The Issue Whether the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Respondent, Miami-Dade County (“the County”), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a local government comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. The Limonar Petitioners are limited liability companies under the laws of the State of Florida whose principal places of business are in Florida. The Limonar Petitioners own property within the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Michelle Garcia, resides and owns property in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. Petitioner, Tropical Audubon Society (“Tropical”), is an environmental organization in South Florida dedicated to conserving and restoring South Florida ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife, as well as their habitats. Tropical owns property in the County. Each of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections concerning the Plan Amendment to the County during the time period beginning with the Plan Amendment adoption hearing and ending with the Plan Amendment transmittal hearing. The parties stipulated that Ms. Garcia’s substantial interests will be adversely affected by the Plan Amendment given that her property is located in the County near the area affected by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment amends the Plan to allow an extension of State Road 835 (also known as the Dolphin Expressway) from its current terminus at Northwest (NW) 137th Avenue and NW 12th Street to the West Kendall suburban area of the County. The approximate 13-mile extension is planned as a six-lane expressway from its current terminus to Southwest (SW) 8th Street and SW 167th Avenue, then continuing as a four-lane expressway to connect with SW 136th Street in Kendall. The proposed extension is referred to herein as the “new corridor.” The Plan Amendment incorporates the new corridor on the County’s Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), as well as the Transportation Element map series, including both the traffic circulation and Mass Transit subelements. Additionally, the Plan Amendment changes some existing, and adds several new, policies in the Land Use, Transportation (including Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements), Open Space, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The new corridor was first envisioned in 2012, when the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (“MPO”), since renamed the Transportation Planning Organization (“TPO”), added the southwest extension of SR-836/Dolphin Expressway to its Long-Range Transportation Plan (“LRTP”) as a “partially funded project.” “Partially funded” means that the TPO authorized the project to move forward for study—in the case of the new corridor, to undertake a Project Development and Environment (“PD&E”) Study—but that the project is not yet approved for construction funding. The LRTP describes the purpose and need for the new corridor as follows: The new extension will address existing highway congestion and enhance mobility in the fastest growing area of the county. The purpose of the SR- 836 (Dolphin) SW Extension is to: Improve system connectivity, Improve access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area, Provide north south expressway access to serve existing and future travel demand, Improve hurricane/emergency evacuation routes and travel times, Evaluate multimodal transportation opportunities to improve connectivity to the fast growing southwest area of Miami-Dade County, Evaluate the best alternative for the SR-836 (Dolphin) SW Extension that is technically sound, environmentally sensitive and publicly acceptable. The new corridor is to be funded by the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority (“MDX”).3 UDB and UEA The entirety of the new corridor will be located outside of the County’s urban development boundary (“UDB”). Some portions of the new corridor lie within the area known as the urban expansion area (“UEA”), but the majority of the new corridor lies outside the UEA. The UDB is a defining feature of the Plan, which distinguishes the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur. The County’s plan accommodates urban development within the UDB by increasing development densities and intensities inside the UDB. The UDB was originally established in 1975 and comprised 233,000 acres. The UDB boundary was significantly amended in 1988, following enactment of Florida’s Growth Management Act, by the addition of 16,000 acres. Between 1990 and 2012, only about 2,400 acres have been added to the UDB, most of which was added by a 2006 amendment to the Plan. At least in part, the UDB operates to limit development pressure on the County’s agricultural lands located to the west of the UDB between the urbanized area and the Everglades National Park. A 2012 Environmental 3 MDX was dissolved by chapter 2019-169, Laws of Florida. The legislation has been challenged and a current appeal is pending before the First District Court of Appeal. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. MDX, Case No. 19-3625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Protection Agency study noted, “the dwindling supply of agricultural land is an especially urgent issue.” The study characterized the County as “dangerously close” to losing its “critical mass” of land in active agriculture usage. The Plan provides for expansion of the UDB to provide additional countywide development capacity “when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process.” The UEA was established in 1993 and is the area currently projected to be needed to accommodate development in the area between the 2020 UDB boundary and 2030 UEA boundary. Until this area is brought into the UDB through an amendment to the Plan, development within the UEA is limited to uses consistent with “Agriculture” and “Open Land” areas, as defined in the Plan. Residential development outside the UDB is limited to one dwelling unit per five acres (1du/5acres). New Corridor Path The new corridor is planned to pass through lands that are protected by a variety of regulations and development limitations. Figure 1 depicts the location of the new corridor on the Plan Land Use Map, identified as the solid black line beginning at the western end of NW 12th Street and following a winding path west and southwest to its termination at SW 136th Street. [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 1 From its connection with the existing SR 836 corridor, the new corridor will first traverse an area designated “Open Land,” which, according to the Plan is “set aside for uses other than urban development.” It is more than “simply surplus undeveloped land,” and is intended to serve resource- based functions like agriculture or development of potable water supply. According to the Plan, “Open Land areas primarily consist of wetlands.” The only use definitively allowed in this subarea is rural residential. The Plan provides that all other proposed uses will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. More particularly, the new corridor will traverse the County’s Open Land Subarea 3, which contains the Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins and the eastern portion of the North Trail and Bird Drive Everglades Basins. The basins are recharge areas for the Biscayne Aquifer, the primary source of the County’s drinking water. The Plan provides that the following land uses may be considered for approval in this subarea: [R]ural residences at one dwelling unit per 5 acres (“1 du/5”), compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, seasonal agricultural use, recreational use, or limestone quarrying and ancillary uses. Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area. Any land alteration and development in the Bird Drive or North Trail basins shall conform to the wetland basin plans adopted for those basins pursuant to policies of [the Plan]. The new corridor will traverse a portion of the Bird Drive Basin outside the UDB. Existing development in that area is limited to agriculture and the C-4 detention basin. The detention basin is utilized by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) to hold water drained from the C-4 canal prior to storm events in order to prevent flooding of the Sweetwater residential community lying to the north. A majority of the new corridor will be located within the County’s West Wellfield protection area, and a portion will run through the 30-day and 100- day travel-time contours. The contours represent the time it takes for a substance released at the contour line to travel to a production well.4 A short segment of the new corridor, approximately three-quarters of a mile, will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, characteristically high-quality swamps and wet prairies not suited for agriculture or urban development. It is a restored wetland area that has been used as a mitigation project for developers and rock miners over the last 20 to 30 years (i.e., a “mitigation bank”). The mitigation project is under the jurisdiction of the District and other environmental agencies, and is almost complete. The Pennsuco wetlands are also designated as critical habitat for endangered species, including the wood stork, the Florida bonneted bat, the Everglades snail kite, and the Florida Panther. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated on the FLUM as Environmental Protection (“EP”). According to the Plan, the EP designation applies to those areas in the County “most environmentally significant, most susceptible to environmental degradation, and where such degradation would adversely affect the supply of potable fresh water or environmental systems of County, regional, State, or national importance.” The final stretch of the new corridor will traverse Agriculturally- designated lands, mostly within the UEA. Land with this designation “contains the best agricultural land remaining in [the County].” The Plan provides that protection of viable agriculture is a priority of the County. Principle uses allowed in this category “should be” agriculture and uses ancillary to,5 and directly supportive of, agriculture and farm residences. Notably, the Plan provides that, in order to protect the 4 The times are calculated based on a non-reactive substance, i.e., water. Chemicals and other contaminants may have different actual travel times. 5 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. agricultural industry, “uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed in this area.” The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (“CERP”) is an extensive environmental restoration project primarily aimed at restoring as much natural Everglades wetland habitat as possible and re-establishing healthy freshwater flows to parts of the Everglades which have suffered from historic alteration of its hydrology, a result of fragmentation of the ecosystem for urban development and agriculture. CERP is a multi-decade, inter-agency process implemented primarily by the District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”). CERP includes approximately 68 individual projects, approved by a formal process set out in federal law. The projects are compiled in a “yellow book,” originally produced in 1999 and delivered to Congress for approval. Some projects are set forth in great detail, while others are conceptual, but each project identifies a set of hydrologic or ecologic objectives that it is proposed to meet. Restoring surface water flows to the Everglades is a balancing act. While the Everglades is in need of more fresh water, allowing unregulated flows to the Everglades means flooding urban and agricultural properties which were once part of the Everglades system. On the other hand, the urban and agricultural areas depend on surface water flows for water supply, directly or indirectly through groundwater recharge (to prevent saltwater intrusion), for drinking water and agricultural production. CERP regulates the free flow of surface water to provide needed water for urban and agricultural uses, and avoid flooding those areas, while providing as much fresh water to the Everglades as possible. Large portions of the four-square mile Bird Drive Basin have been acquired by the District and the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) to implement a CERP project known as Component U. Component U has several major objectives, including goundwater recharge, reducing seepage from the Everglades National Park buffer areas, enhancing and maintaining wetland viability within the basin, flood attenuation, water treatment of outflows from west Dade wastewater treatment plant, and supplying water to meet demands of the downstream conveyance systems. The state conservation lands north and east of the basin, particularly conservation area 3A, are, at times, inundated with so much water that the wetland literally drowns. CERP projects, including the L31 canal (adjacent to Krome Avenue) and the small canal associated with the Dade/Broward levee, were designed to “shuttle” collected water from the conservation areas and store it for proportionate distribution to both urban areas and the Everglades National Park. Component U is envisioned as both a surface water storage and treatment area, to assist in regulation of water flowing to both the Everglades and the urban areas from the conservation areas to the north and north east. It is related to a larger project to reroute water flowing through the L31 canal, west of Krome Avenue, to the east side of the Bird Drive Basin and eventually into the Bird Drive Canal, utilizing the large, undeveloped basin for storage and treatment, as well as flood control. Additionally, Component U would provide an aquifer recharge function while storing excess water, which would benefit the West Wellfield lying due south. Because of its location relative to several other CERP projects, the Bird Drive Basin plays a critical strategic role in the overall plan for restoration of the southern Everglades. The water quality, conveyance, and storage objectives it is required to meet, along with its flood-attenuation objectives, are relied upon as part of the planning and operation of the other CERP projects in the region to restore the hydrology of the state-owned Water Conservation Areas, Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay. The Bird Drive Basin project is a necessary flow way for restored water levels along the eastern edge of the Everglades, necessary to prevent the flow of too much water through the more central portions of the Everglades, which results in drowning out native plant and animal species. Among the goals of the project is to recharge groundwater and drinking water supplies, and to buffer developed areas in the County from flooding that would result from the higher restored water levels into Everglades National Park. The Bird Drive Recharge project is important to the County as a seepage management project to ensure that restoration of water levels does not affect County landowners and to provide the County with water supply to nearby wellfields. These wetlands are a hydrological buffer between the high water table of Everglades National Park and the much lower water table of the developed areas east of Krome Avenue. This buffer reduces the hydrological gradient of the area, thereby reducing groundwater seepage from the park. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege (as stipulated by the parties) that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with numerous existing Plan goals, objectives and policies, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)9.; (3) violates the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(d)2.k., that the Plan maintain a conservation element that directs incompatible “future land uses” away from wetlands; (4) violates the requirements in section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a., e., and 3.a., that the Plan maintain a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system,” address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel,” “identif[y] . . . land use densities, building intensities, and transportation management programs to promote public transportation systems in designated public transportation corridors,” and address “provision of efficient public transit services” and the requirement in section 163.3177(6)(b)1. that the element reflect certain “data, analysis, and associated principles and strategies”; (5) fails to be “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); (6) fails to “be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including the character of undeveloped land,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2., and to be based on an “analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site,” as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)8.; and (7) violates the requirement of section 163.3177(1) that the Plan “maintain[] meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide[] meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land developments and use regulations.” Petitioners’ umbrella contention is that the Plan Amendment is contrary to the Plan as a whole—which limits urban services and development to within the UDB, prioritizes implementation of CERP, seeks to preserve remaining agricultural areas and a viable agriculture industry, and is completely dependent on a sensitive aquifer for drinking water—by allowing a four- and six-lane expressway outside of the UDB, through an area identified for a CERP project, bisecting agricultural areas, through a wetland preservation area, and within the West Wellfield. Petitioners’ arguments can be categorized generally as concerns with land use, environment, CERP, agriculture, and transportation. UDB and Land Development Issues Petitioners contend that constructing the new corridor outside of the UDB is inconsistent with the purpose of the UDB, and with the overarching construct of the Plan to achieve the desired development form while protecting both sensitive natural resources and agriculture. The Plan provides that the UDB distinguishes “the area where urban development may occur through the year 2020 from areas where it should not occur.” Translating this concept to infrastructure investment, the Plan provides that “public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB.” (emphasis added). The Plan further provides, “Critical in achieving the desired pattern of development is adherence to the 2020 UDB and 2030 UEA boundary,” and that “since its inception [the Plan] has provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined.” Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Mr. Hawkins, explained that “this regulatory line is not one that just says we are going to have urban land uses on one side and not on the other. We are also going to limit the provision of urban services across the line.” The County offered little response to this allegation. In a series of leading questions on direct examination, Mr. Woerner was asked whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policy language that begins, “Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities …” Mr. Woerner gave a conclusory “no” answer, to which Mr. Kerbel asked, “And is that for the reasons you’ve already addressed?” Mr. Woerner agreed. However, none of the prior questions addressed anything regarding public expenditures for urban infrastructure. The Plan Amendment proposes development of urban infrastructure outside the UDB, and thus, outside of the envelope within which the Plan dictates public expenditures for urban infrastructure “will be confined,” in contravention of the Plan’s direction that adherence with the UDB/UEA construct is “critical” to achieve the desired pattern of development for the County. The County contends that the new corridor is not “development,” a position which is untenable and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the unnumbered policy statements in paragraph 46 appearing on pages I-60, I-61, and I-74 of the Plan.6 Petitioners further allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Plan policies that discourage urban sprawl, “emphasize[] concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity” and “high intensity, well-designed urban centers,” and “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe,” such that “[u]rban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided . . . [and] [a]reas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided.” Petitioners identify the following goals, objectives, and policies in support of these objections: Land Use Element Objective LU-1 and Policies LU-1B and LU-1O; Objective LU-2 and Policy LU-2B; Policy LU-8G; Policy LU-10A; Transportation Policy TC-6A; and Capital Improvement Element Objective CIE-5 and Policy CIE-5A. Petitioners’ arguments that the Plan Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl are based on many of the same Plan policies. Petitioners contend that the mere existence of the new corridor will increase development pressure, and induce sprawl development, outside of the UDB contrary to Plan policies promoting compact, high-intensity developments in urban centers. This argument is not novel and can be summarized as, “If you build it, they will come.” Petitioners are not wrong, and the expert County planning staff raised the same concern during review of the Plan Amendment application, stating: While roadways facilitate long-distance and local travel and provide access to real property, they also 6 Provisions such as these, which are referred to as “interpretive text,” are contained in the Land Use Element section titled, “Interpretation of the Land Use Plan Map: Policy of the Land Use Element.” Although not among the element’s numbered goals, objectives, and policies, the interpretive text is expressly “adopted as County policy.” Furthermore, LU-5C requires “planning activities pertaining to development or redevelopment and the provision of public services and facilities in [the County] shall be consistent with … the locations and extent of future land uses as identified by the [FLUM] map and its interpretive text.” significantly affect the use and development of land in their immediate vicinity. In high growth areas such as [the County], any reduction in travel time between centers of population and commerce directly increases competition in the land market between urban uses, including residential and commercial uses. This could generate increased demand for development of land adjacent to the proposed expressway corridor. Because the proposed alignment is generally adjacent to but outside the UDB, the [new corridor] could have the unintended consequence of increasing development pressure on land outside the UDB, including current agricultural lands, if the proposed amendment only addressed the future construction of the roadway. In response to this concern, staff recommended adoption of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new Policy: Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-1M. [The County] approves the [new corridor] only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the southwestern part of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County. To discourage urban sprawl within the Area of Impact of [the new corridor] … the County’s Concurrency Management System shall be amended to remove the additional LOS/capacity that the roadways in the Area of Impact would experience due to the diversion of trips resulting from the construction of [the new corridor] could not be used to demonstrate concurrency. The purpose of this policy is to assure that the additional capacity attributable to the [new corridor] cannot be used to support further development in the Area of Impact. In other words, “If you build it, they cannot come.” Petitioners raised many arguments to demonstrate that this language would not be effective to truly prevent urban sprawl outside the UDB. They introduced the testimony of Walter Kulash, who exclaimed that it would “be absurd” to create excess roadway capacity that could not be used by developers, and that, as a transportation engineer, “it is not at all clear to me how the chain of computation would work here.” However, as explained by Mr. Sandanasamy, the County’s expert transportation planner, the concurrency restriction will be implemented by comparing the roadway capacity figures prior to the opening of the roadway to any future traffic counts, to determine how much those traffic counts have been reduced. He gave the following example: Assume an arterial with a capacity of 35,000 trips, and before the new corridor opened, the actual amount of traffic