Plan. Despite testifying that the City was required to use the 2017 version of the SLOSH map, Mr. Trescott admitted that Miami-Dade County, the entity responsible for emergency management, had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Mr. Trescott also admitted that the State of Florida had not adopted the 2017 SLOSH map into the State's Emergency Plan. In addition, Mr. David testified that he was unaware of any jurisdiction in Florida that had adopted the 2017 SLOSH map. Thus, it was reasonable for the City to rely on the data contained in the 2016 SLOSH map incorporated in its Comp Plan. Consistent with Mr. Trescott's testimony, since there is no increase in density, the Plan Amendments would not trigger the need to evaluate the other policies and issues related to hurricane evacuation and CHHA. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the City failed to provide relevant and appropriate data or analysis with respect to impact on hurricane evacuation times. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that such an evaluation was not required because density was decreased by the Plan Amendments. Even so, the evidence established that since density was decreased by the Plan Amendments, hurricane evacuation times would not be impacted, and that, pursuant to the 2016 SLOSH model map adopted in the Comp Plan, none of the property affected by the Plan Amendments was located within the CHHA. Concurrency Analysis Petitioner also contended that the City failed to submit any data or analysis to show the impacts on sewer and water capacities, traffic/transportation, coastal management, infrastructure, and schools. However, the memorandum incorporated into Ordinance No. 2019-549 clearly demonstrated that an analysis was conducted. The analysis determined that the City did meet its level of service (LOS) standards for each of those areas. In addition, Mr. David testified to the methodology used to analyze concurrency for each of the areas and the conclusions reached with respect to them. His testimony was not contradicted and demonstrated that the Plan Amendments meet the City's LOS standards. Mr. David testified that in completing the concurrency analysis, he utilized data based upon the existing development in Town Center South. He opined that the methodology was a conservative approach for evaluating concurrency. Mr. David also testified that all the projects developed in Town Center South had been individually and separately reviewed for concurrency purposes during the site plan approval process. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner alleged that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with two provisions of the City's existing Comp Plan. Objective 3C, which reads as follows: The City of Sunny Isles Beach shall not increase maximum densities and intensities in the Coastal High Hazard Area beyond that which is permitted in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations as of May 1, 2016, including bonuses and transfer of development rights provided therein. The provision of facilities and services to accomplish the timely evacuation of the City's residents in advance of approaching hurricanes shall be a priority of the Sunny Isles Beach's transportation and hurricane preparedness programs. The City's Comp Plan did not assign densities and intensities in the Town Center Development District overlay as of May 1, 2016. However, as previously found, the City's LDRs did include densities and intensities for the Town Center as of May 1, 2016. These Plan Amendments did not increase the densities and intensities contained in the LDRs as of that date, and therefore, are not internally inconsistent with the City's existing Comp Plan. Petitioner also asserted that the Plan Amendments were inconsistent with Policy 5C, which provides as follows: All planning activities pertaining to development and redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in the City of Sunny Isles Beach shall be consistent with the "Population Estimates and Projections" outlined below, as they are periodically amended and updated. During the hearing, the City introduced the 2019 population estimates derived from the U.S. Census Bureau. The census data reflected that the 2019 population estimate was 21,804, which was below the 2020 estimates set forth in Policy 5C. Further, the unrebutted testimony of the City's experts, Ms. Hasbun and Mr. David, was that the Plan Amendments would decrease the maximum potential density that could be developed in Town Center South. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence that the population estimates and projections would increase because of the Plan Amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were internally inconsistent with Objective 3C and Policy 5C of the City's existing Comp Plan. New Land Use Category Petitioner alleged that Town Center South was a new land use category. Petitioner referenced the comments from DEO that the City should consider amending the FLU text to clarify that Town Center North and Town Center South are overlay districts, not separate land use categories. However, the City did specifically incorporate those comments in Ordinance No. 2019-549, where the word "overlay" appears in bold text to reflect said clarification. Petitioner's claim that the City created a new land use category called "Town Center South" was not supported by the evidence. Expedited Review Process Petitioner alleged that the City should not have proceeded with the expedited review process because of the City's alleged past failures to comply with the law. Section 163.3184(2) provides for an expedited review process for adoption of comprehensive plans and amendments. The two exceptions to this expedited review process are contained in section 163.3184(2)(b) and (c), neither of which are applicable to the Plan Amendments. Petitioner suggested that the Plan Amendments should have been treated as an evaluation and appraisal review (EAR) under section 163.3191. However, the determination of whether the comprehensive plan should be evaluated under this provision is the responsibility of the City. Also, the City's last EAR was conducted in 2016, so the City is not required to perform the analysis again until 2023. Petitioner failed to introduce any evidence to support a finding that the City is precluded from proceeding pursuant to section 163.3184(3). Summary Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving beyond fair debate that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are not in compliance, as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b).
Conclusions For Petitioner Magaly Gordo: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 For Respondent City of Sunny Isles Beach: Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valerie Vicente, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Sunny Isles Beach Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2019-549 and 2019-550 on December 19, 2019, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 2021. Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 200 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Edward A. Dion, Esquire City of Sunny Isles Beach Fourth Floor 18070 Collins Avenue Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160 Valerie Vicente Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Suite 1000 8201 Peters Road Plantation, Florida 33324 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence and the stipulations of the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: City of Miami Beach The City of Miami Beach is an incorporated municipality located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Dade County, Florida. It is governed by a seven member City Commission. The City consists of a main island and a number of smaller natural and man-made islands Approximately 100,000 permanent residents live on the City's seven square miles of land area. In addition, the City has a sizable seasonal population. The City is separated from the Dade County mainland, which lies to its west, by Biscayne Bay. There are four east-west causeways connecting the City with the mainland: MacArthur Causeway; Venetian Causeway; the Julia Tuttle Causeway; and 79th Street (North Bay) Causeway. All four of these causeways serve as hurricane evacuation routes for the City's population. Venetian Causeway The Venetian Causeway, which was completed in 1926, is the oldest of these causeways. It is approximately two and one half miles in length and consists of twelve lowrise bridges. These bridges feature low guardrails of a pierced geometric design which allow a virtually unobstructed view of the bay from anywhere on the roadway. Among its twelve bridges are two drawbridges, which are in relatively poor operating condition and are unable to bear exceptionally heavy loads. Inasmuch as the causeway is classified as a county minor arterial roadway, Dade County is responsible for its maintenance and repair. The causeway has one westbound lane of traffic and one eastbound lane of traffic. Its two lanes of traffic are not divided. As a two-lane, two-way undivided arterial, the causeway has a peak hour capacity of 1570 vehicles. Based upon 1987 statistics compiled by the Dade County Department of Public Works, the causeway's actual peak hour volume is 641 vehicles. Its volume to capacity ratio is therefore .41 and, as a result, its peak hour level of service (LOS) is "A," which is characterized by free flowing, optimum traffic conditions. There are five other service levels used by traffic planners to describe a roadway's traffic operations: LOS "B" (stable); LOS "C" (uncongested); LOS "D" (congested); LOS "E" (very congested); and LOS "F" (extremely congested). While traffic is free flowing most of the time on the causeway, there are occasions when there is congestion. Motorists may encounter such congestion when there is an accident, when there is flooding due to a heavy rain event, 1/ when traffic must stop to allow a truck with a heavy load to cross one of the causeway's drawbridges and when one of the drawbridges is stuck in the up position. Furthermore, when the drawbridge on the MacArthur Causeway is stuck in the up position, which happens not infrequently, a number of motorists who ordinarily travel on the MacArthur will use the Venetian as an alternative route, resulting in heavier than usual traffic on the Venetian. Motorists using the Venetian Causeway must stop at a toll booth located at the western terminus of the causeway to either pay a 50_ toll or show the attendant a plate reflecting that the toll has been prepaid. Rumble strips have been placed on the pavement to warn motorists to slow down before they reach the toll booth. As it traverses the bay from the mainland to the City's main island, the causeway crosses six islands, collectively known as the Venetian Islands, that are marked by residential development. From west to east, these islands are: Biscayne Island; San Marco Island; San Marino Island; Di Lido Island; Rivo Alto Island; and Belle Isle. Biscayne and San Marco Islands are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami. San Marino, Di Lido, and Rivo Alto Islands and Belle Isle are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Miami Beach. The Venetian Causeway is the only roadway linking the six Venetian Islands to the mainland. In addition to an eastbound lane and a westbound lane, the causeway has a turn lane on each of the Venetian Islands. At its July 19, 1988, meeting, the Dade County Commission passed the following resolution concerning the Venetian Causeway: WHEREAS, the Venetian Causeway, completed in 1926, was an integral part of the master plan for the residential Venetian Islands in Dade County; and WHEREAS, the Venetian Causeway is the oldest causeway remaining in its original form, linking the mainland of Miami to the island of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, it is believed that preservation of the unique and historic Venetian Causeway as a historic site will be highly beneficial to the residents of the Venetian Islands, the citizens of Miami, Miami Beach, Dade County and the United States of America; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the County Manager is directed to work with appropriate Local, State and Federal officials to secure funding for its replacement and the Causeway's designation as a State Scenic Highway and its listing as a historic place in the National Register while preserving its character and appearance. On July 27, 1988, the Miami Beach City Commission passed a similar resolution, which provided as follows: WHEREAS, the Venetian Causeway has historic significance in the development of the City of Miami Beach; and, WHEREAS, the Venetian Causeway has unique character by virtue of its scale, bridge profiles, and railing design; and, WHEREAS, the existing Venetian Causeway positively contributes to the appearance and character of the Venetian Islands and the City of Miami Beach. