The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulations (LDRs) adopted through Ordinance 07-11 by Islamorada, Village of Islands (Islamorada), are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys, set forth in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (2007).2
Findings Of Fact The Lodging Association is a trade association with an office in Key West, Florida. The Lodging Association is a not- for-profit association, created to monitor, initiate, advance, support or oppose legislation, policies and other governmental regulations that affect the lodging industry in Monroe County, including Islamorada. Membership in The Lodging Association includes owners and operators of the hotels and motels in Islamorada. Islamorada is a municipality within Monroe County which has adopted a comprehensive plan and LDRs. The Department is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to exercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the Area of Critical State Concern program, and to approve or reject LDRs adopted by local governments within areas of critical state concern. The Florida Keys were designated an Area of Critical State Concern by the Administration Commission in 1975 and re- designated by the Legislature in 1986 pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Ordinance 07-11, would make the following changes to the existing LDRs regulating hotels and motels: Room, hotel or motel, - means a unit in a public lodging establishment as defined by F.S. Section 509.013(4)(a) intended for transient lodging only for periods not exceeding 30 days. Transient occupancy shall conform to the definition contained in F.S. Section 509.013(8) as to transient occupancy. For the purposes of density restriction under this chapter: A hotel or motel room may be a single room or a suite and may include a kitchen but no more than 1 1/2 bathrooms. An existing hotel or motel room may be redeveloped to a unit no less than 150 square feet and not exceeding 2,000 square feet of habitable floor area and consisting of no more than two (2) full bathrooms and three (3) bedrooms, one (1) kitchen, one- half bathroom and one (1) additional living area (excluding bedrooms), provided that the average habitable floor area of all hotel or motel units on the property does not exceed 1,500 square feet and that the rates of redevelopment set forth in (3) below are met; and All entrances to a hotel or motel room shall share the same key or means of controlling access so that the hotel or motel room as defined herein is not divisible into separately rentable units; and Suites containing more than one bedroom and 1½ baths may be constructed; however, each bedroom/full bath combination shall be considered a hotel/motel unit. A property with existing hotel or motel units may be redeveloped pursuant to the following equivalency rates: Ordinance 07-11 also amended Section 30-852 of Islamorada LDRs which establishes the required parking spaces for various uses. Ordinance 07-11 changes the parking space requirement for hotel rooms from 1.0 spaces per unit (without regard to numbers of bedrooms) to 1.0 space for a one-bedroom unit, 1.2 spaces for a two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for a unit with three or more bedrooms. Evidence was presented by The Lodging Association to show that the principal objective of the ordinance is to respond to the trend in the hospitality industry for larger hotel and motel rooms to accommodate families for longer stays. The Department reviewed Ordinance 07-11 to determine whether it is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development (Principles) set forth in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. In its Amended Final Order and in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the Department asserted that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with four of the Principles, which are repeated below: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. * * * (d) To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. * * * (j) To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. * * * (l) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Principle (a) - Managing Land Use and Development The Department asserts that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (a) because the ordinance is inconsistent with five policies of the Islamorada Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, fails to properly manage land use and development. Policy 1-2.1.10 The Department contends that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Policy 1-2.1.10 which states, “Islamorada, Village of Islands shall cap the number of new transient units at the number of current and vested hotel and motel rooms, campground and recreational vehicle spaces existing within the Village as of December 6, 2001.” Much of the confusion in this case surrounding the issue of the cap on hotel/motel rooms arises from the practice in Islamorada and elsewhere in Monroe County of defining a hotel or motel room in a manner that differs from its common meaning to the general public, which is the space that one rents from the clerk at the desk, with one entrance and one key. Instead, a room is defined according to the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, so that the space one rents with a single entrance and key can be defined in the LDRs as one, two, or even three hotel rooms. An analogy would be if a vehicle were defined for regulatory purposes according to its output of emissions, so that if your vehicle had relatively high levels of emissions, it might be counted as two or three vehicles. Although much testimony was devoted to this disputed issue, it is clear that Ordinance 07-11 would allow for the creation of more hotel and motel rooms in Islamorada (as “room” was previously defined). There are many examples that could be given of how Ordinance 07-11 would allow for more hotel and motel rooms, but one example is that a room with two bedrooms and two bathrooms counts as two units under the existing ordinance, but is only one unit under Ordinance 07-11. Ordinance 07-11 allows a hotel owner to enlarge a hotel room in a manner that under the former ordinance would have been treated as creating another hotel room – a violation of Policy 1-2.1.10. Without changing the policy, Ordinance 07- 11 defines away the violation. When Islamorada adopted Policy 1-2.1.10 to cap the number of hotel/motel rooms at the number of “current” rooms, the policy could only mean the number of rooms that existed under the definition of hotel/motel room that was then in effect. Otherwise, the policy would be ineffectual as a cap.3 Despite the findings made above, the determination of whether Ordinance 07-11 should be rejected is complicated by the fact that, in 2005, the Department approved a similar ordinance of the City of Marathon. Like Islamorada, Marathon had formerly counted one bedroom and one and one half bathrooms as one hotel/motel unit. Marathon Ordinance 2004-017 redefined hotel/motel rooms so that a room with three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms now counts as one unit. Marathon’s comprehensive plan also has a cap on hotel/motel rooms. The Department’s approval of Ordinance 2004-17 appears to have been based in large part on the “density reduction” provisions in the Marathon ordinance. For example, one-bedroom units may be redeveloped as two-bedroom units “at the rate of 90 percent,” and one-bedroom units may be redeveloped as three- bedroom units “at the rate of 85 percent.” The density reduction provisions in Ordinance 2004-017 are easiest to understand with an example using ten existing units. Applying the 90 percent rate, ten existing one-bedroom units can be redeveloped into nine two-bedroom units. There is no practical way to apply the reduction rates when just one or a few units are redeveloped, because applying the rate results in fractional units. For example, using the 90 percent reduction rate, 1 one-bedroom unit cannot be redeveloped as .9 two-bedroom units, and 2 one-bedroom units cannot be redeveloped as 1.8 two-bedroom units. In these two examples, the hotel owner would be allowed to create 1 and 2 two-bedroom units, respectively. Therefore, the density reduction rate has no effect in these (and other) scenarios. Marathon’s density reduction provisions do not prevent more hotel and motel rooms from being created. In the example given above, the nine redeveloped two-bedroom units would have counted as 18 units under the definition in Marathon’s former ordinance. With admirable candor, the Department’s expert planner testified that it was her opinion that Marathon Ordinance 2004-17 is inconsistent with Marathon’s cap on hotel/motel rooms. However, it does not take an expert planner to see the inconsistency. Counsel for the Department argued that Marathon Ordinance 2004-017 materially differs from Village Ordinance 07- 11 because the density reduction provisions in the Marathon ordinance created an “equivalency” with regard to the additional vehicles associated with larger hotel/motel units. Islamorada Ordinance 07-11 also has similar density reduction provisions, but the Department does not think they create a similar equivalency. However, the Department’s argument about equivalency is not persuasive because it requires that the cap on hotel/motel rooms be read as a cap on the traffic generated by hotel/motel rooms, which is contrary to the plain wording of Policy 1-2.2.10. Furthermore, as explained above, the density reduction rates do not apply to many redevelopment scenarios that can result in larger hotel/motel rooms that generate more traffic. Unlike the Marathon ordinance, Village Ordinance 07-11 also allows for the creation of new hotel/motel rooms through “disaggregration.” This term was used by the Department to describe how the ordinance can be applied in reverse to create smaller, separate hotel/motel rooms which could later be enlarged. For example, an existing two-bedroom/one-bathroom unit (defined as one unit under the former ordinance) could be redeveloped under Ordinance 07-11 as two separate one- bedroom/one-bathroom units, and then redeveloped again as two separate two-bedroom/two-bathroom units (defined as four units under the former ordinance). The Department demonstrated that Ordinance 07-11 allows for new hotel/motel rooms to be created beyond the current number of hotel/motel rooms. Therefore, it is not fairly debatable whether Ordinance 07-11 is consistent with Policy 1-2.1.10. Because the ordinance is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, it is also inconsistent with Principle (a). Policy 1-2.2.4 Policy 1-2.2.4 provides that nonconforming uses (due to their density) may only be redeveloped to the same density. There are hotel and motels in Islamorada that are nonconforming because their density is greater than is currently allowed. The Department contends that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Policy 1-2.2.4 because the ordinance would allow more rooms and thereby increase the density at nonconforming hotels and motels. The Lodging Association argues that Ordinance 07-11 does not increase density, but merely allows more bedrooms and bathrooms. The prohibition against increasing nonconforming uses is a general provision found in all local government codes. It does not prevent the periodic redefinition of what constitutes a nonconforming use. In other words, the policy has the same meaning as if it read, “However nonconforming uses are defined, do not make them worse.” The cap on hotel/motel rooms in Policy 1-2.1.10 is different in this respect. It is a unique policy that is expressly tied to a specific condition and time – “the number of current hotel and motel rooms . . . existing within the Village as of December 6, 2001.” A density limit and the cap on hotel/motel rooms serve different purposes. It was not explained by the Department and it is not apparent how the purpose served by the density limit for hotel/motels is thwarted if a bedroom or bathroom is added to a single hotel unit. On the other hand, the purpose served by the cap on the number of hotel/motel rooms that existed on December 6, 2001, is clearly thwarted by a re-definition of “room” that allows more hotel/motel rooms than existed on that December 6, 2001. The disaggregation of hotel/motel rooms can create more separate units (greater density), not just larger units. Nevertheless, the Department did not adequately explain why Policy 1-2.2.4 could not be applied by Islamorada as a limit on any disaggregation that would result in the creation of additional units at a nonconforming hotel or motel. It is fairly debatable whether Ordinance 07-11 is consistent with Policy 1-2.2.4. Policy 1-2.2.6 Policy 1-2.2.6 prohibits the enlargement or extension of non-conforming structures. The Department asserted that Ordinance 07-11 “creates a possibility of redeveloping and expanding the size of hotel/motel units to a previously existing non-conforming structure,” but the evidence presented by the Department on this issue was insufficient to explain what kinds of non-conforming structures would be affected by the ordinance, or to demonstrate how the ordinance would require noncompliance with Policy 1-2.2.6. Ordinance 07-11 is not facially inconsistent with the policy. The Department did not adequately explain why Policy 1- 2.4.6 could not be applied by Islamorada as a limit on any application of Ordinance 07-11 that would result in a nonconforming structure. It is fairly debatable whether Ordinance 07-11 is consistent with Policy 1-2.2.6. Policy 2-1.6.3 Policy 2-1.6.3 establishes a 24-hour hurricane evacuation time. Hurricane evacuation is a major issue for Islamorada and for all local governments in the Florida Keys because of their low elevation, exposure to storm surge, flooding, and high winds, and limited evacuation routes. The hurricane evacuation model used for the Florida Keys predicted in 2001 (the last time the model was run) that more than 24 hours would be needed to evacuate the Keys. Therefore, Islamorada and other local governments in the Keys developed “staged” evacuation plans whereby transient units are evacuated 48 hours prior to the arrival of hurricane force winds, then mobile home residents 36 hours prior to that time, and other residents are evacuated 24 hours prior. These staged evacuation plans have been accepted by the Department as consistent with the requirement for 24-hour hurricane evacuation. Despite the prediction of the hurricane evacuation model, the Department allows local governments in the Florida Keys to add new residences and associated vehicles every year; 28 each year in Islamorada. The Department contends that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Policy 2-1.6.3 because the ordinance allows for the creation of more hotel/motel units and larger units which will generate more traffic and make hurricane evacuation more difficult. It is undisputed that Ordinance 07-11 will increase the need for parking spaces at hotels and motels in Islamorada. The Department showed there would be an unquantified increase in the number of vehicles associated with larger hotel and motel rooms. More vehicles means more time would be needed to evacuate transient units in Islamorada. However, the Department did not show that Ordinance 07-11 would prevent Islamorada from evacuating transient units in conformance with the staged evacuation plan. The Department points out that, for fast-forming and fast-approaching hurricanes, Islamorada will not always have time to evacuate residents and visitors in the time frames called for in the staged evacuation plan. However, the Department could have used the occurrence of fast-forming and fast-approaching hurricanes as a rationale to oppose the adoption of staged evacuation plans by Islamorada and other local governments in the Florida Keys. Instead, the Department determined that staged evacuation plans are consistent with the statutory requirement and the comprehensive plan policies calling for 24-hour hurricane evacuation, despite the possibility of fast-forming and fast-approaching hurricanes. Therefore, to prove that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Policy 2-1.6.3, it is not enough for the Department to merely show that Ordinance 07-11 would lead to more vehicles associated with transient units. The Department must prove that Ordinance 07-11 would prevent Islamorada from evacuating transient units under the time frames of the staged evacuation plan. Insufficient competent evidence was presented about the hurricane evacuation model, about the model’s assumptions, and whether the model’s assumptions are still relevant to current circumstances, to assist the Administrative