counted is 30,000 trips. That means the arterial had a remaining capacity of 5,000 trips before the opening of the new corridor. Assume that when traffic is counted after the opening of the new corridor, the number of vehicles on that arterial drops to 28,000 trips—a reduction of 2,000 trips attributed to the new corridor—meaning that the remaining capacity of the arterial has increased from 5,000 trips to 7,000. Policy TC-1M would require the Concurrency Management System to log the capacity of the arterial as reduced by 2,000 trips, so that future applications would be measured against a roadway capacity of 33,000 trips. Mr. Sandanasamy concluded that the policy is intended to “prevent urban sprawl [and] allow development to go on as it was, like this roadway doesn’t exist.” The parties introduced the testimony of competing expert transportation planners on this subject; but, in the end, Petitioners’ expert, Juan Mullerat, conceded the issue, as follows: Q. [Mr. Kerbel] And in the event that there is a process in which someone seeks to amend their land uses, they would have to address the fact that the road can't be used to show concurrency, right? A. [Mr. Mullerat] Correct. * * * So at the end of the day that is why I am saying it is the same. Right now you don't have infrastructure, so you can't use it for concurrency. Once you put the infrastructure, this says that you won't be able to use that as -- in order to change the land use. Q. Okay. So it is a wash? A. It is a wash. It doesn't make—it is neither harder nor easier. New Policy LU-3Q was added to further ensure the Plan Amendment did not encourage development in the agriculturally-designated lands. The policy reads as follows: Any zoning action or amendment to [the Plan] that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production, the sale of agricultural produce, and permitted residential and Bed and Breakfast uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinated use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the [UDB] and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of [the new corridor], shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where the applicable board issues a decision. Petitioners claimed this policy was not based on data and analysis to demonstrate its effectiveness. To the contrary, the language of new Policy LU-3Q was modeled on language utilized when the County adopted the Plan to allow widening of Krome Avenue, which lies outside the UDB, farther west than the new corridor. Even a cursory review of the FLUM reveals that the land uses adjacent to Krome Avenue remain agriculture. The County’s experience with development surrounding Krome Avenue is data that has been available to, and was relied upon by, the County in adopting the subject Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment would induce additional urban development outside the UDB and in environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective LU-1, which requires “the location and configuration of [the County’s] urban growth through the year 2030 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity”; Policy LU-1O, which requires the County to “seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe in the Agricultural Areas outside the UDB”; Objective LU-2, which provides that “[d]ecisions regarding … urban expansion … shall be based on the physical and financial feasibility of providing, by the year 2020, all urbanized areas with services at levels of service (LOS) which meet or exceed the minimum standards” in the CIE; Policies LU-2B, TC-4C, and CIE-5A, which provide that urban services and facilities, including roadways, which support or encourage “urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided”; Policy LU-10A, which requires the County to “facilitate contiguous urban development, infill [and] redevelopment”; and TC-6A, which mandates that the County “shall avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas.” The remaining policies implicated by Petitioners are irrelevant to the Plan Amendment: Policy LU-1B, which provides that “major centers of activity” and “other concentrations of significant employment … shall be sited on the basis or metropolitan scale considerations at locations with good countywide, multi-modal accessibility”; Policy LU-1S, which requires the County Strategic Plan to be consistent with the Plan; Objective LU-5 and Policy LU-5B, which pertain to the consistency of development orders with the Plan; and LU-8G, governing considerations for adding land areas to the UDB. Environmental Considerations Wellfields Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies of the Conservation Element relating to protection of wellfields: CON-3, 3A, 3B; and CON-5F. CON-3, 3A, and 3B provide, in relevant part, as follows: Objective CON-3. Regulations governing approved wellfield protection areas shall be strictly enforced …. CON-3A. No new facilities that use, handle, generate, transport or dispose of hazardous wastes shall be permitted within wellfield protection areas[.] CON-3B. The water management systems that recharge regional wellfields shall be protected and enhanced. The Plan Amendment does not adversely affect the County’s ability to enforce its approved wellfield regulations. The new corridor is not a facility that uses, handles, generates, or disposes of hazardous wastes. Petitioners introduced testimony regarding the threat to the West Wellfield posed by trucks, carrying hazardous substances via the new corridor, potentially (and speculatively) spilling chemicals in an accident. Nevertheless, the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the new corridor is not a “facility” that transports hazardous wastes as contemplated by the policy. The meaning of “water management systems” used in Policy CON-3B, was disputed by the parties. Petitioners introduced the testimony of Dr. McVoy, who testified that he considered the wetlands of the Bird Drive Basin as the water management system that recharges the regional wellfield. Respondent introduced the testimony of Wilbur Mayorga, chief of the County’s environmental monitoring and restoration division, who is responsible for the wellfield protection areas and the boundaries thereof, and who was admitted as an expert in wellfield protection and contamination. Mr. Mayorga gave a broader, more general definition, which is ultimately not in conflict with Dr. McVoy’s definition. The Bird Drive Basin is one part of the larger system managing and conveying freshwater from Lake Okeechobee through various natural and man-made components that store, treat, and deliver water to the urban and agricultural uses, as well as the Everglades. Respondent’s hydrogeology expert, Dr. Virginia Walsh, confirmed that the Bird Drive Basin wetlands serve to recharge the County’s production wells. Dr. McVoy’s opinion was hedging—“I find it hard to see how [the system] would be enhanced and I find it hard to see how [the system] would be protected … I can’t see any way that I, as a scientist, can say that by putting a roadway on [the system] it is going to increase protection ….” Mr. Mayorga was asked directly, “In your professional opinion, would the plan amendment pose any threat to these water management systems?” Mr. Mayorga answered, “That I’m not familiar with.” His answer was puzzling and unhelpful. Significantly, both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Mayorga preferred to answer the question based on the degree of risk created. Dr. McVoy testified that building the tollway certainly increases risk of contamination to the system. Mr. Mayorga opined that removing all uses within the wellfield is the only way to achieve zero risk. He further opined that any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination, which can be attenuated by the location of uses at the higher contour lines. As Mr. Mayorga explained, “The closer you are to the production wells, the [fewer] alternatives you have in how you manage stormwater.” In an effort to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to “protect the water management systems that recharge” the regional wellfield, Respondent points to new policy LU-1W, which requires that alignment of the new corridor remain “outside and to the east of the boundary of the 10- day travel time contour” of the West Wellfield area. In the end, Respondent’s expert witness confirmed that building the new corridor will neither protect nor enhance the water management systems that recharge the West Wellfield. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective CON-3 or Policy CON-3A. However, they did prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-3B. 7 Policy CON-3F requires the County to implement cut and fill criteria for land in the North Trail and Bird Drive basins, among others. The County has already implemented those criteria and the Plan Amendment does not implicate that policy in any way. The remainder of Petitioners “wellfield” allegations overlap with alleged wetland impacts and are addressed in the following section. Wetlands Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following objectives and policies related to wetlands and wetland functions: CON-4 and 4A, and CON-7, 7A, and 7J, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Objective CON-4. The aquifer recharge and water storage capacity of the presently undeveloped areas in the western and southern Miami-Dade County shall be maintained or increased. 7 In addition, to the extent Petitioners challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with the interpretive text in the Land Use Element relating to Open Land Subarea 3 (North Trail and Bird Drive Basins), which reads, “Uses that could compromise groundwater quality shall not occur in this area,” that allegation was proven as well. Mr. Mayorga’s testimony that “any roadway carries an inherent risk of contamination” conceded the point that the Plan Amendment creates a risk of contamination to the wellfields. Policy CON-4A. The aquifer-recharge values of undeveloped land and the water storage values of wetland areas shall be maintained and, where feasible, enhanced or restored. Objective CON-7. [The County] shall protect and preserve the biological and hydrological functions of Future Wetlands identified in the Land Use Element. Future impacts to the biological functions of publicly and privately owned wetlands shall be mitigated.… Publicly acquired wetlands shall be restored and managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values. Policy CON-7A. The degradation or destruction of wetlands shall be limited to activities that 1) are necessary to prevent or eliminate a threat to public health, safety or welfare; 2) are water dependent, clearly in the public interest and no other reasonable alternative exists; 3) are carried out in accordance with a basin management plan; or 4) are in areas that have been highly disturbed or degraded and where restoration of a wetland with an equal or greater value in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations if feasible. Habitats critical to endangered or threatened species shall not be degraded or destroyed. CON-7J. In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands, [the County] shall consider the application’s consistency with [CERP] objectives. Wetlands play an important part in recharging the Biscayne Aquifer. They filter stormwater to remove pollutants and nutrients prior to the water’s eventual entry into the aquifer. As discussed above, wetlands can also perform the important function of storing stormwater to prevent flooding of adjacent properties, and for use in dryer seasons, if they have a confining clay (or other soil) layer above the aquifer. The new corridor is expected to destroy over 300 acres of wetlands in the Bird Drive and North Trail basins, although the exact number is unknown. Petitioners contend that violates Policy CON-7A because the project does not meet any of the four criteria. The County introduced evidence that the wetland impacts will be carried out in accordance with Bird Drive Basin management plan, thus meeting criteria three of Policy CON-7A. The final sentence of Policy CON-7A prohibits destruction of wetlands in habitats critical to threatened or endangered species. The Pennsuco wetlands are designated critical habitat to several endangered species, but the Plan Amendment implicates wetland impacts in that area. The County maintains that it has addressed this issue through an interlocal agreement with MDX, which requires that the entire span of the new corridor traversing the Pennsuco wetlands be elevated. However, the interlocal agreement is not incorporated into or adopted by reference in the Plan Amendment; thus, is not enforceable through the Plan. To the contrary, the interlocal agreement may be modified or amended upon mutual agreement of the parties.8 Petitioners proved the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy CON-7. Because the new corridor will traverse the Pennsuco wetlands, an area designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, the Plan Amendment violates this policy. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this part of CON-7J. As discussed in the Findings of Fact 104 and 107, the County did consider the impact of the new corridor on CERP. Petitioners’ allegations of inconsistency with Objective CON-4, Policy CON-4A, and Objective CON-7, all relate to the impact of the new corridor on aquifer recharge and storage capacity of wetlands in the path of the new corridor. 8 Even if the interlocal agreement were incorporated into the Plan Amendment, this inconsistency would not be completely resolved because the interlocal agreement allows pilings or other support structures for the elevated section to be located in the Pennsuco wetlands. Dr. McVoy opined that the aquifer recharge capacities of the Bird Drive Basin, the West Wellfield, and the Pennsuco Wetlands will not be increased as a result of the Plan Amendment, but he did not testify that the Plan Amendment would inherently decrease those capacities, nor did he testify that the Plan Amendment would prevent those capacities from being maintained. Again, County staff recognized the inherent conflict between wetland functions and development of the roadway corridor, and recommended the Plan Amendment include the following new policies, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: LU-1W. [P]rior to the construction of the roadway, or any phase thereof, MDX shall prepare a surface water sheet flow analysis to demonstrate that the wetlands hydrology in this area shall be adequately retained. LU-3T. The [new corridor] is planned to traverse and impact wetlands within the Bird Drive Basins and elsewhere along its alignment and will require environmental approval and wetland mitigation. To the maximum extent feasible, mitigation for the [new corridor] shall be accomplished through acquisition, preservation, and restoration of wetlands within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins outside the [UDB]. At a minimum, preservation of wetlands within the Bird Drive Basin shall be included as a component of the wetlands mitigation for this project. The mitigation shall also include a plan to preserve the hydrological connection and surface water flow of the wetlands remaining in these basins through the use of culverts or bridges. (emphasis added). Petitioners have two objections to this language. First, Petitioners argue the only way to preserve the hydrologic connection of the wetlands severed by construction is by bridging, rather than use of culverts. Dr. McVoy expressed the opinion that, if a wetland has water storage capacity, the roadway will need to be elevated to prevent flooding of the roadway. If the County only uses culverts, the road will still be subject to flooding in the areas where it is not culverted. Moreover, the hydrologic function of the wetlands will not be maintained because the wetlands will be disconnected in those areas. The County’s wetland expert explained that while some wetland vegetation is removed for a culverting project, the culvert allows wetland hydrology to be maintained. He gave examples of other roadways, notably Krome Avenue, where culverts have been used to maintain the hydrologic connection of wetlands severed by the roadway. Both Dr. McVoy and Mr. Spinelli have expertise in wetlands and wetland hydrology and hold different opinions on the issue. Neither witness’s testimony was more