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA, supports the nomination of the Venetian Causeway to the National Register of Historic Places and the designation of the Venetian Causeway as a State of Florida Scenic Highway. On April 5, 1989, the Miami Beach City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 89-2637, which designated "[t]he public right-of-way of that portion of the Venetian Causeway within the corporate limits of the City of Miami Beach" as a historic preservation site, effective April 15, 1989. The Venetian Causeway was officially placed on the National Register of Historic Places effective July 13, 1989. Widening the causeway and adding lanes will change its unique character and appearance and adversely impact its value as a historic resource. Belle Isle Belle Isle is the Venetian Island closest to the City's main island and furthest from the mainland. Both of the Venetian Causeway's drawbridges lie to its west. To the south of the causeway on Belle Isle is a three acre City park and a crescent shaped, fifteen-acre area that is developed with highrise condominium apartment buildings. There are six such buildings. They range in height from ten to twenty- two stories and contain a total of approximately 1050 units. There is also a large vacant lot on the south end of the island. There are 9.17 acres of land to the north of the causeway on Belle Isle. The land is divided into six parcels. From west to east, these parcels are: the Cellazet parcel; Century Lane parcel; Lido Spa parcel; Farrey Lane parcel; Edelstein parcel; and Stortford parcel. The largest of these parcels is the Stortford parcel, which is 3.50 acres. The smallest of these parcels is the Edelstein parcel, which is .60 of an acre. The remaining parcels range in size from .69 of an acre (Century Lane) to 2.21 acres (Lido Spa). Of these six parcels on the north end of Belle Isle, only one, the Cellazet parcel, is vacant. Lowrise, older buildings, none exceeding five stories in height, are found on the other parcels. These buildings contain approximately 270 residential units. There has not been any recent development on the north end of Belle Isle. The units that are furthest south on Belle Isle are only 300 feet from the southernmost point of the 9.17 acres of land that lie to the north of the causeway on the island. Stortford Parcel Intervenor Stortford N.V. purchased the Stortford parcel in 1980 for approximately five million dollars with the intention of replacing the 120 lowrise rental apartment units on the site with highrise condominium apartment units. Shortly after it purchased the property, the market for highrise condominium apartment units in the area weakened and, as a result, Stortford N.V. delayed its plans to redevelop the property. By 1981, market conditions had improved. The improvement rekindled Stortford N.V.'s interest in pursuing its original redevelopment plans. It consulted an architect and investigated the economic feasibility of such a project. It determined after such an investigation that it would be imprudent to go forward with the project under the circumstances as they then existed. Accordingly, it again put its redevelopment plans on hold, but not before it had spent $50,000.00 on the project. Stortford N.V. next took action in furtherance of the project in the late 1980's. It had a building designed for the site and hired a general contractor, L. Milton Construction Company (Milton), to oversee the building's construction. The building was to be 27 stories tall and contain almost 300 apartment units ranging in area from 900 square feet (one-bedroom unit) to 1400 square feet (three-bedroom unit). Four of the building's 27 stories were to used as a multi-tiered parking garage with 494 spaces. On February 22, 1989, Milton applied to the City's Building Department for a building permit to construct the building. The permit for the Stortford project was approved on January 31, 1990, subject to the following conditions: This permit is issued subject to Biscayne Bay Shore Line Development Review Committee Approval. If Biscayne Bay Shore Line Development Review Committee approval is not granted, this permit is null and void and all fees will be refunded (except up front fee). [The applicant] shall incur no costs and construction shall not begin until Biscayne Bay Shore Line Development Review Committee Approval is granted. The permit had an expiration date of July 30, 1990. No other building permit has been issued in recent years for construction anywhere on the north end of Belle Isle. In fact, only one other such permit - for construction on the Callazet parcel - has been sought. On May 17, 1990, the Biscayne Bay Shore Line Development Review Committee (Committee) met to consider the Stortford project. The Committee rejected the project because it was not set back a sufficient distance from the shoreline. The building permit issued for the Stortford project on January 31, 1990, is now void. No actual construction work has yet been done in connection with the project. Stortford N.V. has spent approximately $365,000.00 on the project since the project's revival in the late 1980's. Prior Zoning/Land Use Designations of Belle Isle Property From 1930 until 1951, the south end of Belle Isle was zoned for single family estates (RC) 2/ and the north end of Belle Isle was zoned for multifamily apartments and hotel units (RE). In 1951, the zoning classification of the south end of Belle Isle was changed to RE. No change was made to the zoning classification of the north end of Belle Isle. In 1961, height restrictions were placed on the buildings on both the south and north ends of Belle Isle. Under these restrictions no building could exceed 14 stories or 160 feet. Both the south and north ends of Belle Isle retained their RE zoning classifications until 1971, when the City passed a new zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 1891, which contained different classifications. Under the new ordinance, both the south and north ends of Belle Isle were classified RM-100, a classification which permitted a maximum of 100 dwellings units per acre and carried no height restrictions. The south and north ends of the island remained so classified until October 1, 1989, when the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan became effective. Petitioners Petitioners Benson, Durchslag, Kreitman, Shiff, Cushing and Kohn are now, and have been at all times material hereto, residents of the City of Miami Beach. Petitioners Durchslag, Kreitman, Shiff and Kohn live in highrise condominium apartment buildings on the south end of Belle Isle. They each own the apartments in which they live. Petitioner Benson resides in a single-family house that she owns on Di Lido Island. Petitioner Cushing lives in a single-family dwelling that he owns on Rivo Alto Island. The Venetian Islands Improvement Association, Inc. is an organization of owners of single-family residences located on the Venetian Islands. It was founded in 1938 and now has approximately 435 members. Its primary purpose is to advance and protect the collective interests of its homeowner members. Adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan The City Commission considered the matter of the adoption of the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan at public hearings held on September 7, 1989, and September 21, 1989. All notices of these adoption proceedings were published in the "Beaches Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald. 3/ The "Beaches Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald is circulated twice a week along with the main portion of the Herald in the following towns and municipalities in Dade County: Miami Beach; Bal Harbour; Surfside; Bay Harbor Islands; Golden Beach; North Bay Village; Sunny Isles; and Indian Creek Village. The "Beaches Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald is: (a) published at least on a weekly basis; (b) printed in the language most commonly spoken in the area within which it circulates; (c) not a newspaper intended primarily for members of a particular professional or occupational group; (d) not a newspaper whose primary function is to carry legal notices; and (e) not given away primarily to distribute advertising. At the close of the public hearing held on September 21, 1989, the City Commission, over the objections of Petitioners, unanimously passed Ordinance No. 89-2664 adopting the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. The objections submitted by Petitioners during the adoption proceedings were directed to the land use designation of the north end of Belle Isle. Although they had the opportunity to do so, they did not contend at any time during the adoption proceedings that the City had given inadequate notice to the public of these proceedings. While Petitioners may not have known at the time of the adoption proceedings that notice of these proceedings had been published only in the "Beaches Neighbors" section of the Miami Herald, they could have obtained such information in advance of the proceedings by reviewing the files maintained by the City Clerk. They did not conduct such a review, however. Contents of the Plan and Supporting Data and Analysis The City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan contains a future land use element. An integral part of this element is the future land use map (FLUM). It shows the proposed distribution, extent and location of land uses for the entire land area of the City. The FLUM was based upon surveys, studies and data regarding the City as a whole, including, among other things: the City's projected population; the land needed to accommodate the projected population; the character of the remaining vacant land in the City; 4/ the availability of public facilities and services; and the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of inconsistent and incompatible land uses. Neighborhood studies were also used to develop the FLUM. Census data and existing land uses were examined on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis to obtain a detailed inventory of existing conditions in the City. Belle Isle is part of the West Avenue Neighborhood Study Area. 5/ The plan's supporting documents contain the following narrative statement concerning this area: West Avenue is predominantly developed as a high density/high intensity bayfront multifamily residential area. (It includes Belle Isle). Several large vacant parcels and a few existing enclaves of single family homes and older, lower density apartment buildings offer future development opportunities for townhouse construction. Both the south and north ends of Belle Isle are designated RM-2 on the FLUM. RM-2 is a medium intensity, multifamily residential land use designation. The plan regulates the intensity of residential uses by utilizing the concept of floor area ratio (FAR). Floor area ratio is the floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by the area of a lot. Under the plan, land designated RM-2 is assigned a maximum FAR range of 1.25 to 3.0. 6/ Where within this range a particular development falls depends upon the features of the development. The more desirable features and amenities a development has, the higher its maximum FAR will be pursuant to the performance bonus provisions of the plan. The RM-2 designation is similar, but not identical, to the RM-100 classification that had existed under Ordinance No. 1891 inasmuch as it does not necessarily bar residential development in excess of 100 dwelling units as did the RM-100 classification. Initially, the City's Planning and Zoning Department staff members had recommended that the north end of Belle Isle be designated on the FLUM for townhouse use. They subsequently changed their recommendation to RM-2. The change was prompted by concerns that a townhouse designation might unlawfully deprive north end property owners, who had invested in their property in reliance upon prior land use regulations that permitted more intensive use of their land, a fair return on their investment. An alternative designation was therefore sought. RM-2 was selected because of its similarity to the RM-100 classification that had been in effect on the north end of Belle Isle since 1971 and because of its compatibility with the existing development on the south end of the island. 