Law Judge to make findings regarding the potential effects of Ordinance 07-11 on the modeled evacuation times. William Wagner, formerly an emergency management coordinator for Monroe County and currently the chief for emergency services for Islamorada, testified that the staged evacuation plan has been implemented two or three times since its adoption and there have been no problems evacuating the transient population within the time frames of the plan. It was his opinion that doubling the current number of hotel/motel units in Islamorada would not prevent evacuation of the Florida Keys in compliance with the goals of the staged evacuation plan. It is fairly debatable whether Ordinance 07-11 is consistent with Policy 2-1.6.3. Policy 3-1.1.8 Policy 3-1.1.8 requires Islamorada to adopt LDRs “that establish a fair and equitable method for requiring developers of new and expanded businesses and private developers of housing to provide or subsidize housing for employees.” The Department contended that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with this policy because the ordinance creates a need for more employees without providing affordable housing for them. However, Islamorada recently adopted an LDR which requires developers to provide at least 30 percent affordable housing on site or pay a fee which Islamorada will use to provide affordable housing elsewhere. Based on Islamorada’s adoption of the affordable housing LDR, the Department changed its position and now states that Ordinance 07-11 is “neutral” with respect to affordable housing. It is fairly debatable whether Ordinance 07-11 is consistent with Policy 3-1.1.8. Principle (d) - Sound Economic Development In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department asserts that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (d), but does not explain why. The Department makes a general reference to protection of natural habitat and provision of affordable housing, but no evidence was presented to demonstrate that Ordinance 07-11 would result in adverse impacts to the natural environment, and the Department withdrew its contention that affordable housing was an issue. The Department failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (d). Principle (j) – Affordable Housing As discussed above, the Department changed its initial position and now states that Ordinance 07-11 is neutral with regard to affordable housing. The Department failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (j). Principle (l) – Health, Safety, and Welfare The principal basis for the Department’s contention that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (l) is the Department’s allegation that the ordinance will increase the traffic associated with hotels and motels and, therefore, adversely affect hurricane evacuation. For the reasons already discussed in the context of Policy 2-1.6.3 of the Islamorada Comprehensive Plan, the Department failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (l) with regard to hurricane evacuation. Another basis for the Department’s contention that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (l) is the ordinance’s alleged effect on potable water supply in Islamorada. In the Department’s Amended Final Order, there was one passing reference to the lack of data and analysis regarding “potential impacts on potable water supply.” There was no mention of a potable water supply issue in the parties’ Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department simply asserts that “Ordinance 07-11 fails to address the impacts on potable water supply.” The burden was on the Department to prove that Ordinance 07-11 would create potable water supply problems. It failed to meets its burden. The Department did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Ordinance 07-11 is inconsistent with Principle (l).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order rejecting Ordinance 07-11 as inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2008.
The Issue Whether the amendments to the Franklin County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance No. 2005-20 (Amendments) on April 5, 2005, are “in compliance” as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Background Franklin County (Franklin) is a coastal county located along the Gulf Coast of Florida's Panhandle. To the west is the Apalachicola River; it empties into a bay defined by barrier islands (St. Vincent, St. George, Dog), creating North America's second largest and most productive estuary. The eastern part of the County is St. James Island (SJI), separated from the mainland by the Crooked and Ochlockonee Rivers. Franklin's primary economic base is historically resource-based, including silviculture/timber, and since the 1930s primarily the fishing (seafood) industry. Tourism/retirement is an emerging industry especially on St. George Island, a noted resort destination. Retirees and vacationers come to enjoy the beautiful, pristine, relatively undeveloped, but still accessible waterfront stretches. Franklin's cities are Carrabelle, a 2.66 square mile fishing community about 50 percent developed and Apalachicola, a historic 4.81 square mile fishing community where about 90 percent of the land is still open for development. About 62- 70 percent of the County is federal or State land including the 1200-inmate State prison, Bald Point and St. George Island State Parks, Tate's Hell State Forest, and Apalachicola National Forest. FSU's Marine Lab is at Turkey Point. St. Joe owns over 55,000 acres in Franklin, mostly on SJI. Franklin has one of Florida's worst poverty rates. SJI's boundaries are the Crooked River and the Ochlockonee River and Bay on the north, Bald Point State Park on the east, Alligator Harbor Aquatic Preserve and the Gulf of Mexico on the south, and the City of Carrabelle on the east. SJI is mostly undeveloped except for: the Alligator Point area, including areas along County Road (CR) 370, areas along U.S. Highway (US) 98 including the unincorporated areas of St. Teresa and Lanark Village and adjacent to Carrabelle; and a few homes on Rio Vista Drive, just south of the Ochlockonee River. The natural systems on SJI are very diverse, and habitats range from xeric, well-drained uplands of pine and oak, to riverine swamps of cypress and hydric hardwoods, freshwater marshes, rivers and ponds, marine inter-tidal wetlands, bays, beaches, mudflats, seagrass meadows and open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. SJI is an ecologically significant and environmentally sensitive area that consistently scored in the 5 to 9 range (out of a high of 10) on the Florida Wildlife Commission's (FWC's) Integrated Wildlife Habitat Ranking System (IWHRS). SJI supports up to 388 species of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles, including a number of State-listed species. Of particular note is the presence of the black bear on SJI, which is a State-listed threatened species with substantial strategic habitats identified by FWC on SJI, particularly in the McIntyre, Brandy Creek, Cow Creek and Bear Creek corridors. The Gulf Sturgeon, a federally-listed threatened species, occurs in the Ochlockonee and Crooked Rivers and is subject to an ongoing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study to determine the importance of the habitat to spawning and distribution of this prehistoric fish. SJI is surrounded by relatively clean (pristine) surface waters that have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs), including portions of Alligator Harbor and portions of the Ochlockonee Bay and River. A large part of Alligator Harbor is an Aquatic Preserve. Much of the Alligator Harbor and Ochlockonee Bay are designated as Class 2 Shellfish harvesting waters. SJI is home to Bald Point State Park, which provides a variety of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities for nature observation and fishing. The eastern boundary of Tates Hell State Forest extends to Highway 319 on SJI and is separated from Bald Point State Park by approximately 7 miles of agricultural land (silviculture) through the center of SJI. Northeast Franklin, including SJI, is part of the Woodville Karst Plain, generally a sensitive karst area where some confining beds (especially in Wakulla County) are usually thin to absent, or breached. In unconfined karst hydrogeology, groundwater moves rapidly, but soil borings on SJI (Turkey Point) corroborate North Florida Water Management District maps which show a confining layer in eastern Franklin County varying in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. With such a confining layer, groundwater moves vertically at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year and laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin County, including on SJI. Petitioners attempted to contradict evidence presented by St. Joe and prove that SJI has karst hydrogeology primarily on evidence of core samples taken in eastern Franklin County. These core samples were not explained by any expert testimony and did not prove the absence of any clay confining layer in eastern Franklin County. While unlikely, there may be places in eastern Franklin County where the confining layer thins or is absent or breached. In 1991 Franklin adopted a Plan for a long-term planning horizon of the year 2000. The Plan was found “in compliance,” at a time when approximately 27 percent of Franklin was in public ownership and Franklin was designated an Area of Critical State Concern (ASCS) largely due to the importance of the Apalachicola Bay Area and its natural resources. See §§ 380.05 and 380.0555, Fla. Stat. The 1991 Plan designated a critical shoreline district and impervious surface area limitations within 150 feet of shorelines and wetlands, which not only were determined by Franklin and the Governor and Cabinet to effectively protect County wetlands but also won an award from DCA for Outstanding Environmental Protection. The Administration Commission removed Franklin's ACSC designation in 1992, but the Plan was not changed prior to 1995. After 1995, and within the year 2000 planning horizon, there was one policy addition--FLUE Policy 2.2(k)-- and one policy amendment--to FLUE Policy 2.2(d). In approximately 1997, Franklin prepared an EAR on the 1991 Plan. It did not state a need for, or anticipate any, changes to the FLUE or FLUM or much else in the Plan. However, Franklin did not timely adopt EAR-based amendments to the 1991 Plan, and the planning horizon of Franklin's Plan remained the year 2000. Notwithstanding the 2000 planning horizon, there also were some amendments/additions/deletions to goals, objectives, and policies (GOPs) after 2000. Ordinance 2001-20 amended wetlands policies to reflect a change in State jurisdiction, amended FLUEP 1.2(d) and 3.1, deleted FLUEP 3.2 and 3.3, amended Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Policy 1.5, and added FLUEP 1.6-1.9. Ordinance 2003-1 amended C/CEOs 1, 2, 3, and 7 and added Capital Improvements Element (CIE) Policies 4.4-4.6. Franklin also adopted two large-scale Plan amendments for mixed-use residential developments on SJI after 2000 without updating its Plan and planning horizon. In 2000 Franklin approved a FLUM amendment (FLUMA) from "Public Facilities" to "Mixed Use Residential" on 377.4 acres along US 98 at the intersection with Crooked River Road for a development of regional impact known as "St. James Bay." In 2002, Franklin transmitted a proposed FLUMA for 784 acres on Alligator Harbor from "Agriculture" to "Mixed-Use Residential," together with proposed FLUEP 11.11, for a St. Joe development called SummerCamp. During DCA's compliance review of the Summercamp amendments, the issue was raised whether the amendments should be found "in compliance" when Franklin's Plan was out-of-date and still planning for the year 2000. To resolve the situation, in 2003 Franklin adopted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 along with the SummerCamp FLUMA. These amendments were found to be "in compliance." FLUEP 11.12 required Franklin to conduct a county- wide assessment of eight key substantive areas, prepare an overlay map and plan policies for SJI, and update its Plan not later than April 1, 2004, on the basis of the county-wide assessments, and to include requirements that all FLUMA on SJI be "consistent with the overlay map and policies." The eight key substantive areas were: Protection of natural resources including wetlands, floodplains, habitat for listed species, shorelines, sea grass beds, and economically valuable fishery resources, groundwater quality and estuarine water quality; Protection of cultural heritage; Promote economic development; Promotion of emergency management including the delineation of the coastal high hazard area, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation clearance times, creating shelter space, directing population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high hazard areas, and implementing appropriate parts of the Local Mitigation Strategy; Adequate provision of public facilities and services including transportation, water supply, wastewater treatment, and facilities for access to water bodies; Provision of affordable housing, where appropriate; Inclusion of intensity standards; and A list of allowable uses. FLUEP 11.13 applied to any large-scale FLUMAs transmitted to DCA prior to the "effective date" of the Plan update pursuant to FLUEP 11.12, and required the FLUMA to "include an area-wide assessment covering the geographic area of the county where the FLUMA is located that addresses the same eight key substantive areas in FLUEP 11.12. Transmittal and Adoption Process The Plan Amendments at issue are the result of Franklin's endeavors to adopt EAR-based amendments and FLUMAs in accordance with FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13. Franklin initially contracted the Department of Urban and Regional Planning of the Florida State University (FSU) for: a review and evaluation of the current Plan and EAR to recommend plan changes; to have a consensus building process with at least six community workshops; to evaluate population and employment; to perform technical data assembly and analysis; to recommend updated GOPs; and to facilitate consensus on a planning overlay for SJI. FSU produced updated data and analysis (D&A) in Geographic Information System (GIS) format and GOP revisions. FSU found no need for more residential land through 2020. FSU prepared a GIS-based "suitability analysis and county-wide map." Based upon St. Joe's concerns, FSU was told to delete it, and Franklin did not transmit the suitability analysis/map. In lieu of the FSU's suitability analysis/map, a short narrative was submitted. On June 16, 2004, Franklin filed a "transmittal package" with DCA: a "complete revised plan" with D&A and GOPs; a "supplementary notebook"; and 13 large FLUMs. Franklin proposed 8 FLUMAs: Eastpoint Sprayfield (45 acres); Breakaway Lodge/Marina (17.3 acres); Ft. Gadsden Creek (78.6 acres); Otter Slide Road (46.4 acres); McIntyre Rural Village (RV) (1,740 acres); Conservation Residential (ConRes) (6,532 acres); Carrabelle East Village (CEV) (201 acres); and Marina Village Center (MVC) (1,000 acres). DCA found Franklin's transmittal insufficient per 9J-11.009(1). On July 13, 2004, Franklin transmitted St. Joe's "site suitability for Proposed St. James Island FLUM amendments"; "traffic study"; "historical data on City of McIntyre"; "St. James Island Forestry Type Map"; and "Archaeological Reconnaissance of the St. James Island/Ochlockonee River Tract." On October 15, 2004, DCA issued an ORC per 9J- 11.010. The ORC made numerous (49) objections, including, but not limited to: the SJI overlay/policies, FLUMAs, wetlands, population projections/need, potable water, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), land use categories/density and intensity standards, affordable housing, water supply planning, water dependent uses, no capital improvements schedule (CIS), and internal inconsistency. DCA coordinated with Franklin and St. Joe on the ORC response (ORCR), which was transmitted to DCA along with Ordinance 2005-20, adopted April 5, 2005, consisting of amended GOPs and FLUM series. The Ordinance replaced the 1991 Plan, as previously amended, and repealed all prior ordinances to the extent of conflict. The Ordinance adopted seven elements--FLUE; traffic circulation (TCE); housing (HE); infrastructure (IE); C/CE; recreation and open space (ROSE); and intergovernmental coordination (ICE)--and a FLUM series. FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted. There was no Capital Improvements Elements (CIE). In its new Plan, Franklin adopted five FLUMAs -- the Eastpoint Sprayfield and