compelling than the other. Second, Petitioners attack the use of the phrase, “to the maximum extent feasible” to modify the requirement that mitigation of wetland impacts be accomplished within the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. Petitioners contend that this phrase does not provide a meaningful and predictable standard. But this is a common phrase that has been used throughout comprehensive plans that have been found in compliance, including ones prepared by Petitioners’ planning expert, Mr. Iler, and as acknowledged by Mr. Hawkins. Moreover, Mr. Woerner noted that at least three other policies in the Plan use the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible,” and he emphasized that this language provides some flexibility as to how an otherwise mandatory directive can be accomplished. As Mr. Spinelli and Mr. Woerner explained, the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” in new Policy LU-3T is appropriate because it provides some flexibility as to the location of wetland mitigation, because, as the County’s wetland mitigation estimates showed, there were limits on the amount of available land within the Bird Drive and North Trail Basins to address the entire amount of mitigation that would likely be required. Mr. Hawkins further opined that the standard “is so deferential to the opinions stated by whoever the applicant or the developer might be in the future as to not provide a real standard that we can use today to anticipate whether we can measure compliance of this policy in the future.” However, nothing in Policy LU-3T vests discretion in, or suggests deference to, a permit applicant with respect to the issue of feasibility. It is plain that, as with other policies in the CDMP, the County would ultimately determine feasibility. In summary, the Plan does not prohibit destruction of all wetlands in environmentally-sensitive areas. Rather, it limits damage to projects meeting certain criteria, at least one of which is met by this project. The Plan anticipates mitigation of wetland acreages lost due to development, and requires the water storage, recharge capacity, and hydrology of wetlands be maintained or increased. Finally, the Plan requires restoration of publicly- acquired wetlands “managed for their natural resource, habitat, and hydrologic values.” The Plan Amendment will disturb and destroy wetlands, which will be undertaken in accordance with the basin management plans for the Bird Drive and North Trail basins. The Plan Amendment requires MDX to demonstrate that the wetland hydrology can be maintained by submitting sheet flow analysis prior to construction. Mitigation of wetlands acquired can increase storage capacity by removal of melaleuca and restoration of the confining layer. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment violates any of the cited Conservation Element policies, with the exception of CON-7A, because it allows destruction of portions of the Pennsuco wetlands. CERP Protection of the Everglades is one of the highest priorities of the Plan. The Land Use Element provides that the County’s “growth policy includes … that the intensification of physical development and expansion of the urban area should be managed … in recognition of the County’s physical limitations to horizontal expansion due to the location of the Everglades National Parks[.]” Land Use Policy LU-3S states that “[The County] continues to support the [CERP] and related regional and local habitat restoration and preservation initiatives through its … long-range land planning initiatives.” Future Land Use Element Figure 14 clearly depicts the Bird Drive Basin as “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas.” The Conservation Element “builds upon past and present initiatives such as … planning for the Bird Drive-Everglades [and other] basins.” Petitioners contend the Plan Amendment is contrary to Policy CON-7J, which provides, as follows: In evaluating applications that will result in alterations or adverse impacts to wetlands[,] [the County] shall consider the applications’ [sic] consistency with [CERP] objectives. Applications that are found to be inconsistent with CERP objectives, projects or features shall be denied. (emphasis added). Petitioners maintain the Plan Amendment will adversely impact wetlands in the Bird Drive Basin, which is designated as CERP Component U, and should be denied as inconsistent with that CERP project and its related objectives. 9 All parties agreed that only the District has authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment is consistent with CERP. As part of the required review of the Plan Amendment, the District commented on the proposed Plan Amendment. In its comment letter, the District noted that “[a] portion of the lands within the proposed study area for the expressway extension have been identified as having potential use with regard to Everglades restoration projects.” The District advised that the 9 The County introduced evidence, all of which constituted hearsay, to prove that the District has determined Component U to be infeasible and has instead moved toward a conveyance concept for the Bird Drive Basin, which, ostensibly requires less property. The issue is a red herring. No matter the size or scale of the CERP project, the District remains the agency with authority to determine whether the Plan Amendment interferes with the project. County had not supplied enough information “that would help the District evaluate the proposed project’s compatibility with the CERP [project],” and directed that County staff “coordinate with appropriate District staff to provide sufficient information.”10 The County did not provide additional information to the District and did not receive any determination from the District regarding the Plan Amendment’s consistency with CERP. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with CERP, or that the County failed to consider consistency with CERP, thus, they did not prove the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy CON-7J. However, Petitioners did prove the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis on this point. Rather than providing the District with the additional information it requested to determine consistency with CERP, the County replied that it would continue to work with the District during the permitting process and “may be able to include features … that provide benefits that are both compatible and consistent with the intent of the CERP.” While only the District has the authority to determine consistency of the Plan Amendment with CERP, the County, not the District, has the duty and authority to determine consistency with its own Plan, including Policy CON-7J. 10 The District’s letter constitutes hearsay evidence for which there is no applicable exception in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. See Ehrhardt’s Florida Evidence § 803.8 (“A third kind of public record is admissible under [the Federal Evidence Code], but was intentionally omitted from section 90.803(8)”—“records and reports by a public official when the official is required to interpret and evaluate facts and information supplied by persons outside the agency.”). If the letter addressed the material disputed fact of whether the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, those statements would be inadmissible. However, the undersigned determined that statements regarding the need for more information on the issue are admissible, because they do not go to a material disputed fact. The County introduced the testimony of expert planning witness, Mark Woerner, in an attempt to prove that the County need not have a final determination of consistency with CERP prior to adopting a plan amendment. Mr. Woerner testified that the Plan merely requires the County to be aware of particular CERP projects when staff reviews plan amendments.11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony is contrary to the plain language of the policy, which requires the denial of a plan amendment that is found to be inconsistent with a CERP project or objective. Notwithstanding the previous finding that Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with CERP, because the Plan Amendment was adopted absent