7/ Reliance upon these factors in selecting a land use designation was in accordance with sound land use planning techniques. While the north end of Belle Isle, in terms of its character, is suitable for townhouse development, it is also suitable for highrise residential development of the type permitted by its RM-2 designation. The comprehensive plan adopted by the City contains other maps, in addition to the FLUM, that depict future conditions. Among these other maps are those that relate to traffic circulation in the City. These maps reflect that the Venetian Causeway is anticipated to remain a two-lane roadway classified as a County minor arterial. In the City's adopted comprehensive plan, all minor arterials in the City, including the Venetian Causeway, are assigned a peak hour level of service standard of "D." This is the same peak hour level of service standard that the causeway is assigned in Dade County's and the City of Miami's respective comprehensive plans. The City of Miami Beach's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan provides that no development order or permit may be issued which would "result in a reduction of the level of services for the affected public facilities below the level of service standards adopted in this Comprehensive Plan." Accordingly, any development or redevelopment on the north end of Belle Isle that will lower the Venetian Causeway's peak hour level of service below "D" is prohibited by the plan. The additional traffic that would be generated by the development and redevelopment of the various properties on the north end of Belle Isle at the maximum intensity of use permitted by their RM-2 designation, however, is not expected, in and of itself, to cause the Venetian Causeway's peak hour level of service to deteriorate to such a point that the standard set for it in the City's plan would not be met. 8/ Among the other elements of the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan is a historic preservation element. It contains the following goal: Secure for future generations the opportunity to share in the unique heritage of Miami Beach and promote sound economic development through the purposeful retention, protection, and continued use of buildings, structures, and districts which are associated with important events in the City's history or exhibit significant architectural qualities. As Policy 2.1 of this element makes clear, the City intends to take "a realistic and balanced approach to economic development and historic preservation." The City's plan also has a conservation/coastal zone management element. It contains the following objectives and policies dealing with hurricane evacuation and hazard mitigation: OBJECTIVE 4 The existing time period required to complete the evacuation of people from Miami Beach prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds shall be maintained or lowered by 1995. 9/ Policy 4.1 All future improvements to evacuation routes shall include remedies for flooding problems and the anticipated increase in the level of the water of Biscayne Bay. Policy 4.2 The Miami Beach Hurricane Handbook will be distributed to the general public with detailed emergency operation instructions and hurricane evacuation pick-up sites. Policy 4.3 The City will work with the Metro-Dade Public Works Department to rate all local bridges for structural and operational sufficiency. Local bridges with unsatisfactory sufficiency ratings shall be programmed for improvements or replacement. Policy 4.4 All trees susceptible to damage by gale force winds shall be removed from the right-of-way evacuation routes and replaced with suitable species. Policy 4.5 The City will coordinate 10/ with Metro-Dade Transportation Administration to ensure adequate buses are available to safely evacuate neighborhoods with large concentrations of households within Miami Beach without private transportation. Policy 4.6 The City of Miami Beach Fire Department shall maintain and annually update the list of people who may need assistance due to physical or medical limitations in the event of an evacuation to ensure their safe mobilization. Policy 4.7 The City of Miami Beach Fire Department shall maintain and annually update the Miami Beach Hurricane Evacuation Plan 11/ and maintain and enhance the resources and capabilities of the plan to provide effective implementation of evacuation procedures to ensure that evacuation times are maintained or reduced. Policy 4.8 Procedures for boat owners during hurricane operations shall be added to the Miami Beach Hurricane Handbook with instructions for safe harbor operations. Policy 4.9 Between 1989 and 1993, coastal area population densities shall be coordinated with the Metropolitan Dade County Hurricane Procedure, which is the local hurricane evacuation plan for Miami Beach, and the lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Plan, the regional hurricane evacuation plan. Policy 4.10 Coastal area population densities in Dade County, including the City of Miami Beach, shall be updated in the lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study currently being revised by the US Army Corps of Engineers and the National Hurricane Center. Policy 4.11 By 1993, changes in coastal area population densities identified in the amended lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study shall be used by the Metropolitan Dade County Office of Emergency Management, the overall coordinating authority for local hurricane planning, to update the Dade County Hurricane Procedure. OBJECTIVE 5 Reduce the exposure of life and property in Miami Beach to hurricanes through the implementation of hazard mitigation measures, by adopting the following policies: Policy 5.1 Public expenditures that subsidize additional development in the Coastal High Hazard Zone, (the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map 'V' Zone), shall be prohibited. Public facilities shall not be built except for public beach or shoreline access and resource restoration. (See Coastal Zone Management.) Policy 5.2 The City will coordinate with Metro-Dade County and the South Florida Planning Council to develop a comprehensive marine hurricane contingency plan. Policy 5.3 New private use facilities along the Coastal High Hazard Zone shall conform to strict setback, open space and accessory use requirements. Policy 5.4 Structures which suffer repeated damage to pilings, foundations or load bearing walls and/or incur damage exceeding 50% of their assessed value shall rebuild to the requirements of all current development regulations, and shall not be located east of the coastal construction control line. No redevelopment shall be permitted in areas of repeated damage unless it is determined by the City of Miami Beach Officials to be in the public interest. Policy 5.5. During post-disaster redevelopment the Building Department will distinguish between those actions needed to protect public health and safety with immediate repair/cleanup and long term repair activities and redevelopment areas. Removal or relocation of damaged infrastructure and unsafe structures shall be by the Miami Beach Public Services Department in accordance with local procedures and those agencies and practices specified in the Metro-Dade County Hurricane Procedure. Policy 5.6 During post-disaster recovery periods, after damaged areas and infrastructure requiring rehabilitation or redevelopment have been identified, appropriate City departments will coordinate to: prepare a redevelopment plan which reduces or eliminates the future exposure of life and property to hurricanes; incorporate recommendations of intragency hazard mitigation reports; analyze and recommend to the City Commission hazard mitigation options for damaged public facilities; and recommend amendments, if required, to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy 5.7 Unsafe conditions and inappropriate uses identified in the post-disaster recovery phase will be eliminated as opportunities arise. Even if the City's population increases as projected 12/ and the Venetian Causeway remains a two-lane roadway as contemplated by the plan, it will be possible for the City to accomplish the end, identified in Objective 4 of the conservation/coastal zone management element, of reducing or maintaining the time it takes to complete an evacuation of the City prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds. The City will be able to do so through the implementation of the strategies described in Policies 4.1 through 4.11 of this element. Likewise, an increase in the City's population will not necessarily prevent the City from attaining the end specified in Objective 5 of the conservation/coastal zone management element. The City will be able to realize this end, notwithstanding such growth, by taking those measures described in Policies 5.1 through 5.7 of this element. Accordingly, to the extent that the RM-2 designation of the north end of Belle Isle will have the effect of increasing the population of the City, it is not in irreconcilable conflict with Objective 4 and Objective 5 of the conservation/coastal zone management element inasmuch as these objectives can be met despite any population increase attributable to such a designation. 13/ Furthermore, because they can be met, despite such an increase in population, without the necessity of widening the Venetian Causeway 14/ and thereby threatening its value as a historic resource, neither is there any irreconcilable conflict with the above-described goal statement found in the historic preservation element of the City's plan. As noted above, the future traffic circulation maps adopted as part of the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan reflect that the Venetian Causeway will remain a two-lane, minor county arterial. No other part or provision of the plan, including the FLUM's RM-2 designation of the north end of Belle Isle, suggests or requires otherwise.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs issue a final order in the instant case declining to find the City of Miami Beach's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance" on the grounds urged by Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of September, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 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, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By application dated March 9, 1981, and received by the DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores on March 13, 1981, respondent sought a permit to construct five single-family dwellings on five 64-foot-wide parcels of land located seaward of the established coastal construction control line (CCCL) on Grayton Beach. Attached to the application were site plans, an affidavit of ownership and a warranty deed showing respondent Roberts to be the owner of the subject property. (DNR Exhibit 1) Question number 5 on the permit application required the "specific reasons the applicant feels that the permit should be approved and why construction seaward of the control line . . . is considered necessary for reasonable use of the property." The answer provided by the applicant to this question was "the landward property line is located 150 feet seaward of the control line. Therefore, no upland property is available on the site for development." (DNR Exhibit 1) By form letter dated March 16, 1981, DNR notified respondent Roberts that his application for a permit was incomplete and that two further items of information were necessary before his application could be considered. One item was written evidence that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. The other item was detailed site, grading, drainage and structural plans and specifications for the proposed structure. These plans were to be certified by a registered Florida engineer or architect. (DNR Exhibit 2) On or about March 31, 1981, the DNR received the certified architectural plans from the project architect, who is registered in the State of Florida. These plans, as well as the site plans submitted by the engineer, contained the signature and seal of the architect and the engineer. They each intended their signature and seal to constitute a certification that, in their opinion, the drawings or plans were in compliance with all statutes, rules, local ordinances and/or other regulations which govern the project. A certification of documents by the placement of signature and seal of an engineer or architect is the commonly accepted practice and usage in those professions. It is not the policy of DNR to require an itemized certification reciting every requirement of the DNR rules. By form letter dated April 6, 1981, the DNR notified the applicant that written evidence of compliance with local government regulations was still lacking. (DNR Exhibit 4) On April 13, 1981, DNR received a letter dated April 9, 1981 from the Walton County Attorney advising that "The Board of County Commissioners of Walton County has no local setback requirements or zoning or building requirements which would prohibit the proposed activity as submitted to the Bureau." (DNR Exhibit 5) This letter satisfied the requirement of Rule 16B-33.08(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Full scale copies of topographic and site plans were received by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores on April 15, 1981. The application for a permit was deemed complete as of April 15, 1981, (DNR Exhibit 7), and respondent Roberts' agent was notified by letter dated June 23, 1981 that the DNR Executive Director had recommended to the Governor and Cabinet (the agency head of the DNR) approval of the application. (DNR Exhibit 10) The completed application reflects that the five single-family dwellings are to be supported by treated timber pilings with an underside minimum elevation of +14 feet (NGVD). The Federal Base Flooding Elevation for Grayton Beach is +9 feet (NGVD). The architect has certified that the proposed dwelling units are designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds. The seaward- most dwelling of the five is a maximum of 263 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line, and the applicant's entire parcel of land is located over 150 feet seaward of the control line. The project is located approximately 230 feet from the mean high water line. The project also includes the construction of a private road, septic tanks and drainfields. The dune system in front of the proposed