St. Joe's RV, ConRes, CEV, and MVC. The Eastpoint Sprayfield was dropped during DCA's compliance review, leaving the four St. Joe FLUMAs. During DCA's compliance review, many ORC objections were considered unresolved. Some issues were resolved on further review, but others remained, as reflected in a May 6, 2005, staff memo opining that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." This memo was written by DCA planners Susan Poplin and Jeff Bielling, who had extensively reviewed the County's transmittal and adoption packages. It was approved by their immediate supervisor, Charles Gauthier, a certified planner with extensive experience with Franklin, who left DCA not long after approving the memo. The memo was then presented to Valerie Hubbard, DCA's Director of the Division of Community Planning (and Gauthier's immediate supervisor), who considered the issues presented in the memo, along with additional information presented by the County, ultimately disagreed with the planners, and issued an "in compliance" Notice of Intent. No CIE A CIE is a mandatory element. See § 163.3177(3)(a); 9J-5.005(1)(c)2, 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2); 9J-5.016. The 1991 Plan had a CIE that was amended by ORD 2003-1 (CIEPs 4.4-4.6 were added). Franklin transmitted a proposed CIE to: change the "initial planning period" in CIEO 3.4 to 2004-2009; delete CIEPs 3.3 and 3.4; make a minor change to CIEP 2.1; and change CIEP 5.4 (LOS for potable water, principal arterial roads, and recreational facilities). DCA objected to the lack of a five- year CIS, which also is mandatory. In the ORCR, Franklin explained the absence of the CIS by maintaining that there were no capital improvements needed for the next five years. The adopted 2020 Plan has no CIS, which DCA found "in compliance" based on Franklin's explanation. However, it also has no CIE, which was not obvious or apparent to DCA in its compliance review because the CIE was not submitted in strike- through/underline format, as required by 9J-11. In addition, several adopted elements cross-reference to the CIE. Franklin contends that it did not adopt a CIE because there were no capital improvements to be shown on a five-year CIS and because of its understanding that many items, including building or paving roads, are not capital improvements. However, it appears Franklin may have inadvertently neglected to adopt the CIE as transmitted. The deletion was not discussed at the adoption hearing. When the deletion of the CIE came to the attention of DCA after the May 6, 2005, staff memo, DCA chose to accept Franklin's explanations as to why the CIE was deleted and why the 2020 Plan was "in compliance" without a CIE. But the evidence does not support these explanations. Notwithstanding Franklin's explanations, Franklin Ordinance 04-45 authorized a referendum on a local tourist development tax, which was approved by the voters on November 2, 2004, to provide for development of a beach park and for other recreational facility infrastructure. Franklin estimated $718,896 in tax receipts for FY 2005-06. The other parties contend that the expenditure of these capital improvement funds need not be addressed in the CIS or CIE in part because they are for the benefit of tourists, not residents. But it is clear from the evidence that both will benefit, and there does not appear to be any exception for capital improvements designed to benefit both. The other parties also point out, correctly, that only capital improvements needed to meet concurrency requirements need to be on the CIS. Besides the possible use of tourist development funds, Franklin's 2005-06 $34,036,313 annual budget includes a number of other items that appear to be capital improvement items: "capital outlay - land $100,000; capital outlay - imp. other than buildings $300,000; walk path Tillie Miller Park $10,000; Carrabelle Rec Park/FRDAP grant $200,000; Rec. Fac. Improvements other than buildings $25,000; Bald Pt. land $50,000; Bald Pt. improvements other than buildings $495,697; road paving-improvements $1,200,000; paving project-CR 30 $1,951,379; boating-improvements other than buildings $94,877; Lanark Village Drainage Improvement $92,059; Airport Fund capital outlay- improvements other than buildings $1,407,069." In addition, Franklin's CR 370 along Alligator Point has repeatedly washed out from storms, and current estimated repair costs are $2.1 million, with $1 million budgeted and FEMA matching funds anticipated. The other parties presented the direct testimony of several witnesses that none of the expenditures Franklin is planning to make in the next few years, even if capital expenditures, need to be on a CIS. Petitioners presented no direct testimony to the contrary. Based on the evidence, it was not proven that beyond fair debate that any of these expenditures were required to be included in a CIS. CIE requirements include GOPs. 9J-5.016(3). Franklin Planner Pierce and St. Joe witness Beck testified that CIE requirements can be found in other elements of the 2020 Plan. However, the 2020 Plan does not contain an explanation of any such combination of elements as required by 9J-5.005(1)(b). In addition, based upon the evidence, while some CIE requirements can be found in other elements, it is beyond fair debate that the other elements of the 2020 Plan do not contain all of the required CIE GOPs. One CIE requirement is to have a policy setting public facilities level of service standards (LOSS), including one for recreational facilities. See § 163.3177(3)(a)3; 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. See also 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2). The 2020 Plan lacks LOSS for recreational facilities. ROSEP 1.2 purports to adopt LOSS "as provided in Exhibit 7-2 of this element," but Franklin did not adopt Exhibit 7-2. See 9J- 5.005(2)(g). Franklin's transmittal D&A proposed updated recreational LOSS using population forecasts for "projected need for 2010." Exhibit 7-2 in Franklin's June 14, 2004, transmittal was based on those 2010 forecasts. There was no projection of need for either five years or to 2020. Franklin's transmittal D&A showed a deficit for bike trails, fresh/saltwater fishing, football/soccer, tennis, and swimming pools through 2010. Franklin Planner Pierce testified Exhibit 7-2 was not adopted because it was inaccurate. He testified that it was based on total population, including incorporated areas, and failed to count some swimming pools and tennis courts. But he did not supply the corrected information, and accurate D&A was not submitted for review. Pierce admitted that no data in evidence showed that Franklin can meet recreational needs through 2020, or that current recreational LOSS are being met. Franklin operates Class 1 and Class 3 landfills located on the east side of CR 65, north of US 98. D&A indicated that there are two-three more years of Class 1 landfill capacity at 2004 collection levels, with household trash being trucked to Bay County under a contract valid until 2007. The Class 3 landfill takes construction debris for a fee. Franklin did not assess Class 1 disposal requirements after the 2007 contract expiration, or Class 3 disposal requirements, and the 2020 Plan is not supported by an assessment of future solid waste disposal requirements through either a five-year or 2020 time frame based upon the projected population. Franklin may need to expand either, or both, of its landfills during the 2010 and 2020 time frames, but there is no discussion of such improvements. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's 2020 Plan without a CIE is deficient, but they characterize the deficiency as merely "technical" and "inconsequential" because: "there are no deficiencies for which to plan, and many Plan provisions ensure capital improvements implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and concurrency management"; and Franklin "has demonstrated that it can adopt a CIS and CIE in the future, if needed." But it is beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan, as it stands now without a CIE, is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a), 9J-5.0055(1)(b) and (2), and 9J- 5.016(3)(c)4. Combination Coastal and Conservation Elements Petitioners also contend that the 2020 Plan combines the coastal and conservation elements but does not contain an explanation of such combination, as required by 9J- 5.005(1)(b). In a small jurisdiction like Franklin County, with the vast majority of its land in public ownership, combination of these two elements is appropriate because most of the County’s developable acreage is coastal, and conservation measures must necessarily focus on coastal areas. This combination was previously found in compliance in 1991. No expert witness for Petitioners testified that the combination of these elements is inconsistent with 9J- 5.005(1)(b), or that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" as a result. To the contrary, several experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Two Planning Periods/Timeframes Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not include a planning period covering at least the first five-year period after adoption, as required by Section 163.3177(5)(a). But the Plan contains a number of objectives and policies in the HE, IE, and C/CE that establish a five-year planning period for achieving certain objectives. See HEO 4; IEO 2.16; C/CEOs 5.9, 8.3, 9, 14.9, 15, 15.9, 18, and 21. Petitioners seem to contend that the 2020 Plan fails to include the two required time frames--one at least five years and one at least ten years--because Franklin's analyses included disparate time frames and lacked a uniform 2020 analysis. But there does not appear to be a prohibition against analyzing more time frames than just the long-term planning horizon. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan does not cover at least two planning periods, one for at least the first five years and another for at least ten years after adoption. Affordable Housing Petitioners contend: "To the extent that FLUE Policies 11.12 and 11.13 required an assessment of affordable housing on SJI, there is no data or analysis to support a finding that an affordable housing assessment was prepared." Pam Ashley PRO, ¶ 42. But FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were deleted by the Plan amendments at issue. Besides, the county-wide assessment would include the area of SJI. Adopted HEO 2 provides: "There will be sites available for 473 units of housing for low and moderate families by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) As stated, the number in the objective clearly is incorrect. Actually, D&A showed a need for 473 units in addition to the 1803 units identified in the 1991 Plan. Adopted HEO 3 makes the same kind of error for mobile homes: "There will be adequate sites for 244 mobile homes in the County by the year 2020 2000." (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) It is beyond fair debate that these objectives, as stated, are not supported by D&A. The plan should be corrected to comport with D&A. CHHA Designation Section 163.3178(2)(h) defines the CHHA to mean the Category (Cat) 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See also Rule 9J- 5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). The Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report is the most recent applicable regional hurricane evacuation study (HES) per 9J-5.003(17). According to the HES, Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone boundary "would roughly coincide with US 98 throughout the County. The HES map of Franklin's evacuation zone, which is in GIS format, depicts one minor exception south of US 98, east of CR 30A (which is west of Apalachicola), and another southeast of US 98 (and southwest of CR 370) in the middle of SJI. Both exceptions are inland--i.e., they do not extend seaward to the coast (St. Vincent Sound in the case of the first exception, and Alligator Harbor in the case of the second exception). The adopted FLUM series includes a CHHA map that notes: "The Coastal High Hazard Area shall be designated . . . as all areas seaward of Highway 98 or County Road 30A with the exception of areas depicted as 1 and 2 on this map. The Coastal High Hazard Area for unincorporated Franklin County is based on the Apalachee Regional Transportation Analysis Final Report." The Areas 1 and 2 exceptions on Franklin's CHHA map purport to be the same two exceptions in the HES map. But unlike the HES map, the two exceptions depicted on Franklin's CHHA map extend all the way to the coast. In addition, they are larger than the exceptions depicted on the HES map, with Franklin's Area 2 exception on SJI clearly much larger. DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe concede that Franklin's CHHA map does not correspond to the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin. However, they characterize the differences as "slight" and attributable to the "representational nature" of the HES map. To the contrary, the HES map, which is in GIS format, fixes precise boundaries that clearly are not matched by Franklin's map in the cases of Areas 1 and 2. Besides, 9J- 5 does not permit Franklin's CHHA to take liberties with the applicable regional study's evacuation zone based on alleged generalized depictions or representations in the regional map. A witness for St. Joe testified that evacuation zones are related to clearly identifiable landmarks and physical features, like US 98, for easier and clearer communication to the public. But that clearly is not always the case, as can be seen from the various HES maps. In any event, there was no evidence that such considerations could justify Franklin's departure from the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone boundaries in this case, and such an argument is not made in the Joint PRO filed by DCA, Franklin, and St. Joe. It is beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan's CHHA designation in the CHHA map does not correspond to the evacuation zone for a Cat 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, as required by Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J- 5.003(17). Petitioners also point out that HES was based, in part, upon the National Hurricane Center's Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model in the 1994 Florida Hurricane Surge Atlas-Franklin County, and that HES included areas of Wakulla County north of SJI in the SLOSH Cat 1 area in Wakulla's Cat 1 evacuation zones, but excluded such areas south of the Ochlockonee Bay and River from Franklin's Cat 1 evacuation zone. They seem to contend that the HES Cat 1 evacuation zone for Franklin is not as large as it should be. But the evidence implied that the difference in treatment of these areas by HES was the result of lobbying by Wakulla's director of emergency management for their inclusion. In any event, as stated, Section 163.3178(2)(h) and 9J-5.003(17) accept the Cat 1 evacuation zone delineated by the applicable regional study, regardless of possible error. Inventory/Analysis/GOP for Natural Disaster Planning Petitioners question the adequacy of Franklin's inventory/analysis and GOPs for natural disaster planning under 9J-5.012. Besides citing some D&A, Petitioners make several major arguments: first, the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage; second, Franklin did not plan for projected populations; third, the 2020 Plan makes no provision for capital improvements to build shelters despite adding C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 regarding shelters inside and outside of county; fourth, parts of the evacuation routes out of Franklin are subject to storm surge and flooding; fifth, Franklin's planning ends at the county line; and, sixth, special needs persons were not considered. 45. 9J-5.012(2)(e)1. provides: (e) The following natural disaster planning concerns shall be inventoried or analyzed: 1. Hurricane evacuation planning based on the hurricane evacuation plan contained in the local peacetime emergency plan shall be analyzed and shall consider the hurricane vulnerability zone, the number of persons requiring evacuation, the number of persons requiring public hurricane shelter, the number of hurricane shelter spaces available, evacuation routes, transportation and hazard constraints on the evacuation routes, and evacuation times. The projected impact of the anticipated population density proposed in the future land use element and any special needs of the elderly, handicapped, hospitalized, or other special needs of the existing and anticipated populations on the above items shall be estimated. The analysis shall also consider measures that the local government could adopt to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. These inventories and/or analyses are found in the C/CE, the regional hurricane evacuation study, the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), and the Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS). The Plan incorporates the hazard mitigation appendix of the CEMP through C/CEP 15.7. Additionally, in C/CEPs 14.1, 14.6, the 2020 Plan recognizes appropriate parts of the LMS, such as the need to maintain and improve evacuation routes throughout the County. 