structure will offer substantial protection to the structure against storm and wave action. The excavation proposed includes that necessary for the placement of the pilings, the septic tanks and the drainfields, and the construction of the proposed driveway. The proposed drainfields will extend partially above existing grade and fill material i11 be placed over them. The driveway consists of a 16-foot asphalt paved road located landward of the proposed dwellings. The dunes will be reduced in height where the driveway is to be constructed. It is not clear from the testimony or the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing where the parking of vehicles belonging to residents or guests of the five units is to occur. While there was testimony from Mr. Truitt to the effect that no net loss of sand will occur and that the project will involve more of a balancing of grade as opposed to excavation, the engineering plans submitted with the application illustrate at least nine rather large areas of cut and fill associated with the driveway, septic tanks and drainfields. The project engineer had considered no studies on the topography or littoral trends of this specific site, had no knowledge of engineering data regarding adjacent properties and had not reviewed any data regarding major storms on the subject project site. The engineering plans submitted as a part of the application contain a diagram illustrating five separate 750 gallon septic tank systems, one for each dwelling unit, with the "drainfield [for each unit] to be constructed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C." (DNR Exhibit 1) The larger scale engineer's drawing submitted to DNR on April 15, 1981, gives more specific information regarding the location and depth of the below grade drainfields on the seaward side of the structures. A DNR interoffice memorandum dated June 1, 1981, reflects that the applicant's agent agreed in a telephone conversation that, "if possible, he would move the septic tank (750 gal) and related drainfields to the landward side of the buildings." (Joint Exhibit 1) The Cabinet agenda item dated later in time, however, notes that the "septic tanks (750 gallon) and drainfields will extend an additional 50 feet seaward of each dwelling." (DNR Exhibit 8) The exact proposed location of the septic tanks and drainfields was not clarified at the final hearing, nor was sufficient evidence adduced concerning the justification for the proposed discharge system. Evidence concerning the availability of any existing alternatives to the system proposed by the applicant was not adduced, nor was evidence presented concerning storm water discharge. As of the time of the hearing in this matter, the applicant had no plans for heating or cooling the five dwelling units. When asked at the hearing what "justification" the Bureau of Beaches and Shores received for the proposed waste water discharge system, Mr. Clifford Truitt, the Bureau's chief engineer and the person responsible for review of this application, replied in two ways. First, he stated that the fact that the property was located entirely seaward of the CCCL was justification for the discharge system. However, he admitted that a "dry sanitary system" would be a better alternative. Later, Mr. Truitt stated that "justification" for the domestic waste system is only required when there is a beach level discharge. Mr. Truitt was accepted as an expert witness in the area of coastal engineering. His opinions regarding the proposed project were based upon his review of aerial photography of the Grayton Beach area and comparison of topographic profiles of the area, his review of the engineering and topographic information submitted with the application itself and his familiarity with the project location. No evidence was adduced that engineering data concerning storm tides related to shoreline topography was considered by Mr. Truitt or anyone else. No specific studies exist regarding the stability, littoral trends or the erosional history of the proposed site and surrounding area. The project site has been the subject of other permit applications considered by the DNR, and Mr. Truitt was of the opinion that a mitigating feature of the present application was that "the present proposal has the lowest density and least extension seaward of the control line of any proposal to date." (DNR Exhibit 8) It was Mr. Truitt's opinion that the dwelling unit structures were adequately elevated and designed to adequately resist the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event and would not increase the threat of damage or danger to nearby structures. Factual evidence concerning the 100-year storm event was not presented at the hearing. Mr. Truitt further opined, without the aid of engineering data or the studies mentioned above, that the proposed construction would not affect the natural shoreline fluctuations or the stability of the dunes in the area. Such an opinion contains no factual basis in the record of this proceeding, and thus is not sufficient evidence upon which to make a similar finding of fact. On various sporadic occasions, a waterway or pass connecting Western Lake to the Gulf of Mexico runs in a westerly direction in the vicinity of the applicant's property. At times, this watercourse has been wide and deep enough to allow swimming, diving and the passage of small boats. The witnesses who testified about this watercourse were not qualified as surveyors or experts in estimating or calculating the exact location of that watercourse relative to the proposed site, and there was no testimony that such an event had occurred within the past twenty years. At least two witnesses testified that the last time they could recall the watercourse or pass traversing or abutting the applicant's property was in the late 1950s. The proposed project site has been covered with storm waters on at least two occasions in the past seven years. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the substantial interests in this permit application of named petitioners Colonel G. A. P. Haynes, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Cawthon, Mrs. Kate Florence, Mrs. Burton Murray, Colonel and Mrs. Lee Fry, Mrs. Laney Ellis and Mrs. Randall Jones. Mrs. G. A. P. Haynes, one of the petitioners in this proceeding, owns and resides on property immediately adjacent to the project site, and presently entertains an unbroken view of the beachfront. She is concerned with potential sewage problems and damage to her residence from flying debris caused by wind or storm should the proposed construction be approved. Mrs. Haynes was also concerned about the potential adverse effect of the proposed construction on the value of her adjacent property. Petitioner Burton Murray lives to the north of the project site, at least several hundred feet away. His prime concern was that no structure could survive at that location and that the project would therefore be a waste of money. Petitioner Elizabeth Hayes Jones (named as Ms. Lisbeth Haas in the petition) lives across the street and to the east of the project site. Her residence was completely destroyed by hurricane and has since been rebuilt at the same site. She feels that the applicant's project site is not safe for construction, and fears storm damage to her home from the buildings if constructed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein it is RECOMMENDED that the application for a coastal construction control line permit to construct five single-family dwellings on Grayton Beach be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of May, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Gerde, Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde & Harrison, P. A. 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Thompson and Adkinson P. O. Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether the Santa Rosa County comprehensive plan, as adopted on September 27, 1990, and the remedial amendments adopted on April 22, 1993, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Exception #2. The Hearing Officer, in an October 15, 1993 order, determined that the issues in the consolidated cases would be those 13 issues stated in the petition filed on July 15, 1993, in Case No. 93-4980, which ruling was observed by the parties at the final hearing (RO page 3). Petitioners/Intervenors take issue, thus, "At no time during these proceedings did the Petitioners abandon the issues raised in their Petitions to Intervene filed in the original noncompliance proceeding." The Respondent County and the Petitioner/Respondent Department take the position that the original, noncompliance proceeding was extinguished when the Department issued its cumulative notice of intent pursuant to section 163.3184(16), Florida statutes. The County and the Department further disagree with the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law determining that the issues of public access and Navarre Beach dune system should be determined pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard in section 163.3184(10), Florida statutes. The County and the Department urge the Agency to enter its order addressing all issues accordingly. Subsection (9) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes, governs proceedings if the local plan or amendment is in compliance. In the words of the statute, "In this proceeding, the local plan or plan amendment shall be determined to be in compliance if the local government's determination of compliance is fairly debatable." Subsection (10) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes, governs proceedings if the plan or amendment is determined to be not in compliance. The statute specifies, in this subsection: In the proceeding, the local government's determination that the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is in compliance is presumed to be correct. The local government's determination shall be sustained unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the comprehensive plan or plan amendment is not in compliance. Subsection (16) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes, authorizes the Department of Community Affairs to enter into voluntary compliance agreements to resolve issues raised in proceedings initiated pursuant either to subsection (9) -- in compliance determinations -- or subsection (10) -- not in compliance determinations. It is under this subsection that the cumulative notice in this case was issued. Paragraph (f) of subsection (16) provides, in part, as follows: If the local government adopts a comprehensive plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement and a notice of intent to find the plan amendment in compliance is issued, the state land planning agency shall forward the notice of intent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the pending s. 120.57 proceeding concerning the plan or plan amendment shall be dismissed by the hearing officer as to the department. Any affected person may challenge the plan or plan amendment which is the subject of the cumulative notice of intent by filing a petition with the agency as provided in subsection (9). The language of the statute is somewhat problematic. It is unclear how a proceeding can be dismissed as to one of the parties, in this case, the state land planning agency issuing the notice of intent. See Department of Community Affairs, et al. v. DeSoto County, Final Order No. AC-94-009 (Fla. Admin. Comm. January 31, 1994), approving, Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 91- 6039GM (DOAH January 13, 1994)(approving interpretation of statute). Further, this statutory language as to dismissal of the proceeding as to the department arguably is at odds with the next sentence, which states that affected persons may challenge the plan or amendment which is the subject of the cumulative notice by filing a petition with the agency as subsection (9) provides. The statutory language does not say, "Any other affected person" may challenge; it says "Any affected person" may challenge, which ending s. 120.57 proceeding. Paragraph (f) also deals with the issue of a cumulative notice that the plan amendment is not in compliance, as follows: If the local government adopts a comprehensive plan amendment pursuant to a compliance agreement and a notice of intent to find the plan amendment not in compliance is issued, the state land planning agency shall forward the notice of intent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which shall consolidate the proceeding with the pending proceeding and immediately set a date for hearing in the pending s. 120.57 proceeding. It is clear from that statutory language that the cumulative notice proceeding is consolidated with the pending original proceeding if the Department of Community Affairs finds the amendment not in compliance, in contrast to the language used if the Department's cumulative notice is an "in compliance" determination. Finally, paragraph (f) deals with persons who are not parties to the pending original proceeding, as follows: Affected persons who are not a party to the underlying s. 120.57 proceeding may challenge the plan amendment adopted pursuant to the compliance agreement by filing a petition pursuant to subsection (9) or