9J-5.012(3) sets out requirements for coastal management GOPs, including the requirement in (a) for "one or more goal statements which establish the long term end toward which regulatory and management efforts are directed" to "restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources, and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters"; and the requirement in (b) for "one or more specific objectives for each goal statement which . . . 7. [m]aintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times " To support their contention that the CHHA may not plan to mitigate flooding damage, Petitioners cite a statement in the CEMP that flooding is the greatest potential hurricane damage. The also cite D&A in Franklin's 6/2004 transmittal package that evaluated areas subject to coastal flooding and observed: Areas subject to coastal flooding resulting from storm surges are shown in Map 6.4. The map portrays substantial risk from flooding outside the Category 1 storm zone By limiting the CHHA to the Category 1 storm surge zone the county may not be planning to mitigate the substantial flooding risks posed by storm surges and Category 2 and 3 storms . . . . However, there was no evidence that Franklin, DCA, or anyone else ever came to the conclusion that the CHHA was inadequate for that reason. In any event, as stated in the discussion on the CHHA, state law defines the CHHA to coincide with the Cat 1 evacuation zone as drawn by the applicable regional hurricane evacuation study. See Finding 38, supra. Petitioners base their contention that Franklin did not plan for projected populations on a reference in the LMS to Franklin's future land uses as of 2000, instead of its future land uses in 2020. But is clear that Franklin also considered the four SJI FLUMAs with their future land uses for 2020. As to shelters, Petitioners essentially argue that the CIS is inadequate. But C/CEPs 14.8 and 14.12 require assessments of shelter availability inside and outside Franklin, pursuit of agreements with neighboring counties to provide out-of-county shelters, and exploration of the possibility of locating some shelters in Franklin (even though the entire county will be evacuated in the event of a Cat 2-5 storm). There was no D&A as to a need for capital funding within the next five years for inclusion in a CIS. Regarding the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin, there was evidence that US 319 is subject to flooding at the Ochlocknee River during a storm, that US 98 is subject to storm surge and flooding at the Ochlocknee Bay, and that the four SJI FLUMAs are expected to move the critical link in Franklin's evacuation plan from US 98 near Lanark Village to US 98 at the Ochlocknee Bay. But there was no evidence that Franklin failed to consider the impact of storm surge and flooding on evacuation routes out of Franklin. To the contrary, the evidence was clear that Franklin is planning for the complete evacuation of the county to take place before those routes are impacted by storm surge or flooding. The USACE guidance for HES states in part: Each jurisdiction's existing hurricane evacuation routes are evaluated. In choosing roadways for the hurricane evacuation network care should be taken to designate only those roads that are not expected to flood from rainfall or storm surge while evacuation is in process. There was no evidence that HES did not follow this guidance. Under C/CEO 14 of the 1991 Plan, reasonable hurricane evacuation standards of 16 hours for Cat 1 and 24 hours for Cat 2-5 storm events were adopted. The 2020 Plan amends C/CEO 14 to read: Hurricane Evacuation - The County shall conduct its hurricane evacuation procedures to ensure that Countywide evacuation clearance times do not exceed 16 24 hours for Category 1 & 2 storms and 24 30 hours for Category 2, 3, 4 and 5 storms. 9J5-012(3)(b)(7). (Underlining/strikethrough in original.) Actual hurricane evacuation times are based on models that estimate the amount of time it would actually take to evacuate the County. These models include consideration of behavioral tendencies and tourist occupancies. Without the SJI FLUMAs, actual hurricane evacuation clearance times for the entire County are 4 ½ hours for a Cat 1 evacuation and 8 ¼ hours for Cat 2–5 evacuations, with high tourist occupancy and a slow public response. With the additional populations from the SJI FLUMAs (none of which fall within the CHHA), actual clearance times would increase slightly to five hours for Cat 1 and 10 ½ hours for Cat 2 – 5 evacuations. However, today’s actual evacuation times of 4 ½ hours and 8 ¼ hours can be maintained or reduced with the use of reasonable mitigation measures found in C/CEP 14.1--namely, encouraging the use of SR 65 and SR 67 as alternatives to US 98 and SR 319. Petitioners contend that Franklin's hurricane evacuation standards actually have been lowered as a result of the amendment to C/CEO 14 by the addition of the word "clearance." But there was no evidence that the 1991 Plan's C/CEO 14 actually planned for something other than clearance from Franklin. Regardless whether evacuation plans changed by addition of the word "clearance," Petitioners question whether it is wise to plan only to clear Franklin before the arrival of tropical storm conditions when evacuees still must pass through Cat 1 evacuation zones in other counties, e.g., Wakulla, before reaching a place of safety. As they point out, the HES envisions the need for a regional evacuation in the event of a major hurricane with the majority of evacuees in the region evacuating to Leon County, and states: "For the near term, it may be most appropriate for the coastal counties, especially Franklin and Wakulla, to use the clearance times for Leon County rather than using their own specific figures." Moreover, HES stated: Until the roadway improvements are completed on the Crawfordville Highway and Capital Circle, the evacuation clearance times calculated for Franklin, Wakulla and Leon Counties can exceed one full day of heavy evacuation traffic movement for a worst-case storm if all those who wish to leave the area are to be accommodated. This timeframe easily extends beyond the maximum amount of warning and preparation time provided by the National Hurricane Center under a Hurricane Warning. This D&A in and of itself does not prohibit Franklin from using times to clear the county in its evacuation planning. But use of clearance times would require regional evacuation needs to be coordinated among the various counties and incorporated in the CEMP and LMS. There was no evidence in this case that such coordination has not occurred or that the various counties are not planning for evacuees to pass through all evacuation zones and reach places of safety soon enough to get out of harm's way. Petitioners also argue that special needs persons have not been considered. This argument is based on the supposed testimony of St. Joe's witness, Collins, that there is no provision in the 2020 Plan for the evacuation of persons with special needs. Actually, Collins' testimony was that there is a Plan provision that "definitely affects the evacuation" of persons with special needs, and not just indirectly, in that adult living facilities within the CHHA are prohibited. He also testified that the CEMP deals with those issues. Mr. Gauthier, the former DCA chief of comprehensive planning was subpoenaed by Petitioners and explained why, in his opinion, the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of inconsistency with 9J-5.012. He based his opinion on the incorrect CHHA designation, failure to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA, and C/CEO 14's establishment of a clearance time standard greater than actual clearance times. While the CHHA may not be designated accurately, assuming a correct definition, there was at least fair debate as to whether the 2020 plan directs population concentrations away from the CHHA. As indicated, none of the FLUMAs are in the CHHA, either as designated or as it should have been designated. Elsewhere, both the 1991 and the 2020 Plans limited residential density in the CHHA to a maximum of one DU/acre, which arguably does not constitute a population "concentration." For the reasons described in the preceding findings, the evidence in this record did not prove beyond fair debate that Franklin's 2020 Plan is inconsistent with 9J- 5.012 and not "in compliance." SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs RV consists of 1,704 acres on the 2020 FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(l). It is presently designated agriculture (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres), and parts are in silviculture. FLUEP 2.2(l) is designed as a rural village that focuses on the historical heritage and natural surroundings of the Crooked River, with the objective being to create a rural village center in proximity to the river and a supporting rural community of river cottages and single-family (SF) lots. FLUEP 2.2(l) lists seven allowable uses, including residential, some commercial, and recreational uses. Non- residential maximum intensity is expressed in terms of FAR and set at .20; maximum overall gross residential density is 1 DU/5 gross acres. FLUEP 2.25 does not apply. RV can be all residential. Franklin Planner Pierce testified that, at most, 340 acres can be used for non-residential uses. He calculated this by multiplying the total acreage by the FAR. He also testified that, if 340 acres are non-residential, a maximum of 272 residential DUs could be developed on the remaining 1,363 acres. If all 1704 acres of RV are residential, the maximum residential use would be 340 DUs. Clustering is allowed but not required. At least 25 percent (426 acres) must be in "common open space" (including roads and other infrastructure); 50 percent "common open space" is required for cluster developments. Central water and wastewater is mandatory, and SMSs must meet OFW standards. As transmitted, the ConRes FLUMA was 6,531 acres to the east of RV and along the Ochlocknee River and Bay. As adopted, it is 2,500 acres. The parts of the transmitted version adjacent to RV and along the river and Bear Creek were eliminated in the adopted version. The land is presently "Agriculture" (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. As described in FLUEP 2.2(m), ConRes is generally intended for large, private tracts of land that are appropriate for low density residential development and the protection of natural and cultural resources. A stated important objective is to allow for low density residential development that accentuates and celebrates the natural environment and is designed to fit into the natural setting instead of altering the natural setting to fit the design of the development. It allows detached SF residential use, passive and active recreational uses, related infrastructure, silviculture, and accessory use for residents and guests, and other similar or compatible uses. Free- standing nonresidential or commercial uses intended to serve non-residents are not permitted. Neither "active" nor "passive" recreational uses are defined in FLUEP 2.2(m). "Timeshare" or "vacation rentals" may be allowed. Maximum gross density is 1 DU/5 gross acres, and maximum overall impervious surface coverage cannot exceed 15 percent of the land area. No FAR is included or, arguably, required because ConRes is primarily a residential concept. Septic tanks are allowed but may not be located within 500 feet of the Ochlocknee River, Ochlocknee Bay, or Bear Creek. "Aerobic systems" to provide a higher level of treatment apparently are not required, as they are on St. George Island and Alligator Point. IEP 1.2 states: "The County shall adopt a policy that mandates aerobic septic systems on a county-wide basis." Apparently, this has not yet occurred. SMSs must meet OFW standards. MVC is 1,000 acres presently "Agriculture" on the FLUM (with residential development allowed at 1 DU/40 acres); the land is used for silviculture. The land is to the immediate east of ConRes along the Ochlocknee Bay and west of the US 98 bridge over the bay. MVC is described in FLUEP 2.2(n). The intent is to create a southern coastal fishing village focused on a marina, which is a required use. In addition to the marina, the village may contain a mix of related activities including retail, office, hotel, restaurant, entertainment, and residential uses. "Public and private utilities" are allowed but are not defined; they probably contemplate those needed for MVC itself. Clustering is not required. Residential use may not be required, but it certainly is expected of a "southern coastal fishing village." Residential use may be any combination of SF, multi-family (MF), condominiums, private residence clubs, time shares, and other forms of fractional ownership. The maximum FAR for non- residential use is .30. The maximum residential density is "2 DU/gross acres", maximum ISR (impervious surface ratio) is .80, minimum "common open space" is .25, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Central water and wastewater is required. SMSs must meet OFW standards. CEV in the 2020 Plan FLUM and FLUEP 2.2(o) addresses 200 acres presently designated Agriculture (allowing 1 DU/40 acres residential use); the land is in silviculture. The CEV FLUMA represents the first phase of development. CEV is generally intended to create a self-sustaining community with a mixture of functionally integrated land uses anchored by a village center. It is to complement the existing community of Carrabelle and create places to live, work and shop in the context of promoting moderately priced housing and economic development opportunities. Allowable uses are limited to SF and MF residential, retail commercial, service-oriented commercial, office, business and industrial park, passive and active recreation, schools and other civic facilities, public and private utilities, and houses of worship. There is no definition limiting the type of industrial use allowed, but Franklin Planner Pierce interpreted FLUEP 2.2(o) to mean industry like a truss factory or a cement batching plant, not heavier industry. Performance standards are 1-3 DU per gross acre gross residential density, maximum non-residential intensity of .25 FAR, commercial and business park intensity of .25 FAR, minimum common open space of .25, minimum civic space of .10, and other applicable Franklin zoning code provisions. FLUEP 2.25 applies, and at least three land uses are required, "none of which may be less than 10 percent of the total land area." Density, Intensity, and Mixed-Use Standards Petitioners contend that the 2020 Plan provisions, including the SJI FLUMAs, are not "in compliance" for failure to identify densities and intensities of uses and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category, as mandated by 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a)("distribution, location and extent"). See also 9J-5.013(3)(b)("type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses"). However, it is clear that residential densities are provided for each category, and Petitioners concede in their PROs that the mixed-use residential category in FLUEP 2.2(e) has policies/standards for the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement (of distribution), and the density or intensity of each use. In the ORC, DCA objected to Franklin's proposed plan for failure to identify non-residential intensities and for creating mixed-use categories without percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses in each category. In response, Franklin added FAR standards and FLUEP 2.25. DCA's 5/06/2005 staff memo acknowledged the FARs and accepted them. The staff memo also acknowledged FLUEP 2.25 and accepted it as providing a percentage distribution mix of uses for mixed-use residential, mixed-use commercial, MVC, and CEV. However, the staff memo criticized the mixed-use categories for not requiring some residential use. Petitioners contend that, since FLUEP 2.25 does not apply to RV and ConRes, those categories fail to provide a percentage distribution or other objective measures of the mix of land uses. But it is at least fairly debatable that RV and ConRes are not true mixed-use categories, such that 9J- 5.006(4)(c) does not apply. Petitioners also contend that, since ConRes does not have FAR standards, intensity of non-residential uses is not provided for that category. In that regard, Petitioners argue that FLUEP 2.2(m) allows "free-standing non-residential or commercial uses" in ConRes and that Franklin Planner Pierce was unable to state how much of those uses are allowed in ConRes. Actually, FLUEP 2.2(m) disallows such uses if "intended to serve non-residents." It is not clear from the policy that such uses are allowed at all in ConRes since other allowable uses are described as "similar or compatible uses." If such uses are allowable by negative implication, they would have to serve only residents. Arguably, non-residential intensity standards are not required in ConRes. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan do not meet the requirements of 9J-5.006(4)(c) and (3)(c)7 and Section 163.3177(6)(a), and they put on no expert testimony that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" for those reasons. Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the FLUMAs and related policies in the 2020 Plan create mixed-use land use categories without the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, or without the density or intensity of each use. Predictable Standards for MVC and CEV Petitioners attempted to prove that wildly varied development scenarios could result from application of FLUEP 2.25 to MVC and CEV. The evidence did not disclose any reason to believe that uses will be combined so as to maximize certain types of uses and result in lopsided development scenarios. Assuming that were to occur, the evidence was not clear what the maximum possible density and intensity of particular uses could be under various scenarios. This is partly because Franklin's Planner Pierce seemed to interpret MVC and CEV as establishing a maximum gross residential density on the entire acreage (1000 acres for MVC and 200 acres for CEV), regardless how much land actually was devoted to residential uses. Using that interpretation (which runs counter to Mr. Pierce's interpretation of the RV FLUEP), taken to an extreme 2000 DU of residential could be developed in MVC even if 900 acres were used for non-residential uses (e.g., marina and other commercial or office) and only 100 acres were used for residential, and 600 DU of residential could be developed in CEV even if 180 acres were used for non- residential uses and only 20 acres were used for residential. Given those results, such an interpretation does not seem logical. In addition, the applicable Franklin zoning code provisions were not clear. Also, factors such as FAR and ISR limitations and the necessity for "common open space" were not applied in a clear or consistent manner in the testimony. It can, however, be found that, in the unlikely event that lopsided development were to occur, large amounts of either residential or non-residential uses theoretically could develop in MVC and CEV depending on the development scenario. In calculating some alleged development scenarios for MVC and CEV, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) also may have been applying the minimum common open space requirements and FAR intensity standards incorrectly. In some instances, they seemed to treat the minimum common open space requirements as if it were a separate allowable land use within the FLUMA and subtract the common open space minimum from total gross acreage to calculate acreage remaining for allowable land uses in the FLUMA. But it is not clear why minimum common open space requirements could (and should) not be incorporated within acreage devoted to the various allowable uses. In some instances, Petitioners (and Mr. Pierce) seemed to apply minimum FAR to gross acreage in the FLUMA to calculate maximum acreage that can be devoted to non-residential land uses. (This also was done for RV. See Finding 58, supra.) But it is not clear why FAR intensity standards should not be applied instead to the discrete acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses to determine the maximum allowable floor area coverage within the acreage devoted to allowable non- residential uses. Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the unlikely possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV makes those FLUMAs and related policies, or the 2020 Plan, not "in compliance." Meanwhile, experts for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan is not "in compliance" because of the possibility of lopsided development in MVC or CEV. Failure to Consider/React to Best Available Data FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 required consideration of eight key areas. These areas included protection of natural resources and cultural heritage, promotion of economic development and emergency management, provision of adequate public facilities and services and affordable housing, and inclusion of intensity standards and allowable uses. Based on all of the documents in the record, the updated 2020 Plan was supported by consideration of each of the eight key areas listed by FLUEP 11.12 and, for the four SJI FLUMAs, by FLUEP 11.13. Petitioners contend that Franklin's 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data existing as of the date of adoption, April 5, 2005, as required by: Section 163.3177(8)("elements of the comprehensive plan, whether mandatory or optional, shall be based upon data appropriate to the element involved") and (10)(e)("Legislature intends that goals and policies be clearly based on appropriate data"); 9J- 5.005(2)(a)("shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element" and "[t]o be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue"); and 9J-5.006(1)(FLUE data requirements). In support of that contention, they cite to a few of the voluminous data in the record submitted by St. Joe and used by Franklin that are not the best available or have errors or a weakness (an unknown source). But their argument concedes that the best available data are in the record, and no expert witness testified that the 2020 Plan is not based on the best available data. To the contrary, Petitioners' expert questioned the quality of the analysis of the data in the adoption package. Meanwhile, expert witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available evidence. Petitioners also contend that inconsistent data was used in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a)("[w]here data are relevant to several elements, the same data shall be used, including population estimates and projections"). While their PRO does not cite any specifics, during the hearing Petitioners directed Mr. Gauthier to two examples. One was that Florida Land Use Cover Classification System data was used to identify wetlands in the FLUE, while National Wetlands Inventory data (supplemented with hydric soils analysis) was used to identify wetlands for the SJI FLUMAs. But those data were used in the same element, not in different elements. The other was that a traffic study in the 6/2004 transmittal package used a projection of 2,965 residential units in the SJI FLUMA while Franklin Planner testified to a different number--3,400. But the higher number represented a theoretical maximum, which is not necessarily the data on which traffic analyses should be based. No expert testified that this constituted the use of inconsistent data in violation of 9J-5.005(5)(a). To the contrary, witnesses for the other parties testified that the 2020 Plan is based on the best available data and professionally acceptable analyses, that the County appropriately responded to the D&A in preparing the Plan update, and that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance." Suitability of SJI FLUMAs and FLUEPs Petitioners contend that none of the SJI FLUMAs are "inherently suitable for development at the permitted density and intensity." In their PRO, they based their contention in large part on FSU's analysis of various criteria, including proximity of three of the FLUMAs to the relatively pristine Ochlocknee River and Bay and their natural resources, presence of wetlands, soil types, floodplains, vegetative cover, habitat for Florida black bear and other wildlife, and alleged karst hydrogeology. They also cite DCA's 5/6/2005 staff memo, the concerns of Drs. Chanton and Livingston about density and intensity increases, and Mr. Gauthier's testimony that he is "concerned and believe[s] that there are compliance problems . . . based on suitability." The evidence might support the proposition that there are more suitable places in Franklin for development, including in the middle of SJI, where St. Joe also is contemplating possible development in the future, and nearer to Apalachicola and Carrabelle. But the middle of SJI would not be suitable for a marina village, and there may be other aspects of St. Joe's planned developments that could not be accommodated on other land available for development. In addition, Franklin wants to protect the land within the Apalachicola River and Bay basin. In any event, the question presented in this case is not whether there are more suitable lands for development. Rather, the question is whether, based on all the evidence presented, it is beyond fair debate that the locations of the FLUMAs are unsuitable. "Development suitability" is defined as "the degree to which the existing characteristics and limitations of the land and water are compatible with a proposed use or development." FLUEP 1.2 requires review of FLUMAs "to insure [sic] that the proposed uses, in the various categories, do not conflict with the prevailing natural conditions including": (a) soil conditions; (b) topography; (c) drainage; (d) wetlands; and (e) floodplains. In their PRO, Petitioners criticize the soil suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as being "based upon a subset of on-site soils termed 'predominate' with no percentage quantification and no analysis of the other on-site soils" and as misrepresenting and selectively quoting from the soil survey. See Pamela Ashley PRO, ¶73. But the soils in the SJI FLUMAs were re- analyzed at length during the final hearing. The evidence was that there are upland soils in each SJI FLUMA. In the ConRes FLUMA, the only SJI FLUMA allowing septic tanks, suitable soils and a 500-foot setback from principal surface waters should provide adequate attenuation to accommodate on-site sewage systems. There are soils in each SJI FLUMA that are not the best for the proposed development. These soils are potentially limiting but arguably can accommodate the proposed development, given appropriate site planning and engineering, together with the 2020 Plan's provisions that operate to protect natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas. It was fairly debatable that the soils in the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the topography of the SJI FLUMAs in that parts are subject to inundation during a Cat 1 storm. But the evidence was that low-density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the CHHA, and it was fairly debatable that the topography of the FLUMAs is suitable for the proposed development. As for drainage, each SJI FLUMA requires an SMS employing OFW design criteria. OFWs have special resource value and need heightened protection. A 1991 Plan provision required County SMSs to collect and treat runoff from the first 1.5 inches of rainfall regardless of the area drained. This provision exceeds OFW criteria and applies to each SJI FLUMA. The SMS design criteria, buffers, setbacks, and the nature of development anticipated in each SJI FLUEMA are intended to work in concert to minimize surface water impacts. Employing these elements is anticipated to allow the development of the FLUMAs without impacting surface waters. If there is no measurable pollutant loading to nearby waters, aquatic flora and fauna should experience no impact. Fewer significant seagrass beds are located in waters north of where MVC is located, and it should be possible to site a marina facility there in deeper water without significant seagrasses. The strict SMS design criteria assure the collection and treatment of stormwater for water quality purposes. The SMSs also will provide important sources of groundwater recharge and help protect water quantity. Runoff collected in SMSs is retained on-site and returned to the groundwater component of the hydrologic cycle (minus losses to evaporation and evapotranspiration). The retention of stormwater on-site offsets the potential loss of runoff resulting from increased impervious surfaces, facilitating aquifer recharge. With proper engineering, runoff from each of the SJI FLUMAs could be collected within the required SMSs resulting in minimal or no adverse effect on aquifer recharge on SJI. Recharge rates on SJI vary from high (15 to 20 inches per year) to moderate (10 to 15 inches per year) to low (less than 5 inches per year), depending on location. As indicated, the confining layer between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer in eastern Franklin thins from west to east but is not believed to degenerate into karst features. See Findings 4-5, supra. Rather, the confining layer in eastern Franklin County appears to vary in thickness from 15 to 20 feet. Assuming no karst features or other anomalies creating a direct conduit to the Floridan, groundwater moves vertically throughout SJI at approximately 2 to 3 feet per year. This rate would provide sufficient time for the natural breakdown (attenuation) of residual pollutants from on-site sewage and stormwater treatment systems as well as any additional pollutants that may be generated such that development within the SJI FLUMAs should not threaten the Floridan aquifer. Lateral flow of groundwater from beneath the SJI FLUMAs also should not pose a risk to surface waters. In contrast to unconfined karst, where the movement of groundwater to and through the Floridan aquifer may be rapid, groundwater appears to move laterally at approximately 100 feet per year in eastern Franklin, providing adequate time for the attenuation of any added pollutants prior to any such groundwater seepage reaching surface waters. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the amount of wetlands in the FLUMAs. RV has 1,324 wetland acres (78 percent) with 380 acres (22 percent) of "interspersed" uplands; ConRes has 525 wetland acres (21 percent) with 1,975 acres of uplands (79 percent); MVC has 276 wetland acres (28 percent) and 724 upland acres (72 percent); and CEV has 66 wetland acres (33 percent) and 134 upland acres (67 percent). In response to ORC criticism, Franklin's wetlands policies were amended to address "high quality" and "low quality" wetlands and give a higher level of protection to the former. Petitioners criticize the 2020 Plan for not identifying and mapping the high and low quality wetlands. They also rely on Gauthier's opinion that "the wetland policies are flawed, in that they're vague and not specific and there are significant gaps" as a result of exceptions and waivers. They also contend that the 2020 Plan fails to direct development away from wetlands, which will result in degradation of water quality in the Ochlockonee River/Bay and Apalachicola Bay system primarily from increased urban runoff and nutrification. But it is at least fairly debatable that the amended wetlands policy will increase wetlands protections and that wetlands in the FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed under the amended wetland policies. Each SJI FLUMA allows “clustering,” which concentrates DUs in a portion of the overall site without increasing the overall number of units. Clustering is mandatory in ConRes and CEV. Clustering is advantageous to the extent that it encourages open space, reduces impervious surface, reduces pollutants generated from more widespread development, and enhances aquifer recharge. However, the advantages could be illusory to the extent that clustering simply allows the wholesale transfer of density from a portion of the site where development is unsuitable and should not be anticipated (e.g., high-quality wetlands) to other portions of the site. Such a result would be of particular concern in RV, which is 78 percent wetlands, if all 340 DUs were to be concentrated on 375 acres of uplands, effectively at a density of almost one DU/acre, interspersed among 1,330 acres of high- quality wetlands. (The concern would be even greater if non- residential uses in RV were surprisingly high, and if the interpretation of "gross density" suggested by Franklin's planner for MVC and CEV were applied to RV, thereby further increasing the effective residential density interspersed among high-quality wetlands.) C/CEP 10.1 requires that the County's site plan review process be amended to take into consideration natural constraints, including wetlands, and restricted depending upon the severity of those constraints. Because no site plan has been proposed for any of the SJI FLUMAs, it is unknown to what extent, if any, the privately-owned wetlands may actually be disturbed. It is at least fairly debatable that, given the relatively low overall densities, the extent of available uplands (at least in ConRes and MVC), the arguably-enhanced wetland protections, and properly-implemented clustering, wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs can be protected in the course of development as proposed and that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the wetlands in the SJI FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs for failure to quantify floodplains (although admittedly depicting them on maps and citing FIRM maps), for "inaccurate and generalized narrative," and for stating "that development is allowed 'but flood considerations must be evaluated'." Pamela Ashely PRO, ¶ 76, citing the ORCR. As to "areas subject to coastal flooding" (the hurricane vulnerability zone), all of the SJI FLUMAs are subject to Cat 3 evacuation and the vast majority are within the Cat 3 SLOSH surge area. But some effort was made to focus development outside of the floodplains. Besides, development within floodplains is not prohibited by state or federal law. Rather, development within a floodplain must be constructed above certain elevations and provide compensating flood storage for any displaced flood plain area. The evidence was that low density development is not necessarily unsuitable in the these areas, and it was at least debatable that the FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of floodplains in the FLUMAs. Petitioners in their PRO also criticize the suitability analysis submitted in support of the FLUMAs as to "vegetative cover" and "wildlife habitats" for only addressing bald eagle nests and bear sightings and road kill locations, and for generally stating that St. Joe's silvicultural use has "vastly altered" or otherwise displaced the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. IWHRS data and best available bear data was not addressed in the suitability analysis. However, all of this D&A was presented and analyzed during the hearing. The SJI FLUMAs comprise a fraction of the 1.2 million acres of habitat supporting the Apalachicola black bear population, of which SJI bears are also a fraction. In response to the ORC, Franklin and St. Joe made some accommodation to the black bear by significantly reducing the size of the ConRes FLUMA and removing the Bear Creek area from the FLUMA. The SJI FLUMAs also preserve the possibility of a bear corridor of appropriate dimensions connecting Bald Point State Park on the east end of SJI with the Crooked River Tract and the larger publicly-owned bear habitat to the west. Along with the availability of public lands, residential clustering will help facilitate bear movement through SJI notwithstanding the development of the SJI FLUMAs. Bears should still frequent the FLUMAs when food supplies are ample, even during construction. Even with the accommodation and a corridor, the proposed development will impact the black bear. Road kills occur where bears and roadways mix. (Generally, the more people there are in and near bear habitat, the more problems will arise from bear encounters with people, and the more likely that the resolution of such problems will not benefit the bears.) But the SJI FLUMAs themselves are not considered critical bear habitat, and their development alone should not result in a significant adverse impact on the bear population. While the gulf sturgeon, a protected species, is known to pass through nearby waters, neither the Ochlocknee River nor Bay has been designated critical habitat for the fish. No surface water impacts that would affect the sturgeon were proven. Based on the evidence, it is at least fairly debatable that the SJI FLUMAs are suitable for the proposed development notwithstanding the presence of the black bear, the Gulf sturgeon, and other wildlife now using SJI. Based on the foregoing, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the SJI FLUMAs are unsuitable for the proposed development, notwithstanding the issues raised by Petitioners as to soils, topography, drainage, wetlands, floodplains, vegetative cover, and wildlife and their habitat. Deletion of FLUEP 11.12 and 11.13 The County deleted FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 as part of the Plan update. This decision was appropriate because the substantive aspects of FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 were considered and would be incorporated within the various provisions of the updated Plan, once effective. Also, the assessments required under those policies must be made regardless of whether policies are included within the Plan because they are required under 9J-5. All of the expert planners--including Mr. Gauthier--testified that the 2020 Plan is "in compliance” notwithstanding deletion of those policies. Once FLUEPs 11.12 and 11.13 are no longer necessary, it is the County’s prerogative to include them in or remove them from the Plan. FLUEP 11.12 required the preparation and adoption of an overlay plan for SJI, which would result in an overlay map and policies. Although an overlay plan was prepared, it was not adopted as part of the 2020 Plan but rather was included as an appendix to the Technical Data and Analysis Report submitted in support of the 2020 Plan update. Potential adoption of the overlay as part of the Plan was a concern to many of the citizens attending the visioning meetings. There was confusion as to what adoption of an overlay into the Plan actually meant and whether it established development entitlements. The County has the discretion to adopt or remove Plan provisions that duplicate or exceed statutory and regulatory requirements. Utilization of the overlay as D&A is consistent with state planning requirements. It was not proven beyond fair debate that the 2020 Plan would not be "in compliance" without the SJI overlay.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that Franklin's 2020 Plan update, with SJI FLUMAs, is not "in compliance" at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, 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 May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the allotments and conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Addendum to Staff Report attached hereto. 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 Mr. Robert H. Fowler, P.E. 110 Lakeview Building North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a four-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(h)2, 489.129(1)(k), and 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Allen Fader, is, and has been at all times material, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007504 by the State of Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. The Respondent, by virtue of his license, advertised construction services for Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., during 1997. The Respondent presented a business card, with the name of Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., to Ruby M. Shepherd, a customer, in April of 1997. On April 14, 1997, the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., contracted with Ruby M. Shepherd to enclose a patio and to install hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence located at 12325 Northwest 19th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract was conditioned on Ms. Shepherd being able to obtain financing to pay for the construction described in the contract. The exact amount Ms. Shepherd was required to pay under the original April 14, 1997, contract cannot be determined from the evidence in this case.4 The Respondent assisted Ms. Shepherd in obtaining a loan for the financing of the construction work described in the contract. It took several months to obtain a loan. Ultimately, through the efforts of the Respondent, and of a person engaged by the Respondent to help obtain a loan, Ms. Shepherd received a loan through Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow. The check from Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow was in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The check was made payable to Ms. Shepherd and to Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. At the request of the man who helped obtain the loan, Ms. Shepherd endorsed the loan check and agreed for the check to be delivered to the Respondent. The Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., negotiated the loan check and received all of the proceeds in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The Respondent received the proceeds of the loan on or about September 12, 1997. The Respondent did not take any action on Ms. Shepherd's construction project until November 14, 1997. On that day, the Respondent placed an order for the material for the hurricane shutters on Ms. Shepherd's project. Nothing more was done on Ms. Shepherd's project for quite some time. Towards the end of February of 1998, the Respondent had some health problems, which caused him to be unable to work for several weeks. Eventually, the Respondent attempted to pick up the shutter materials he had ordered for Ms. Shepherd's project. As a result of the delay, those materials had been returned to stock and had been sold to someone else. The Respondent ordered the materials again. Eventually, in June of 1998, the Respondent had the shutter materials delivered to Ms. Shepherd's residence, and began the process of installing the hurricane shutters. In the meantime, from September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not contact Ms. Shepherd. During this period of time, Ms. Shepherd called the Respondent's office numerous times and left numerous messages asking the Respondent to return her calls. From September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not return any of Ms. Shepherd's calls. In January of 1998, Ms. Shepherd was finally able to speak with the Respondent. From January of 1998 until the installation work began in June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd spoke to the Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to find out when the Respondent was going to begin work or return the money he had been paid. During this period of time, the Respondent repeatedly made false assurances to Ms. Shepherd that the work would be performed within two weeks. On or about June 12, 1998, the Respondent obtained a building permit for Ms. Shepherd's project from the Miami-Dade Department of Planning, Development, and Regulation. Installation of the hurricane shutters began that same week. The installation process was delayed because some of the materials did not fit and had to be returned to the manufacturer for modifications. Following the modifications, the installation process resumed. After a few more days, the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd the hurricane shutter work was finished and that he was not going to do the patio construction work, because the loan Ms. Shepherd had received was not enough money to pay for both projects. After the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd that the installation of the hurricane shutters was complete, the Respondent never did any further work on Ms. Shepherd's construction project. The hurricane shutters installed at Ms. Shepherd's property by the Respondent were not installed correctly. Several of the hurricane shutters will not open and close properly. Several of the hurricane shutters are insufficiently fastened. A necessary shutter over the storage room door was never installed. The problems with the subject hurricane shutters can be corrected. The cost of the corrections necessary to make the shutters operate properly and to fasten them securely is approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Respondent never called for an inspection of the installation of the hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence. In their present condition, those hurricane shutters will not pass inspection, because they were installed improperly. If corrections are made, those hurricane shutters will pass inspection. By reason of the facts stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Respondent failed to properly and fully complete the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. The Respondent never did any work on the patio portion of the contracted work. At some point in time between September of 1997 and June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd and the Respondent agreed to a modification of their original contract due to the fact that the proceeds of the loan obtained by Ms. Shepherd were insufficient to pay for both the hurricane shutters and the enclosure of the patio. The essence of their modified agreement (which was never reduced to writing) was that the Respondent would not do the patio enclosure portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would do the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would be paid for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; and any remaining balance of the loan proceeds that had been paid to the Respondent would be paid back to Ms. Shepherd. Implicit, but apparently unstated, in this modified agreement, was the notion that the Respondent would charge a fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. A fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work at Ms. Shepherd's residence, including all materials, labor, overhead, and profit, would be approximately four thousand dollars ($4,000).5 The price of four thousand dollars presupposes properly installed hurricane shutters that will pass inspection. As previously mentioned, it will cost approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000) to make the corrections to the subject hurricane shutters which are necessary for the shutters to function properly and pass inspection. Accordingly, the fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is three thousand dollars ($3,000). Ms. Shepherd has paid $12,979.15 to the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. The fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is $3,000. Therefore, the Respondent has been paid $9,979.15 more than he is entitled to keep. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent has not paid back any money to Ms. Shepherd.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in each of the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following penalties: For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00, and placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order require the Respondent to pay restitution to Ms. Shepherd in the amount of $9,979.15, and to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $266.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1999.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY F LORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-143 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE LLL ETULIENG AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by U.S. Mail to each of the persons listed below on this YY] day of aula Ford Agency Clerk Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd Tallahassee Florida 32399-2100 By U.S. Mail The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Catherine D. Reischmann, Esq. Debra S. Babb-Nutcher, Esq. Gregg A. Johnson, Esq. Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D’agresta, P.A. 111 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 2000 Orlando, Florida 32802 creischmann@orlandolaw.net dbabb@orlandolaw.net gjohnson@orlandolaw.net Marcia Parker Tjoflat, Esq. Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Ave., Ste. 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 mpt@papmet.com M. Lynn Pappas, Esq. Pappas, Metcalf, Jenks & Miller, P.A. 245 Riverside Ave., Ste. 400 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ipappas@papmet.com Linda Loomis Shelley, Esq. Fowler White Boggs & Banker, P.A. P.O. Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ishelley@fowlerwhite.com Lynette Norr, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Lynette.Norr@dca.state.fl.us FINAL ORDER NO. DCA 11-GM-143