subsection (10). This language seems to do more than provide for persons who are not parties to the underlying proceeding to file subsection (9) or subsection (10) petitions depending upon whether the cumulative notice is an "in compliance" one or a "not in compliance" one, as the case may be. The language also aids in interpreting the previous sentence of the paragraph, "Any affected person may challenge the plan or plan amendment which is the subject of the cumulative notice of intent by filing a petition with the agency as provided in subsection (9)." If that sentence were only intended to apply to affected persons who were not parties to the underlying proceeding, there would be no need for the sentence above-quoted, "Affected persons who are not a party to the underlying s. 120.57 proceeding may challenge the plan amendment adopted pursuant to the compliance agreement by filing a petition pursuant to subsection (9) or subsection (10)." As the state land planning agency and the Agency of final jurisdiction in an "in compliance" proceeding, it is the responsibility of the Department of Community Affairs to interpret the operable statute. Public Employees Relations Commission v. Dade County Police Benevolent Association, 467 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1985.) The Department of Community Affairs interprets the subject provisions of section 163.3184(16), Florida statutes, to mean that, if the Department issues a cumulative notice of "in compliance," the previously existing, original proceeding is extinguished. Thereafter, all affected parties must file petitions challenging the cumulative notice, and the proceeding is governed exclusively by the "fairly debatable" standard and the procedures set out in subsection (9) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes. The particular standard of proof to be applied is based upon the issuance of a notice of intent to find the plan or amendment in compliance or not in compliance. Sheridan v. Lee County, DOAH Case No. 90-7791GM, Final Order No. DCA93-158- FOF-CP (Department of Community Affairs, June 28, 1993). In Department of Community Affairs, et al. v. City of Jacksonville, DOAH Case No. 90-7496GM (January 24, 1994), Final Order No. DCA94-258-FOF-CP (Department of Community Affairs, February 24, 1994), the Department of Community Affairs expressly adopted the interpretation of Hearing Officer J. Lawrence Johnston as set forth in the Recommended Order of Dismissal and Final Order Closing File in the case of Department of Community Affairs v. DeSoto County, DOAH Case No. 91-6039GM (January 19, 1993), approved, Final Order No. AC-94-990 (Fla. Admin. Comm. January 31, 1994), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. That recommended order at footnote 3 -- recognized that there is contrary dicta in the Recommended Order in Department of Community Affairs, et al. v. Hillsborough County, DOAH Case No. 89-5157GM (December 8, 1992). In the instant case, the Hearing Officer erred in treating the proceeding as one in which both subsections (9) and (10) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes, continued to apply. The burdens of proof -- whether the fairly debatable standard, or the preponderance of the evidence standard -- could be alternatively assigned to a given issue, depending upon whether the issue remained from the original proceeding, or arose as a result of the proceeding brought in response to the cumulative notice. But the statute does not appear to allow the proceeding to be resolved as it was in the instant case, i.e., under both subsections (9) and subsections (10). If that were the case, it would be unclear in a given case as to which entity appropriately should enter the final order, the Administration Commission, or the Department of Community Affairs. Clearly, that does not comport with the objective of the Legislature in specifying the entities with final order authority separately in subsections (9) and (10). Petitioners/Intervenors suggest, in Exception #34, which is dealt with below, that both the Administration Commission and the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order in this. This would result in untenable situations, such as the potential for inconsistent rulings, separate appeals, etc. The Hearing Officer should have treated the proceeding exclusively as one arising as a result of a cumulative notice of "in compliance" governed under the auspices of subsection (9) of section 163.3184, Florida statutes. In that case, the issues should have been those directed to the cumulative notice; thus, Petitioners/Intervenors' complaint in this exception -- that the Hearing Officer should not have limited the issues to those set forth in the July 15, 1993 petition, which was filed as a result of the cumulative notice -- is not well- taken. Further, the standard of proof in a proceeding brought following a cumulative notice of "in compliance" must be the "fairly debatable" standard of section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. In this case, however, the Hearing Officer made his various determinations and weighed the evidence with respect either to the fairly debatable standard, or to the preponderance of evidence standard, depending upon the issue. It would be implausible at best, impossible at worst, for the Agency now to attempt to reweigh the selected issues -- those that have been determined using the preponderance of the evidence standard -- under the fairly debatable standard. The Department of Community Affairs, as the Agency entering the Final Order in this cause, is not free to reweigh evidence; that is the prerogative of the Hearing Officer when there are factual issues of ordinary proof. Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Moreover, such a reweighing of the issues, even if authorized, would not change the outcome. The issues that were decided under the preponderance of the evidence standard were decided against the Petitioners/Intervenors in this case. The outcome would not change if the fairly debatable standard were applied to those issues. The Agency therefore declines the invitation to apply the fairly debatable standard throughout the proceeding, as it should have been done by the Hearing Officer. Nonetheless, the Agency also must deny Petitioners/Intervenors' Exception #2. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS EXCEPTION #2 is DENIED. Exception #3. This exception is directed to the Hearing Officer's exclusion of testimony regarding Petitioners/Intervenors' allegations of "urban sprawl." Petitioners/Intervenors assert that a cursory review of the subject petition reveals that "urban sprawl" was properly raised as an issue, even though that precise term was not used. The Hearing Officer heard argument directed to the issue of the "urban sprawl" question (TR Vol. I, pp. 12-18) and determined that it was not within the scope of the petition filed on July 15, 1993 (see Exception #2, above). The Agency has reviewed the subject petition and the portions of the record dealing with argument directed to this issue, and the Agency does not find a sufficient basis for granting the exception. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS EXCEPTION #3 IS DENIED. Exceptions #4, #5 and #6. The basis for these exceptions is the Hearing Officer's finding of fact, in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order, that publicly-owned lands in the Garcon Point Project would not be injured by the development of privately- owned lands north of the project. According to the Petitioners/Intervenors, "The evidence introduced at the administrative hearing clearly refutes this finding." Petitioners/Intervenors allude to witness testimony that contradicts the conclusion of the expert who was tendered in general ecology and natural systems, Dr. Joe A. Edmisten [TR Vol. III, pages 78-87] on this point at hearing; it is upon Dr. Edmisten's testimony that the paragraph is supported. The contradictions notwithstanding, however, the paragraph to which these exceptions are directed is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, and thus the exceptions must be denied. [Edmisten (TR Vol. III), pages 95-96.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS #4, #5, AND 6 are DENIED. Exception #7. This exception is directed to paragraph 14 of the Recommended Order, in which the Hearing Officer found, "More than 95 percent of Garcon peninsula is jurisdictional wetland for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . ." According to the Petitioners/Intervenors, no evidence was introduced to support this finding. There is competent, substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support the finding. [Edmisten (TR Vol. III), page 89.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #7 is DENIED. Exception #8. In Exception #8, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the following finding of fact in paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order, "Little development will occur on the Garcon peninsula . . ." The Petitioners/Intervenors assert that the evidence at the hearing "clearly refutes this finding" and, in support thereof, refer to Future Land Use Map indications of densities of up to four dwelling units per acre and commercial development for Garcon peninsula. The finding is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. [Edmisten (TR Vol. III), pages 90-91.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS EXCEPTION #8 is DENIED. Exception #9. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the findings of fact of paragraph 20 of the Recommended Order, which relates to the condition of the Navarre Beach dune system and the testimony of the expert in coastal geomorphology. The apparent basis for the exception is stated by Petitioners/Intervenors thus, "The fact that the Navarre Beach dune system is still a valuable resource is a compelling reason for implementing a dune protection program which will ensure the system's long-term viability." A finding of fact cannot be overturned on the basis of the argument stated by the Petitioners/Intervenors. Moreover, the findings of fact in paragraph 20 are supported by competent, substantial evidence. [Stone (TR Vol. II), page 155.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #9 is DENIED. Exception #10. The Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to paragraph 26 of the Recommended Order wherein the Hearing Officer finds, "The County maintains control over those beach access points shown on the Navarre Beach Future Land Use Map by maintaining them in an unleashed status." The Petitioners/Intervenors state that the evidence clearly refutes the finding, and that the Navarre Beach Future Land Use Map does not identify beach access points. The finding is based upon sufficient competent, substantial evidence of record, and must be sustained. (Miller [TR Vol. I), pages 166-167; Joint Exhibit 1, Plan Objective 11.A.9, and policies 11.A.9.1-9.S, pages 11-6 through 11-7.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #10 is DENIED. Exception #11. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to paragraph 30 wherein the Hearing Officer states that the expert of the Petitioners/Intervenors "did not critique the plan, but said it was laudable." The Petitioners/Intervenors assert in this exception that the evidence clearly refutes this finding in that the expert in question, Dr. Sneed B. Collard, criticized the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan for failing to contain policies and objectives to implement the plan's goal to protect the Pensacola Bay system. The context in which the Hearing Officer made the statement to which exception is taken is important to an understanding of the finding. paragraph 30 of the Recommended Order, in its entirety, reads as follows: Petitioners' expert also admitted that the plan was laudable in terms of the manner in which it seeks to protect the Bay system. While he criticized the plan for not containing clear implementation of its noteworthy goals, he later admitted that if all points of implementation were covered in detail, the plan would become a lengthy and cumbersome document of a more scientific nature. He further admitted to being unaware of the appropriate level of detail for a comprehensive plan and later stated that he did not critique the plan, but said it was laudable. [FF 30; RO page 14.] That having been clarified, the specific statement to which Petitioners/Intervenors take this exception is supported by competent, substantial evidence of record, to wit, the testimony of Dr. Collard, "I didn't critique the Santa Rosa Plan. I said it was laudable." [Collard (TR Vol. I), page 140]. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #11 is DENIED. Exception #12. The Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding in paragraph 31 of the Recommended Order that finds "that all challenges to the issuance of environmental permits for the bridge have been voluntarily dismissed by the challengers." The Petitioners/Intervenors take this exception based on relevancy. The context of the statement is not clear from the exception. The entirety of paragraph 31 reads as follows: Although petitioners raised the bridge as an issue in these cases, very little evidence was presented concerning the potential impacts of the proposed bridge. It is noted, however, that all challenges to the issuance of environmental permits for the bridge have been voluntarily dismissed by the challengers. It is clear from the context that the information was "noted" and not accorded great weight in the findings. Moreover, the Hearing Officer's inclusion of the information was not erroneous. Thus, there is an insufficient basis to grant the exception. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #12 is DENIED. Exception #13. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the findings of fact contained in paragraphs 37-54 of the Recommended Order, as follows: The Hearing Officer failed to consider or give any ruling with respect to the proposed findings of fact set forth at paragraphs 9-28 and the conclusions of law set forth at paragraphs 96-106 and 111 of Petitioners/Intervenors' proposed Recommended Order. indeed, the Hearing Officer utterly failed to even mention the Wet Prairies and their associated endangered and threatened species. As to the proposed findings of fact included in paragraphs 9-28 of Petitioners/Intervenors' proposed recommended order, the Hearing Officer did so rule, "[paragraphs] 7-34. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10-15 and 37- 54." [RO page 38.] As to paragraphs 96-106 and 111 of Petitioners/Intervenors' proposed recommended order, the Hearing Officer did not make explicit rulings. The subject paragraphs were conclusions of law, which the Hearing Officer is not required to address. In pertinent part, section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, provides, "If . . a party submitted proposed findings of fact . . . in connection with the proceeding, the order must include a ruling upon each proposed finding . ." It was thus within the sound discretion of the hearing officer to rule only upon the Petitioners/Intervenors' findings of fact. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #13 is DENIED. Exception #14. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding in paragraph 40 of the Recommended Order that states, "The plan contains extensive provisions designed to implement the Wetlands FLUM (Future Land Use Map) and provide significant protection of wetlands and the natural resource functions of wetlands." The Petitioners/Intervenors assert that no evidence was introduced to support this finding. The finding is based upon competent, substantial evidence, and therefore the exception cannot be granted. [Joint Exhibits 3 and 4, Plan Policies 11.A.4.5 (fig. 7-30); 11.B.3.3; 11.A.1.8.a.b.; 11.A.1.8.c.; 11.A.1.7; 11.A.4.3; 11.B.3.3; 11.A.2.1; 11.B.3.1.; 11.B.3.6; 11.A.1.4; and 11.A.1.8.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #14 is DENIED. Exception #15. The basis for this exception is the finding of fact in paragraph 49 of the Recommended Order wherein it is found that the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan "grants only very limited development rights in the Garcon Peninsula region, while also providing significant protections for natural resources in that area." Petitioners/Intervenors assert that the evidence refutes this finding. The finding is based on competent, substantial evidence in the record. [Joint Exhibits 3 and 4.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #15 is DENIED. Exception #16 and #17. In Exceptions #16 and #17, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to paragraph 50 of the Recommended Order. In that paragraph, the Hearing Officer finds that, short of public acquisition, "no other reasonable method by which this area can be comprehensively protected and preserved as an intact ecological unit was presented." The Hearing officer further finds, "Requiring the County to reduce densities to the point where a moratorium on development in the area is created would create inverse condemnation . . Petitioners/Intervenors state that the evidence clearly refutes these findings, that evidence was presented that one dwelling unit per 40 acres was appropriate for the Garcon peninsula, and that designations of up to four units per acre and commercial development would completely destroy the unique ecology of Garcon peninsula. Further, the Petitioners/Intervenors assert that the issue of inverse condemnation was not supported by competent evidence introduced, and that densities of less than four dwelling units per acre can be implemented without creating an "inverse condemnation" situation. As to the reasonableness of the preservation effort, the Agency has reviewed the testimony as to that point, and concludes that the finding is within the allowable inferences from the evidence presented, and within the permissible prerogatives of the Hearing Officer. [Dorman (Vol. III), page 13.] The inverse condemnation finding is rejected as being legally incorrect, but this rejection is irrelevant as to the result because it is cumulative in nature. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS" EXCEPTIONS #16 and #17 are DENIED. Exception #18. This exception is directed to the finding of fact in paragraph 51 which states that "the great majority of undeveloped areas on the Garcon peninsula currently fall within the wetlands permitting jurisdiction of DEP [Department of Environmental protection] and the federal government. As a consequence, permits for development will be difficult to obtain at best." Petitioners/Intervenors aver that there was no evidence introduced to support this finding. To the contrary, however, the finding is adequately supported by competent, substantial evidence. [Edmisten (Vol. III), pages 90-91.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #18 is DENIED. Exception #19. In Exception #19, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding of fact in paragraph 52 of the Recommended Order, in which it is stated that the Petitioners/Intervenors "failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan inappropriately treats wetlands and wildlife habitat on the Garcon peninsula in light of chapter 163 requirements." This is a permissible inference from the evidence presented, both from testimony adduced at hearing, and from the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan itself. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #19 is DENIED. Exception #20. This exception takes issue with the findings of fact of paragraphs 55-63 of the Recommended Order because the Hearing Officer "failed to consider or give any ruling" on the proposed conclusions of law in the Petitioners/Intervenors' proposed recommended order at paragraphs 142 and 143. The Hearing Officer is not required to do so for the reasons more specifically set forth in disposing of Exception #13, above. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #20 is DENIED. Exception #21. In Exception #21, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the findings of fact of paragraphs 64-70 of the Recommended Order in that the Hearing Officer "failed to consider or give any ruling" on Petitioners/Intervenors' proposed findings of fact at paragraphs 41 and 54-56 of their proposed recommended order, as well as their conclusions of law at paragraphs 112-118 and 121-126 of the same. As to the findings of fact, the Hearing Officer made such rulings, "[paragraphs] 35-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20 and 64-70." [RO page 38.] As to the conclusions of law, that issue has been addressed above in disposing of Exception #13, as also applied in disposing of Exception #20. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #21 is DENIED. Exception #22. Petitioners/Intervenors ground this exception on the failure of evidence to support the finding of fact, in paragraph 64 of the Recommended Order, that the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan requires "restoration of preexisting impacts of altered dunes . . The finding is based upon competent, substantial evidence, and therefore the exception must be denied. [Joint Exhibits 3 and 4.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #22 is DENIED. Exception #23. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding of fact in paragraph 69 for the following reasons: The Hearing Officer found that the dune system was protected because the County encourages dune walkovers, sand fences, and other similar methods. The evidence introduced at the administrative hearing clearly refutes this finding. Without a mandatory program of providing such methods to protect the dune system from pedestrian traffic, the plan's alleged protection is illusory. This finding is based upon competent, substantial evidence of record. [Joint Exhibits 3 and 4; Plan Policies 7.A.6.3 and 11.A.1.3.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #23 is DENIED. Exception #24. Petitioners/Intervenors base this exception on the finding of fact in paragraph 70 of the Recommended Order wherein the Petitioners/Intervenors assert that the Hearing Officer finds that the Petitioners/Intervenors failed, in the words of the filed exception: "to prove to the exclusion of fair debate, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plan" does not fulfill the Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5 requirements for protection of the Navarre Beach dune system. The testimony of Dr. Stone clearly refutes this finding. In point of fact, that is not an appropriate paraphrase of the wording of the finding of fact in paragraph 70. The finding of fact, verbatim, is as follows: [P]etitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plan does not contain policies which are designed to prevent individual and cumulative impacts of development on beach and dune systems. The finding is a permissible conclusion from the evidence adduced at the hearing, and is based upon competent, substantial evidence. [Joint Exhibits 3 and 4.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #24 is DENIED. Exception #25. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the findings of paragraphs 74-76 of the Recommended Order based upon the failure of the Hearing Officer to consider or rule on conclusions of law contained in paragraphs 128- 132 of the Petitioners/Intervenor's proposed recommended order. As specified in the disposition of Exception #13, above, and as carried forth in the disposition of Exceptions #20 and #21, above, the exception is denied. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS, EXCEPTION #25 is DENIED. Exceptions #26, #27, and #28. These exceptions are directed to paragraph 75 of the Recommended Order. The findings of the paragraph that are the basis for the exception include the following: The record does not reflect impacts, if any, the project may have to the environment, but does indicate that adequate mitigation is proposed. The County cannot legally adopt any plan provisions which are inconsistent with a state transportation project. . [P]etitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan's treatment of the proposed Santa Rosa Bay Bridge is inappropriate. The findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. [Edmisten (TR Vol. III); Joint Exhibit 2, Vol. I, pages 4-32 through 4-40.] Exceptions #27 and #28 are simply argument of the Petitioners/Intervenors' position in this proceeding and, as such, are insufficient to overturn findings supported by competent, substantial evidence. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS #26, #27, and #28 are DENIED. Exception #29. This exception is directed to paragraphs 77-79 of the Recommended Order, alleged to be in error because the Hearing Officer failed to consider or rule on the conclusions of law in Petitioners/Intervenors' paragraphs 133-140 of their proposed recommended order. As more specifically discussed in disposing of Exception #13, and as concluded in the denials of Exceptions #20, #21, and #25, the Hearing Officer is not required to make such rulings. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #29 is DENIED. Exceptions #30, #31 and #32. In these exceptions, Petitioners/Intervenors assert that there was no evidence introduced to support the findings, in paragraph 77-79 of the Recommended Order, concerning beach access points. In paragraph 77, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding that reads, "The plan contains a number of provisions designed to ensure the continued availability of beach access. The future land use map indicates a number of beach access points shown on the map as conservation/recreation." In support of this exception, Petitioners/Intervenors state, "Indeed, during cross examination of Ms. Miller by the County, counsel for the County attacked Ms. Miller for stating that the beach access points were identified on the Navarre Beach Future Land Use Map." In response, Respondent County and Petitioner/Respondent Department state: The Petitioners' own witness, Yvonne Miller, testified that beach access points were indicated on the FLUM. [Citation omitted.] The fact that counsel for the County obtained clarification from Ms. Miller concerning her understanding of how access points were identified on the map is irrelevant to the validity of this finding of fact, and is not a basis for overturning same. As to paragraph 78, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding that reads that "petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate, or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plan does not include appropriate objectives and policies concerning public access to the beach." In response, Respondent County and Petitioner/Respondent Department state, "The plan support documents include extensive data and analysis concerning public access to beaches." With respect to paragraph 79, Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the finding that the Future Land Use Map includes many public access points. The Agency has reviewed the testimony adduced at hearing regarding beach access points [Miller (TR Vol. 1), pages 150- 169]. The Hearing Officer's conclusions drawn from the testimonial evidence are within the allowable range of inferences. Based upon the record testimony, the findings of fact in paragraphs 77-79 to which exceptions are taken is based upon competent, substantial evidence in the record. [Miller (TR Vol. 1), pages 150-169; Joint Exhibit 2, Vol. II, pages 7-17 through 7-19; Joint Exhibit 7.] PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS #30, #31, and #32 are DENIED. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Exception #33. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the conclusion of law in paragraph 87 of the Recommended Order wherein the Hearing Officer concluded that the petitions challenging the plan must fail. Petitioners/Intervenors assert that they have met their burden of proof, and their petition must be granted. The Hearing Officer found that the Petitioners/Intervenors failed to meet their burden of proof. The conclusion of law ultimately was based upon the Hearing Officer's findings of fact in this case. Factual issues susceptible of ordinary methods of proof are the prerogative of the hearing officer. Heifetz v. Department 6f Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). It is for the hearing officer to consider the evidence presented, resolve conflicts, judge credibility of witness, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence. Id., 475 So.2d at 1281. In this case, the Hearing Officer did so, and his findings of fact did not support the position of the Petitioners/Intervenors. The conclusion of law was the logical result of the Hearing Officer's permissible rulings on the findings of fact. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #33 is DENIED. Exception #34. Petitioners/Intervenors take exception to the conclusion of law in paragraph 90 of the Recommended Order wherein the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Community Affairs enter the final order in this cause, finding the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan in compliance. Petitioners/Intervenors assert that both the Department of Community Affairs and the Administration Commission should enter a final order finding the plan to be not in compliance. For the reasons set out in disposing of Petitioners/Intervenors' Exceptions #1 and #2, above, the Administration Commission is not the entity to whom the Recommended Order in this cause should be directed. The Department of Community Affairs is the appropriate Agency to enter the final order in this cause. As to the issue of compliance, the Department found the plan, as amended, to be in compliance; the Hearing Officer heard evidence and considered the issues, and found the plan, as amended, to be in compliance. The conclusion is the logical and ultimate result of the findings of fact in this case, which were based upon competent, substantial evidence. The Petitioners/Intervenors have not borne their burden of proving that the plan, as amended by remedial amendments, is not in compliance. PETITIONERS/INTERVENORS' EXCEPTION #34 is DENIED. WHEREFORE, the Department of Community Affairs adopts the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, and issues this Final Order determining that the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining the Santa Rosa County comprehensive plan, as amended, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1994. Petitioners: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 90-7706GM AND 93-4980GM 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Covered in preliminary statement. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 7-34. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10-15 and 37-54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 36-56. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-20 and 64-70. 57-65. Partially accepted in findings of fact 31-36 and 74-76. 66-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 24-26 and 77-79. 78-83. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27-30 and 55-63. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Respondents: Because respondents' joint proposed order exceeded the forty page limit imposed by Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelly, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Callahan, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Thomas V. Dannheisser, Esquire County Attorney Santa Rosa County Courthouse Room 106 Milton, FL 32570 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 David A. Theriaque, Esquire Building F, Suite 100 820 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Robert Carl 9277 Deer Lane Navarre, FL 32566 John M. Harold, Esquire J. Dan Gilmore, Esquire 4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 45 Pensacola, FL 32503
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2007-R-047 adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-16, section 2, attachment A, on May 22, 2008 (Plan Amendment), is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, more specifically, whether the Plan Amendment is "internally consistent" with Objectives 7.1.B and 7.1.F and Policy 7.1.F.8 of the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and supported by adequate data and analyses.1
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Belle Mer Owners Association, Inc. (Belle Mer), is the condominium association for the Belle Mer Condominium, which occupies a waterfront parcel of land immediately east of the Property. The Belle Mer condominium consists of 16 floors and 61 dwelling units and has a southwest orientation toward the Gulf of Mexico. PE 7 at 1, 3-4; CE 1-2. The parties stipulated that Belle Mer is an "affected person" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a) Florida Statutes, which owns property in the County and timely submitted comments and objections to the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Rosa County (Board) with regard to the Plan Amendment. Santa Rosa County is a local government subject to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulations Act, Section 163.3161 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenors are the owners of the Property that is the subject of the Plan Amendment. The Intervenors possess leases from the County for each of the seven platted lots in Summer Place Subdivision, the location of the Property. In 1967, the relevant leases provided for the development of "multi-unit dwellings or light commercial." In 1987, the leases were amended to provide for the development of "up to 50 condominium units." In 1993, the lease was further amended at the lessee's request to provide a framework for the development of a single-family subdivision. The present lease issued by the County for these lots restricts the use of the lots to single-family residential. The Property and Vicinity The Property consists of 1.89 acres of gulf front property located on Navarre Beach, Santa Rosa County, Florida. There are four single-family homes and several vacant lots on the Property, with a total of seven residential lots. PE 7 at 5; CE 1-2. Since 1989, the Property has been zoned High Density. Prior to approval of the Plan Amendment, the FLUM designated the Property as NBLDR. The FLUM was adopted after adoption of the zoning map and after the Property had been subdivided and leased for single-family lots. The NBLDR designation reflected the existing land use of the Property. The Belle Mer property, including the condominium, is adjacent to and east of the Property and is designated NBHRD on the FLUM. The property to the east of the Belle Mer condominium contains approximately 84 condominium units (Navarre Towers), with a southeast orientation. T 54-55; PE 7 at 2; CE 1-2. The property immediately to the west of the Property, also designated NBHDR on the FLUM, contains 45 condominium units known as Emerald Surf or Emerald Shore. Under current regulations and subject to change, a 17-floor condominium could be developed on this property. PE 7 at 5; CE 1-2. The Navarre Beach Commercial Core Area is defined in the County's Land Development Code (LDC), Section 6.07.00. Prior to approval of the Plan Amendment, the Property was not included in the Commercial Core Area. All the land on Navarre Beach subject to the Plan is owned by the County and either leased to individuals or entities, or held by the County. Navarre Beach acreage that is designated Conservation/Recreation on the FLUM is owned by the County and has not been leased. However, the County is not prohibited from leasing this land to individuals. The County is also not prohibited from modifying current leases to allow a different land use. The Plan Amendment and Change in Density The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the 1.89-acre parcel from NBLDR to NBHDR. The maximum theoretical density permitted in the area designated NBLDR is four dwelling units per acre. The current density of the Property (1.89 acres) is approximately seven units. The maximum theoretical density permitted in the area designated NBHDR is 30 dwelling units per acre. The Plan Amendment increases the maximum theoretical density allowed on the Property from seven units to 56 units, an increase of 49 units. While subject to change, under the current County Land Development Regulations (LDRs), the footprint for any building constructed on the Property cannot exceed 19 percent of the Property size, assuming all other LDR requirements are met, including setback requirements. T 227-231. The maximum theoretical density permitted in the area designated Navarre Beach Medium Density Residential (NBMDR) is ten dwelling units per acre. Consideration of the Plan Amendment by the County and the Department The Board of County Commissioners of Santa Rosa County (Board) voted to transmit the Plan Amendment at their meeting on September 27, 2007.2 On November 29, 2007, the Board voted to transmit other plan amendments that had also been approved by the Local Planning Board. On December 14, 2007, the Department received the County's proposed plan amendments, including the Plan Amendment. On February 12, 2008, the Department completed its review of several plan amendments adopted by the Board including the Plan Amendment, and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report (ORC), raising concerns with the Plan Amendment. The Department objected to the Plan Amendment "based on internal inconsistencies with the [County's Plan] by proposing high density development outside of the Navarre Beach commercial core, directing population concentrations to Navarre Beach, and by increasing evacuation times on Navarre Beach." JE 4. County staff developed a response to the Department's ORC and an updated staff analysis that were presented to the Board during the adoption hearing. JE 5. In response to the Department's first objection and prior to the adoption of the Plan Amendment, the County amended its LDC to expand the boundaries of the Commercial Core Area on Navarre Beach to include the Property and additional acreage. See endnote 4; PE 4. The County had to expand the boundary of the Commercial Core Area because the NBHDR designation is permitted only within the Commercial Core Area. JE 1 at 3-10, Policy 3.1.A.8 16)(The NBHDR "category shall only be located within the commercial core area of Navarre Beach."). The Department also commented in the ORC that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with Plan Coastal Management Element Objective 7.1.B, which states that "[t]he County shall direct population concentrations away from Navarre Beach and the entire Coastal High Hazard Area" (CHHA) and Policy 7.1.F.8, which states that "[a]mendments to the [Plan] on Navarre Beach shall not be approved which will result in an increase in hurricane evacuation times without mitigation of the adverse impact to evacuation times."3 The Department suggested that "[s]hould the County decide to increase the density on the amendment site, the County should coordinate with the West Florida Regional Planning Council to draft a professionally acceptable hurricane evacuation analysis, based on maximum development potential of the site, demonstrating that the County evacuation time will [be] maintained." On May 22, 2008, the Board approved both the change to the LDC text, which included the Property and other parcels within the Navarre Beach Commercial Core Area,4 and the Plan Amendment. On June 23, 2008, Belle Mer submitted a detailed letter to the Department, with attachments, stating objections to the Plan Amendment. On August 27, 2008, the Department had published a NOI to find the Plan Amendment "in compliance." Internal