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a water use permit from the Central and South Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for use as a public water supply for an area consisting of 12,000 acres. Received into evidence without objection were the notice of public hearing appearing in The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, Florida; Supplementary Report - Water Treatment Plant and Raw Water and Transfer Mains - September, 1970; Water and Sewer Rate Study, July, 1971; Water and Sewer Rate Study, January, 1972; Summary Report, Water and Wastewater Program, October, 1972; Comprehensive Report, Water Works Improvements, January, 1965; pages 20, 21 and 24 of Addendum to supplementary report filed with application; letter to J.B. Jackson from James C. Williams dated July 17, 1975; letter to Abe Krietman from John H. Klinch, dated July 31, 1975; letter to J.B. Jackson from J. Eldon Mariott dated July 22, 1975; and the Staff Report of the FCD. The application was a part of the hearing officer's file. The application requested a diversion (by way of 18 existing and 4 proposed new wells) of 12,293.2 million gallons of ground water a year and a maximum daily diversion of 33.68 million gallons for a fifty year period. The Staff Report, which is attached hereto, recommends the issuance of a five year permit for an annual allocation of 4,668 million gallons, a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons and a maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto. Mr. John Klinch, a consulting engineer, testified as to the contents of the application, as revised, which he prepared. It was explained that the projected number of proposed new wells did not include the possibility of failure of some of the existing wells, which do show indications of deterioration at this time. He further compared the water consumption projections for 1976 with the actual demand of the first half of 1975. Said comparison indicates that the projection was underestimated. Projected for 1976 were 9,000 meters. For the first six months of 1975, there were 8,342 meters. The projected average daily use for 1976 was million gallons. As of June of 1975, it has exceeded that at million gallons. The average per capita daily consumption in Delray Beach is approximately 240 gallons. The water consumption projection for the year 1980 is estimated at approximately 25 million gallons per day. Mr. Klinch testified that there had been no problems with salt water or chloride levels in the existing wells. The next witness called by the applicant was Louis Martin, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Delray Beach. He has never, since October of 1973, had to restrict water use, a fact which he attributes to good water management. In December of 1972 the City Council adopted a bond resolution authorizing the validation of issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds in the amount of $5,000,000.00 to expand the water treatment plant to 24 million gallons per day and to construct four new wells. The bonds were approved by the citizens of Delray Beach. Other long range plans include the engineering for the enlargement of the sewage treatment plant from 12 to 24 million gallons a day. This, together with the addition of 4 extra wells, is part of a plan whereby the City of Delray Beach would become a regional water center. Mr. Gerry Winter, a hydrogeologist with the FCD, testified that he evaluated the subject application and prepared the Staff Report in this case, and testified as to its contents. As criteria in evaluating the application, Mr. Winter looked at whether the use was a reasonable and beneficial one and whether the use would present damage to resources or other users. The limiting factor in this particular application was the danger of salt water intrusion. It was recommended that the applicant be required to replace monitoring wells, so that the FCD could obtain valid salt water interface data. It was determined by Mr. Winter that the diversion requested by the applicant would not be a reasonable use of the water with regard to the resource since the current estimate of recharge will equal discharge by the year 1980. Therefore, it was recommended that a five year permit be issued for a maximum annual diversion of 4,668 billion gallons (such amount being equal to the estimated 1980 demand - an average day demand of 12.79 million gallons - times 365); a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons; and a total maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto pertaining to reports to the FCD and salinity monitoring wells. Finally, Mr. Winter testified that, although his report was prepared prior to receipt of the letter from the Palm Beach County Health Department (Exhibit No. 7), the letter was reviewed by the FCD staff and it was considered insignificant to the impact of this application. Mr. Saberson expressed agreement with the Staff Report.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be granted in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Respectfully submitted this 8th 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 Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Roger Saberson, Esquire City Attorney City of Delray Beach 100 North West 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 =================================================================
The Issue Whether a vessel is owned by Petitioner, Jonathan Selby, and is a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2020), and City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2., and therefore, subject to the provisions of section 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the 1987 Wellcraft marine vessel, Florida Boat Registration Number FL5632FV (HIN: WELC24661687)(the “vessel”), that sunk on the north side of the Riviera Beach Marina. Riviera Beach Marina is in the City of Riviera Beach. The vessel broke free from a mooring in a storm and is now in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition. Therefore, the vessel is a “derelict vessel” as defined in section 823.11(1)(b)1., and the City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2. There was no evidence presented that the vessel became derelict because of the negligence of Petitioner.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Manatee County (County) by Ordinance No. 10-02 on October 12, 2010, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a governmental entity and has the responsibility of administering its Comprehensive Plan (Plan). It adopted the amendment being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners own real property in the County in close proximity to the property whose land use is being changed and that they submitted oral or written comments to the County during the adoption process. Intervenors own the subject property, which consists of two adjoining parcels located northwest of Bradenton in an unincorporated part of the County between 17th Avenue Northwest and 9th Avenue Northwest, approximately 600 feet east of 99th Street Northwest, and just south of the Manatee River. The site is more commonly known as the Robinson Farms. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that Intervenors are affected persons. Background In 1981, the County adopted its first comprehensive plan, which assigned a land use on the subject property allowing 4.5 dwelling units per acre. In 1989, the County updated its original plan and designated the property RES-1, which allows a density of one dwelling unit per acre. The RES-1 land use has remained in effect since that time. In 1997 an application by the prior owners to change the land use to RES-3 was denied. See Joint Ex. 8. The northern part of the property is currently vacant, while the southern part is vacant except for an existing single- family residence and barn. The land is used for agricultural purposes. It lies just west of, and adjacent to, several other residential subdivisions. The property to the west of the site has land uses of Agriculture, RES-1, or Conservation. Compatibility is not an issue in this case. On September 11, 2009, Intervenors filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking a change in the land use of their approximately 49-acre tract of property from RES-1 to RES-3. The proposed change would allow an increase in density on the property from one to three dwelling units per acre. The application was numbered PA-10-02 and was assigned Ordinance No. 10-02. A public hearing on the proposed change was conducted by the County Planning Commission on March 11, 2010. By a 5-2 vote, that entity recommended that the amendment be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) for its consideration. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001126. On March 16, 2010, the Board conducted a hearing on the proposed amendment and voted 5-1 to transmit the amendment to the Department, along with other 2010 Cycle 1 amendments. Id. at p. MC 001120. Shortly after the amendment was transmitted to the Department, the TBRPC completed its preliminary work on the preparation of a new Storm Tide Atlas (Atlas). The Atlas is a multi-volume public safety planning tool used to assist with hurricane evacuation planning in a four-county region in the Tampa Bay area, including Manatee County. Among other things, it reflects storm surge data (i.e., water heights) based upon the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service. The information in the Atlas is vital to public safety since it predicts storm surge heights during hurricanes. Based on data from the SLOSH, the TBRPC prepares, and includes in the Atlas, storm tide zone maps for the Tampa Bay area, which depict the landward extent of anticipated storm surge for each of the five categories of storm events. The Atlas does not, however, depict the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) or hurricane evacuation maps prepared by each local government.1 The data underlying the storm tide zone maps are used by local governments to assist them in preparing the CHHA, Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA), and Coastal Planning Area (CPA) maps in their comprehensive plans. The CHHA and CEA maps generally, but not always, encompass the same areas and for all practical purposes are the same. This is because the Plan definition of a CEA refers to the statute that defines the CHHA. See Joint Ex. 1, Vol. 1, p. MC 00053. Also, Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policy 2.2.2.4.1 defines the CEA in relevant part as "the geographic area which lies within the evacuation area for a Category 1 hurricane." Id. at p. 000140. The CPA is defined as "[t]hose portions of Manatee County which lie within the Hurricane Vulnerability Area (evacuation levels A, B, and C), as periodically updated." Id. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(57). Based on SLOSH data in the Atlas, hurricane evacuation maps (showing evacuation levels A, B, and C) are prepared by the County's Emergency Management Division (Division) to depict the geographic areas impacted by the five categories of hurricanes, with Evacuation Zone A being the area first evacuated during a category 1 hurricane. Based upon the 2009 SLOSH data, in late 2009, the Division prepared "carefully defined" Evacuation Zone maps, last updated in 2003, and presented them to the Board in April 2010. However, neither the existing CPA map (based on evacuation levels A, B, and C) nor the CEA map (based on the Zone A map) has been updated through the plan amendment process. Even so, the Division's latest Zone A map, given to the County planning staff in April 2010, represents a reasonably accurate depiction of the geographic boundaries of the CEA and evacuation level A of the CPA, based upon the latest and best available data at that time. The Atlas is updated from time to time, in this case because a new SLOSH model was developed in 2009. According to a TBRPC planner, the last SLOSH model for the Tampa Bay Area was developed around 1990. Like the CPA, the Plan requires that the County also update the CHHA and CEA maps "on a periodic basis." However, new information provided by the TBRPC is not automatically incorporated into the County's Plan. Rather, any changes in the maps must go through the large-scale amendment process so that members of the public, and affected landowners, have an opportunity to provide input before adoption. According to the County Planning Director, the new maps should be adopted in 2011 Cycle I or II. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001065. However, in preparation for adoption hearings in June and October 2010 concerning this amendment, the staff prepared "proposed" CHHA and CEA maps based upon the new data provided by the TBRPC and Division, which are a reasonably accurate depiction of the geographic boundaries of those areas. The new Atlas was not adopted by the TBRPC until August 10, 2010; it was formally presented to the public at a meeting on August 26, 2010. However, the underlying data were given to the County and other local governments at a meeting in April 2010. At that time, the staff knew that new evacuation maps were being developed, but did not know the precise impact these changes would have on Petitioners' property. Based upon proposed maps prepared by staff, which in turn are based on information in the new Atlas, except for 4.68 acres in the northeastern portion of the site, the remainder of Petitioners' property would be within the predicted storm surge for a category 1 storm event (the CHHA), while the entire site would be within the Evacuation A and evacuation level A areas of the CEA and the CPA. See Joint Ex. 9; Petitioners' Ex. 10. On May 21, 2010, the Department submitted its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report to the County. See Petitioners' Ex. 4; Joint Ex. 4. The ORC noted that 21.4 acres of the site were within the CHHA and would result in an increase of 43 dwelling units in the CHHA. This observation was made using the current CHHA map in the Plan, rather than a revised CHHA not yet adopted by the County. The ORC noted that this increase in density would be inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., which requires that the Plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted [CHHAs]," and internally inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1, which requires that the County "[d]irect population concentrations away from the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA)." The ORC also stated that the County had failed to demonstrate that the adopted hurricane evacuation time of 16 hours for a category storm 5 could be maintained. It recommended that the amendment not be adopted, or that the change in land use be restricted to that portion of the site outside the CHHA. Id. at p. 5. The TBRPC also reviewed the amendment and found it to be consistent with its Strategic Regional Policy Plan. See Joint Ex. 4. Although the TBRPC staff report was prepared on April 13, 2010, and considered at a meeting on May 10, 2010, it did not make reference to the data being used in the new Atlas but rather relied upon the current CHHA in the Plan. Id. Following the County's receipt of the ORC, Intervenors revised their application by removing the 21 acres within the CHHA and reducing from 49 to 28 the number of acres being changed to RES-3. This would allow a maximum of 105 dwelling units on the 28 acres (as opposed to 147 units if the land use was changed on the entire tract). Notwithstanding this revision, and the fact that new maps had not yet been adopted in the Plan, the County staff report dated June 17, 2010, "took [a] more conservative approach than DCA" and recommended denial of the application on the grounds the new Atlas data showed "the entire proposed site within the [CHHA]," the new mapping information constituted the best available data, and the application should be re-evaluated in light of the new data. See Intervenors' Ex. D. Except for this, the staff concluded that the amendment met all other criteria. On June 17, 2010, the Board conducted a public hearing on the revised application and due to a 3-3 vote, the application was deemed denied. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001104. However, the Board voted to continue its deliberations at another hearing on June 21, 2010, when all seven Commissioners would be present to vote. Id. Because only six Commissioners were present at the June 21, 2010, meeting, the original 3-3 vote was allowed to stand. Id. at p. MC 001095. Pursuant to section 163.3181(4), Intervenors requested a mediation conference in which the County, Intervenors, and two members of neighboring subdivisions participated. That process culminated in an agreement for the applicants to submit additional data and analysis in support of the amendment and for the County to have another public hearing to consider the application. See Joint Ex. 19. Additional information supporting the amendment was submitted by the applicants on September 3, 2010. See Joint Ex. 13. On September 14, 2010, the Board approved the mediation agreement and scheduled a hearing to consider the matter on October 12, 2010, along with the 2010 Cycle 2 amendments which by then were awaiting approval. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001073. At the October 12, 2010, meeting, the staff continued to recommend that the Board deny the amendment based upon the new Atlas data and the staff's proposed CHHA and CEA maps, which show that only 4.68 acres of the site are outside the CHHA, while the entire site is within the CEA (Hurricane Evacuation A). See Petitioners' Ex. 7. By a 4-3 vote, the Board initially denied the application. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001067. Later in the meeting, after one Board member changed her position on the theory that the new Atlas data should not be considered, the Board voted to reconsider its earlier decision, and by a 4-3 vote, approved the map change. Id. at pp. MC 001071-1072. One of the Cycle 2 amendments considered at the October 12, 2010, meeting was CPA 10-18, also known as the McClure amendment, which sought a change in the land use on the McClure property from RES-1 to RES-3. In its ORC dated September 10, 2010, which was directed to that amendment (and other Cycle 2 amendments), the Department noted that a part of the site appeared to be in the CHHA and recommended that the "County should evaluate whether the subject site is within the CHHA based on the latest, best available data and analysis used in the Storm Tide Atlas for Manatee County released by the [TBRPC] on August 26, 2010." Petitioners' Ex. 5, ORC, p. 5. The ORC further recommended that if "a part of the site is within the CHHA, based on the most recent storm tide atlas information, the amendment should not result in any increase in density in that area in order to ensure that population concentrations be directed away from the CHHA." Id. The record is silent as to why the Department opted to use the later data on that amendment, but not amendment 10-02. In any event, following the issuance of the ORC, the County staff evaluated the amendment using the latest TBRPC data, and by a 4-3 vote, the Board adopted the McClure amendment. See Joint Ex. 10, p. MC 001069. However, the final version of the McClure amendment is unknown. The Robinson Farms amendment adoption package was transmitted to the Department for its review. On December 3, 2010, the Department notified the County of its Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. The Notice of Intent was advertised in the Bradenton Herald on December 6, 2010. According to Department counsel, the Department's finding was based on two considerations: the applicants had revised their application as recommended by the ORC; and the County should continue to rely on the existing CHHA map until a new map is adopted in the next major plan amendment cycle. At the adoption hearing, the Board also considered data that show that between now and the year 2015, there will be no hurricane shelter deficit in the County. In addition, if the land use on 28 acres is changed, the plan amendment will only result in an increase of 56 units over what could be built under the existing RES-1 land use. There was no evidence that 56 additional units, occupied by 129 persons (at 2.30 persons per household unit), would adversely impact the hurricane evacuation clearance times for that area of the County or affect public shelter demand. Finally, the area in which the site is located, Subarea 11, is projected to increase by 10,000 persons between 2015 and 2035. The staff report reflects that the amendment will not affect the overall population projections or housing needs for the subarea. The site is located within the Urban Core Area. Policy 2.1.1.3 of the FLUE encourages residential density increases (or infill development) within that area in order to avoid urban sprawl. Finally, the entire area west of 75th Street, West, and north of Manatee Avenue West (in which the subject site is located) consists of 1,927 acres. Since 2006, 580 acres in that area have been changed from RES-1 to Agriculture and Conservation, thus reducing the amount of land available for 580 dwelling units. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners contend generally that the amendment does not react in an appropriate and proper manner to the latest and best available data and analysis because it allows an increase in residential density on land within the CHHA, CEA, and CPA; that there are no data and analysis of need for additional residential development on the property; that the amendment contravenes rule 9J-5.012(2)(e) because there is no inventory and analysis of the projected maximum population density designated on the current FLUM within the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone; that the amendment fails to restrict development in evacuation zone A to protect human life and avoid public expenditures, as intended by section 163.3178(1); and that the amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE policy 2.2.2.4.5 and Coastal Element policies 4.3.1 and 4.3.1.1, which require that the County prohibit increases in allowable residential density on sites within the CEA and direct population concentrations away from the CEA and CHHA. These allegations generally, but in greater detail, track the objections raised in the ORC and the County's staff report. A plan amendment must be based on relevant and appropriate data. "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 the adoption of the . . . plan amendment at issue." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a). As noted above, new and more accurate storm surge data were in existence and available to the County before the amendment was adopted in October 2010. Due to major improvements in technology since the last SLOSH model was prepared, the 2009 model has higher resolution basin data and grid configurations, which means that the predicted storm surge data are far more accurate than data in earlier models. Thus, the new TBRPC data and staff-proposed maps were the best available data on storm surge and coastal flooding at the adoption hearing. While the County and Intervenors are correct that there is no automatic incorporation of TBRPC data into the Plan, when more current and reliable data on the subject are in existence and readily accessible, as they were here, they should be used to evaluate proposed land use changes which would increase density in areas subject to coastal flooding. The Board reacted to the data in an inappropriate manner by assuming that only 21 acres of the property was in the CHHA and that none was located in the CEA. This reaction is not supported by the data. Therefore, the plan amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by rule 9J- 5.005(2). Paradoxically, at the same meeting when the vote on Amendment 10-02 was taken, the Board evaluated the FLUM map change for the McClure property using the latest TBRPC data. All of the Robinson Farms property lies within the predicted CEA. Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) of the FLUE applies to all development activity within the CEA Overlay District, which is an overlay based upon the CEA boundaries. It "[p]rohibit[s] any amendment in the [FLUM] which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the [CEA]." It is beyond fair debate that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with this policy since the amendment would result in allowable residential density on a site within the CEA. Except for 4.68 acres, the entire site lies within the predicted CHHA, while the entire site is within evacuation level A of the CPA. Coastal Element policy 4.3.1 requires in part that the County "[l]imit development type, density and intensity within the [CPA]." It is beyond fair debate that the amendment is internally inconsistent with this policy since it does not limit development type and density within the CPA. Coastal Element policy 4.3.1 requires that the County "direct population and development to areas outside the [CHHA] to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural hazards in this area." Also, Coastal Element policy 4.3.1.1 requires that the County direct population concentrations away from the CEA. Although not relied upon by Petitioners, but cited in the ORC, these two policies track rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., which requires that the local government "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Here, the plan amendment would allow an increase of 56 dwelling units in the CHHA and CEA that would be occupied by 129 additional residents. Whether these increases in population and development trigger rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., or bring into play the two policies in the Coastal Element, was not fully addressed by the parties. However, the Department's ORC indicates that if 43 dwelling units are added to the CHHA, these provisions would be applicable. See Petitioners' Ex. 4, ORC, p. 5. Because the CHHA and CEA are designed to minimize development in areas subject to coastal flooding in order to protect lives and property, thus implicating vital safety concerns, the proposed increase in development (56 additional units) and population (129 persons) within the CHHA and CEA is the type of development and population concentration contemplated by the rule and policies. Because the amendment fails to follow the dictates of those provisions, it is beyond fair debate that the amendment is internally inconsistent with these two policies. (Had rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)6. been relied upon by Petitioners, a finding of inconsistency with the rule would also be appropriate.) The County's policy is to encourage infill development within the Urban Core Area so as to avoid urban sprawl. See FLUE policy 2.1.1.3. The subject property lies within the Urban Core Area. The proponents of the plan amendment contend that when this policy is weighed against the conflicting policies directing population concentrations away from the CHHA and CEA, the County has the flexibility to consider the Plan as a whole and approve an increase in density in the RES-1 and RES-3 areas located in the Urban Core Area, even if that property lies within the CHHA or CEA. See Joint Ex. 1, Vol. I, § C.2.1.2, pp. MC 000018-000019. Given the significant risk to life and property that arises during natural disasters such as hurricanes, however, the infill policy should not trump conflicting Plan provisions that limit development and population in these high-risk areas. Petitioners also contend that the plan amendment is inconsistent with rule 9J-5.012(2)(e), which requires that the County make an inventory and analysis of the projected maximum population density on the current FLUM within the Hurricane Vulnerability Zones of the County. The Atlas contains an inventory and analysis of population in the County by evacuation level for the years 2010 and 2015. See Joint Ex. 3, Exec. Summary, p. 9. No evidence was submitted to show that this information in the Atlas is inaccurate or otherwise fails to satisfy the purpose of the rule, simply because it was prepared by the TBRPC, rather than the County. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment is consistent with the rule. Petitioners also assert that the plan amendment violates section 163.3178(1) because it increases residential density within the CHHA and Hurricane Vulnerability Zone, a result which does not protect human life and coastal resources, or limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disaster. Subsection (1) expresses the legislative intent of the entire statute. It is doubtful that an expression of intent, as opposed to specific requirements in other portions of the statute, would serve as a basis to find an amendment not in compliance. In any event, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that it is beyond fair debate that the proposed development would "damage or destroy coastal resources." Also, the property is within the Urban Core Area, which is already served by existing infrastructure. If further infrastructure is needed for development purposes, Intervenors' planner represented at hearing that the owners would be responsible for those costs. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment is consistent with the statute. Finally, Petitioners contend that there are no data and analysis of need for additional increases in residential density, as required by rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. and 3. The two subparagraphs require that there be an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including "the estimated gross acreage needed by category," and "a description of the methodology used." A revised analysis of impact on population projections to meet housing needs was incorporated into the staff report presented at the adoption hearing in October 2010. See Joint Ex. 9, p. MC 00974. The analysis generally reflected that based on land development approvals and development patterns within Subarea 11 (where the subject property is located), the Subarea can easily accommodate the estimated increase in population between the years 2015 and 2035. Although the analysis is brief, it is sufficient to support a finding that it is fairly debatable that the amendment is consistent with rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)2. and 3.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Determination of Non-Compliance regarding Plan Amendment 10-02 adopted by Ordinance No. 10-02 on October 12, 2010. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The subject applications requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for the irrigation of 280 acres of golf courses. The public notice of hearing appearing in The Fort Lauderdale News, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which noticed the permit applications submitted on behalf of the Fort Lauderdale Country Club, were received into evidence without objection. Mr. Carnahan, as representative for the applicant and Mr. Walker, on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood. Control District stipulated to the introduction of the applications and the staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, without objection. It was further stipulated that the matters as contained in the applications and staff report could be utilized as a basis for findings of fact and recommended order, without the necessity of putting on testimony in behalf of - the applicant or the staff. Pursuant to that stipulation, oral testimony was not presented by the parties. The amount of water requested by the applicant in application number 21938 is 26 million gallons per year and the amount requested in application number 21939 is 264 million gallons per year. The staff report recommended an annual allocation in the amount of 14.4 inches which is equivalent to 336 acre/feet or 109.4 million gallons a year for approval. Mr. David Carnahan, P.E., representing the applicant, did not offer any further evidence beyond the application and staff report in support of the requests for permits. Specifically, Mr. Nagendra Khanal, Hydrology Division, Resource Planning, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, recommended the following, through his staff report: Allocation of 14.4 inches which is equivalent to 336.0 acre/feet or 109.4 million gallons per year. The following special provisions are recommended: Approval of maximum pumpage not to exceed 5.5 inches which is equivalent to 128.3 acre/feet or 41.8 million gallons per month. Diversions of water in this amount are subject to availability of surplus water in the basin, consistent with and subject to specific basin rules including minimum flows and levels, all as determined by the District. The existing five 12 inch wells with the total installed capacity of 3,020 gpm. The term of allocation is until October, 1977. The applicant shall install a measuring device. Pumpage records from the wells shall be submitted to the District at the end of each irrigation season. There were no persons at the hearing who wished to act as intervenors in the capacity of proponents or opponents of the applications, nor were there any members of the general public, not party to the proceedings, who wished to comment on the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Carnahan 1350 South Pompano Parkway Pompano Beach, Florida 33020 Stephen Walker, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Fort Lauderdale Country Club 415 Country Club Circle Fort Lauderdale, Florida