Inconsistencies and Data and Analysis Petitioner alleges that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objectives 7.1.B and 7.1.F and Policy 7.1.F.8 of the Plan and is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Objective 7.1.B Objective 7.1.B states that "[t]he County shall direct population concentrations away from Navarre Beach and the entire Coastal High Hazard Area." When Objective 7.1.B of the Plan was adopted, all of Navarre Beach, including the Property, was within the CHHA. As a result of a 2006 change in state law, see Chapter 2006-68, Section 2, Laws of Florida, amending Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and as applied to the Property, the Property is not located in the CHHA. It also appears that very little of Navarre Beach is currently in the CHHA. T 198-200. Also, when the Plan was adopted, no state rule required the County to direct population concentrations away from areas other than the CHHA. The intent appears to "reflect the requirement of the state to direct populations away from the" CHHA and was not intended to apply to areas of Navarre Beach outside of the CHHA. In order to interpret the intent of Objective 7.1.B in areas of Navarre Beach outside of the CHHA, it is appropriate to consider Policy 7.1.B.1 that states: "At least 45% of the developable land within the Navarre Beach Zoning Overlay District shall remain within the Low Density Residential and Conservation/Recreation Future Land Use Map Designations."5 The persuasive evidence indicates that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy. In response to the Department's second ORC comment, County staff advised the Board that Objective 7.1.B6 "is implemented by Policies 7.1.B.1, 7.1.B.2 and 7.1.B.3." County staff determined that the Low Density Residential and Conservation/Recreation FLUM designated areas on Navarre Beach comprise 48.02 percent without the Plan Amendment. The addition of the 1.89 acres reduced the percentage to 47.77 percent, a change of .25 percent. JE 5 at 5. Policy 7.1.B.2 states: "The County shall limit the densities and intensities of land use as defined within this Plan. Such limitations will assure generalized low density use of land within the majority of the Coastal High Hazard Area of Santa Rosa County." County staff determined that the County "is a coastal county with three bay systems, a 20 mile long peninsula, and more than 125 miles of shoreline, most of which falls within the CHHA. The subject property has approximately 200 feet of shoreline, and is less than two acres in size. The [FLUM] clearly shows that the vast majority of shoreline in [the County] is designated for low density development between 1 and 4 units per acre, and much of the CHHA is designated as Conservation/Recreation on the FLUM. This amendment, which accounts for approximately 0.03% of the County's CHHA shoreline, will not result in a perceptible change in the generalized low density use within the majority of the CHHA as required by Policy 7.1.B.2." After also considering Policy 7.1.B.3, staff concluded that while the Plan Amendment increased "the total number of potential dwelling units on Navarre Beach by 49 units, it is not inconsistent with Objective 7.1.B or it's [sic] implementing policies." JE 5 at 5-6. Since at least 1996, the Department has consistently determined that any increase above current density levels increases the population concentration in the CHHA. T 241-242. If the property under review is located in the CHHA, the Department's "review is very much heightened with regard to the" CHHA, but not applicable to the Property because it is not located in the CHHA. T 261-262. The Department has no rule or policy to address directing population concentrations away from areas not in the CHHA. T 265. (Within the last three years, the County has approved FLUM amendments within the CHHA, but has not approved an increase in density within the CHHA. In each case, the County directed population increases away from the CHHA and the County's action is consistent with the Department's prior determinations.) The Department's position is credible, but not applicable to the Property, which is not in the CHHA, and in light of Policy 7.1.B.1. Ms. Poplin testified she knew of no way to interpret a comprehensive plan objective, e.g., Objective 7.1.B, without considering it in context with the implementing policies, e.g., Policy 7.1.B.1, and this position is consistent with the Department's definition of "policy." See endnote 7. In other words, the Plan objectives should not be read in isolation without consideration of implementing policies. T 243-244.7 Each relevant Plan objective and policy must be considered. However, they are not considered as stand alone requirements as suggested by Belle Mer. See Petitioner's PRO at 27, ¶ 97. At the time the County adopted the original comprehensive plan and FLUM (approximately 2003), densities allowed on Navarre Beach were reduced by more than 600 residential units. T 216, 225-226. Ms. Faulkenberry did not recall any additional reductions since that time. The County considers an area as a whole in evaluating the direction of population densities rather than on an acre-by- acre basis. The County also does not require any density off- set to occur concurrently with a density increase. T 217. See Lee County and Leeward Yacht Club, Inc., Case No. 06-0049GM (DOAH August 25, 2006, at ¶¶ 42-45; Admin. Comm. November 15, 2006, at ¶ 8). It was not proven that the increase in maximum theoretical density that may occur on Navarre Beach as a result of the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 7.1.B as implemented, in part, by Policy 7.1.B.1 and is not otherwise supported by adequate data and analysis. Objective 7.1.F Objective 7.1.F states that "[t]he County shall maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times by implementing Policies 7.1.F.1 through 7.1.F.11, among others."8 Policy 7.1.F.3 states: "The County shall maintain a minimum medium response roadway clearance time for hurricane evacuation of 12 hours on roads under local jurisdiction." Roads under local jurisdiction mean roads within the unincorporated area of the County, including state and Interstate roads, but excluding roads outside the County. The County uses this policy when evaluating the hurricane evacuation times from Navarre Beach and to determine whether the specific numerical criteria have been met. Policy 7.1.F.8 states: "Amendments to the [Plan] on Navarre Beach shall not be approved which will result in an increase in hurricane evacuation times without mitigation of the adverse impact to evacuation times." The persuasive evidence indicates that the over-all reduction in densities on Navarre Beach since the Plan was adopted is adequate mitigation. There is no persuasive evidence that the Plan Amendment is likely to adversely impact (increase) hurricane evacuation times beyond 12 hours. In the ORC, the Department suggested that "[s]hould the County decide to increase the density on the amendment site," that it "coordinate with the West Florida Regional Planning Council to draft a professionally acceptable hurricane evacuation analysis, based on maximum development potential of the site, demonstrating that the County evacuation time will [be] maintained." The Department does not usually examine evacuation times for plan amendments for property not located in the CHHA. The Department raised an issue regarding the evacuation times because Policy 7.1.F.8 refers to Navarre Beach and the requirement of mitigation of the adverse impact to evacuation times. T 268-269.9 County staff contacted the West Florida Regional Planning Council and determined that the latest study was the Northwest Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study Technical Data Report, July 1999 (Study). (The Department was not aware of models (to study hurricane evacuate times) other than as prepared by the regional planning councils. T 270.) There is no statute or rule that requires the County to use "every detail" of the Study. Mr. Crumlish advised that he would expect the County to modify the Study over time. A spreadsheet to aid in calculating clearance evacuation time was distributed with the Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The County utilized the spreadsheet produced by the 1999 Corps Study. The spreadsheet is used by the County each year to perform an annual update of hurricane evacuation times, but had not been used by the County in conjunction with a land use change request before it was used during the evaluation of the Plan Amendment. The spreadsheet incorporates various factors contained in the Study and is driven by assumptions and conclusions in the Study.10 There are assumptions made in the Study that when the number of units increases, other numbers may change in relationship to the change in dwelling units. T 149. The spreadsheet is set up so that the County staff may only change or input three columns of data: number of single family units; number of mobile home units; and number of tourist units. Otherwise, "[t]he program is locked." Actual units are counted, e.g., a house, not platted lots without a unit. The spreadsheet also does not allow the County to update road improvements. "Another unknown is the response rate of the population to evacuation orders: rapid, medium or long." According to the County, the spreadsheet is the only and best available data. If other data were used, other than dwelling units described above, the spreadsheet received from the Corps would be altered. Each year the County updates the spreadsheet and accounts for all dwelling units constructed within the County as of the update. Except for consideration of the Plan Amendment, the information was not updated from June 2007 through May 22, 2008. There could have been a change and a significant difference in the number of dwelling units in the County between June 2007 and May 22, 2008, T 99-100, although the number of additional, existing dwelling units during this time period was not quantified. When using the spreadsheet, the County planning staff added 49 units (accounting for the additional units that could be generated by the Plan Amendment) to the annual run of the spreadsheet that was last completed in June 2007. For the purpose of computing the hurricane evacuation time in light of the Plan Amendment, the County did not input any other data into the spreadsheet for the purpose of assessing the hurricane evacuation times.11 County staff provided data and analysis indicating that "the clearance times for critical segments in the County remain less than 12 hours for Cat 1 - 3 hurricanes with the [Plan Amendment]. For Cat 4 - 5 hurricanes, the clearance times already exceeded 12 hours at the following critical segments: US 90 east of Milton, Pensacola Bay Bridge, and I-10 eastbound, but the increased density with the amendment showed no increase in clearance times. The clearance time on SR 87 south of I-10 increased from 9.57 hours to 9.60 hours (again, the widening of that roadway is not factored in). Overall, the effect of the [Plan Amendment] was three hundredths of an hour or less on the critical segments. Therefore, we conclude that County evacuation times will be maintained with the amendment." JE 5 at 6. The County did not assess whether the hurricane evacuation times would increase based on the County's redefinition of the Commercial Core Area other than the Property. According to the County, the changes to the Commercial Core Area were not relevant to its consideration of the Plan Amendment because it did not involve any other plan amendments or changes in density that would impact the hurricane evacuation analysis. T 272. Overall, it was not proven that adverse impacts resulted from the Plan Amendment or that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with the Plan's objectives and policies referred to herein and not based on appropriate data and analysis. Impact of the Plan Amendment on Potential Loss of View and Financial Impacts on Belle Mer Condominium Unit Owners Petitioner presented two witnesses who own Belle Mer Condominium units, units 1602 and 904 (PE 7 at 4), and who testified regarding their potential loss of view if the Plan Amendment is approved and also that their property values would be reduced. These issues were raised in the JPS at pages 2-3, but not expressly raised in the Petition. See, e.g., T 31-37, 73- 75; see also Petition at 3, ¶¶ 9-12. Assuming for the sake of argument that the two issues were timely raised and may be considered, resolution of the issues is speculative at best given the nature of this proceeding. Notwithstanding the lay testimony of what might be constructed on the Property in the event the Plan Amendment is approved, such as a "needle" or "high rise," T 41-42, the nature, scope, and extent of the loss of view and financial impact can not be readily determined without, among other information, a site plan showing the actual development of the Property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued determining that the Plan Amendment 2007-R-047, adopted by Santa Rosa County in Ordinance No. 2008-16, section 2, attachment A, on May 22, 2008, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 7th day of April, 2009.