a determination of consistency with CERP, the Plan Amendment is not based upon adequate data or analysis. To be “based upon data” means “to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary[.]” § 163.3177(f), Fla. Stat. The County did not react appropriately to the data and analysis available—that the District needed more information in order to determine consistency—by adopting the Plan Amendment without such needed information. Agriculture Next, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policies specifically addressing the preservation of agriculture. The Plan provides the following with respect to lands in the Agriculture category: The area designated as “Agriculture” contains the best agriculture land remaining in [the County]. As 11 Mr. Woerner’s testimony was hedging, at best: “I believe that you can still provide an analysis and address the issues that may be surrounding a particular CERP project or a CERP issue. But I don’t think you need to have to finally finalize that. You have to—the comp plan—the policies that we put in the comp plan regarding CERP were to ensure that in the planning process, the County’s aware of the importance of CERP in its projects and that we have to be aware of that as we review different plan amendments or other permitting issues that might arise for the County.” stated in the [County’s] strategic plan, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, protection of viable agriculture is a priority. The principle uses in this area should be agriculture, uses ancillary to and directly supportive of agriculture and farm residences.[12] The Plan continues, “In order to protect the agricultural industry, uses incompatible with agriculture, and uses and facilities that support or encourage urban development are not allowed within [the Agriculture land use category].” The mandate to protect agriculture is reiterated in the section on Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map, which provides, “Among the long-standing concepts embodied in the [County’s Plan] are … encourage agriculture as a viable economic use of suitable lands.” In addition to the foregoing Plan provisions, Petitioners cite the following goals, objectives, and policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts: the Land Use Goal, which calls for “preserv[ing] Miami-Dade County’s unique agricultural lands” and Land Use Policies LU-1R, LU-1S, LU-8C, and LU-8E. Policy LU-8C requires the County to “continue to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land[.]” The Plan Amendment will displace approximately 300 acres of Agriculturally-designated land which is in active agricultural use. The amount of land that is needed to maintain a viable agricultural industry is approximately 50,000 acres. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s December 2012 report titled “Growing for a Sustainable Future: Miami-Dade County Urban Development Boundary Assessment,” approximately 67,000 acres outside the UDB are in active agricultural use. 12 Uses ancillary to agriculture are those related to preserving, processing packaging, or selling agricultural products; farm supplies; and sale and service of farm machinery and implements. The Plan Amendment will not reduce the amount of agriculture land to below the threshold required for a viable agriculture industry. Therefore, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with either the Concepts and Limitations interpretive text or LU-8C. Policy LU-8E provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Applications requesting amendments to [the Plan] Land Use map shall be evaluated for consistency with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impeded provision of services at or above adopted LOS standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods, and; Enhance of degrade environmental or historical resources, feature, or systems of County significance[.] There is ample evidence that the Plan Amendment was evaluated for consistency with every aspect of the Plan. As it pertains to Agriculture, County staff specifically recognized potential conflict with the Plan’s directives to protect agricultural land. To address that concern, staff recommended that “MDX be required to preserve agricultural lands that are currently being used for agricultural production, commensurate with the amount of such lands that would be impacted by the roadway extension.” Staff recommended addition of, and the Plan Amendment was adopted with, the following new future land use policies: Policy LU-1U. Notwithstanding the designation of the [new corridor] as an Expressway on the [Plan] Land Use Plan map … no construction associated with the [new corridor] shall occur that would restrict farm vehicle and equipment access to agricultural properties adjacent to the [new corridor]. Moreover, to minimize the impacts of the [new corridor], the design and construction shall be conducted in a manner that does not cause drainage or the spillage of lighting from the [new corridor] onto adjacent agricultural lands. Policy LU-1V. To mitigate the impacts of the [new corridor] on the agricultural area, [MDX] shall preserve agricultural lands outside the UDB commensurate to impacts to agricultural lands that would be taken out of production by the project. Said preservation may be through participation in the County’s Purchase Development Rights program or other mechanism acceptable to the [County] Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (or successor Department). The Plan Amendment addresses both the direct and indirect impacts the new corridor may have on agriculture. Policy LU-1V mitigates the loss of directly impacted acreage by requiring preservation of land for agricultural land outside the UDB through a purchase of development rights program on an acre-for-acre basis. Under the Plan Amendment, all direct impacts to agricultural lands will require preservation of a commensurate amount of agricultural land outside the UDB. Approximately 188 acres of the impacted agricultural acres are located within the UEA, which are already projected to be removed from agricultural production in the future. Policy LU-1V will, arguably, increase the amount of land available for agriculture following the eventual development of the UEA for urban development. Policy LU-1U addresses the indirect impacts to agriculture, by requiring the expressway to be designed in a manner that protects farm vehicle and equipment access and that does not cause drainage or lighting spillage onto agricultural lands. With the addition of the cited policies, it is at least arguable that the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Plan directives to protect agricultural lands or Policy LU-8E. At first blush, Policy LU-1R appears to be relevant because it begins by mandating the County to “reserve the amount of land necessary to maintain an economically viable agricultural industry.” However, the remainder of the policy mandates the County to adopt a transfer of development rights (“TDR”) program and provides more detail on how TDR will be implemented. The policy must be construed as a whole. The Plan Amendment included no provisions regarding the development, adoption, or implementation of the TDR program. Thus, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this policy. LU-1S is inapplicable, again, because it addresses the consistency of the County’s Strategic Plan, rather than plan amendments, with the Plan. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the interpretive text describing the Agriculture land use category because, as detailed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not support or encourage urban development in the Agriculture land use category. Finally, Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis, specifically regarding the amount of agricultural land impacted by the new corridor and the amount of land needed to maintain a viable agriculture industry. Mr. Hawkins opined that the County did not identify the impacts, which is not a professionally acceptable planning practice. However, the evidence adduced at the final hearing revealed that data was available to, and was considered by, the County, and which supports the Plan Amendment. Petitioners did not prove this aspect of the Plan Amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis. Transportation The PD&E Study In 2013, following TPO approval, MDX commenced the PD&E process for the new corridor. MDX engaged consultants, overseen by the project manager, Albert Sosa, on behalf of general engineering consulting firm HNTB, to undertake the PD&E process for what was referred to as “MDX Project 836-18.” The PD&E process is the State of Florida’s process by which infrastructure projects demonstrate compliance with federal and state environmental and other regulatory standards. A PD&E study involves roadway engineering, structural work, stormwater drainage work, traffic engineering, transportation engineering, and analysis of the project’s impacts on both the natural and the built environment and on the people in the affected community. Mr. Sosa personally supervised the development of, and reviewed and approved, all methodologies for collection and analysis of data, reviewed the results of the collection and analysis for conformance with the approved methodologies, and reviewed and approved all reports produced as part of the overall PD&E Study for MDX Project 836-18. The first step in the PD&E Study was to develop an evaluation methodology, which, in this case, was the Alternative Corridor Evaluation (“ACE”), whereby several alternative corridors were analyzed and compared based on their relative impacts and benefits to the natural and built environment and to the transportation needs of the affected community, among other criteria. The ACE for MDX Project 836-18 ultimately considered 10 corridor alignments. The analysis began by measuring existing traffic conditions in 2014 to identify existing operational deficiencies along critical roadway facilities. From there, the analysis projected traffic impacts out to the year 2050. The 2050 projections used as a baseline a “no-build” model that incorporated highway, transit, roadway, and other transportation improvements programmed in the LRTP “Cost Feasible Plan” to be constructed by 2050, as well as updated population and other socio-economic projections. The alternative corridor alignments for the proposed expressway were compared against the “no-build” model in the year 2050, to determine whether the existing traffic conditions observed in 2014 remained or worsened even after accounting for future planned transportation improvements; and if so, whether the proposed expressway improved the projected conditions. The ACE analyzed traffic impacts over a broader study area than it used for impacts to the natural and built environment. The traffic study area is based on a model that incorporates the different corridors, and turns those corridors on and off to see where significant impacts to traffic stop appearing. That model is known as the Southeast Regional Planning Model (“SERPM”), which is owned by the TPO and includes: planned transportation projects, existing and future land use designations, existing and future population projections, and existing and future employment projections for different areas of the County. It is, therefore, used to analyze every transportation project in the County for impacts to both the existing and future planned environment. The traffic study area for the SR-836 southwest extension project was established as a 75-square-mile area bounded on the north by NW 12th Street, on the east by SW 97th Avenue, on the south by SW 152 Street/Coral Reef Drive, and on the west by SW 177 Avenue/Krome Avenue (see Figure 2). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 2 Of the original 10 ACE corridors, the closest to the final adopted alignment was Corridor 6. Between NW 12th Street and SW 88th Street, Corridor 6 matches the alignment presented in the Plan Amendment. The main difference is that the southern portion of ACE Corridor 6 lies further west of the UDB and further away from the residential development in West Kendall south of SW 104th Street than the Application alignment did. Petitioners challenged the PD&E study, and the ACE Report specifically, as insufficient data to support the Plan Amendment because the final adopted alignment of the new corridor differed from any of the 10 the alignments studied. The undersigned finds the PD&E study, including the ACE Report, provides significant data compiled by a professionally-accepted methodology and taken from professionally accepted sources.13 Thus, while none of the 10 ACE corridors exactly matched the final adopted alignment, the PD&E Study ultimately analyzed all of the variations that the County considered, and as of the Plan Amendment’s adoption, the PD&E Study had obtained data for the final adopted alignment. Mobility Approximately 600,000 people live in the West Kendall area (including areas between the UDB and SW 177th Avenue/Krome Avenue), and each weekday, 150,000 of those people commute to work in other areas of the County. The need for increased mobility in West Kendall is well documented by the PD&E Study. In general, the peak travel direction through the study area is eastbound/northbound in the morning peak period, or rush hour (6:00 am to 9:00 am), and southbound/westbound during the evening rush hour (4:00 pm to 7:00 pm). Travel speeds within the study area were found to be lower in the morning rush hour compared to the evening rush hour. Travel speeds lower than 18 mile per hour (“mph”) were documented on Bird Road, Kendall Drive, Coral Reef Drive, SW 137th Avenue, and SW 107th Avenue, during the evening rush hour. The capacity of a roadway is identified by the level of service (“LOS”) standards. The County has adopted LOS D for roadways within the UDB, 13 The ACE Report was originally published in February 2017, but the data and analysis was updated beginning in the summer of 2017 and throughout the Plan Amendment process. and LOS C for roadways outside of the UDB. The roadways listed above are operating at LOS E and F, indicating the level of congestion in the area. In addition to measuring average travel speeds, which incorporate delays at intersections, another planning-level measurement of surface streets is their volume over capacity (V/C) ratio, where volume (V) is the number of vehicles and capacity (C) is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass a point on a roadway in a given amount of time under normal conditions. A roadway is considered to be failing if it has a V/C ratio of 1.0 or more, and it is near failure if it has a V/C ratio between 0.9 and 1.0. During the morning rush hour, 20 roadway segments within the study area had V/C ratios over 1.0, and 15 segments were approaching failure. During the afternoon rush hour, 13 segments had a V/C ratio greater than 1.0, and another 16 were approaching failure. In sum, during the morning rush hour today, roughly 50 percent of the roadway segments operate at substandard speeds, and 33 percent are either already over capacity or near capacity. Additional transportation capacity is needed to accommodate the current residential development in West Kendall, as the existing roadway network cannot effectively serve the area’s current transportation demands, and that population is only expected to increase based on current land use and zoning designations. Petitioners’ overarching challenge relating to transportation is that the Plan Amendment is not supported by the data and analysis from the PD&E study, which demonstrates construction of the new corridor will result in minimal mobility increases in the study area and actually reduce the LOS on some roadway segments. The purpose of the Plan Amendment is two-fold: to improve mobility in West Kendall; and to decrease the commute times to downtown and other employment centers. 14 While the study does reveal significant reduced congestion on certain roadway segments in the West Kendall area during morning and evening rush hours, overall the study supports a finding of minimally increased mobility in the study area. For example, analysis of the alignment most closely approximating the new corridor, scenario 2.1D, results in a reduction of 6,988 vehicles on SW 8th Street, and reduction of 6,264 vehicles on SW 88th Street. But, the impact on daily traffic volumes is minor. The total reduction in vehicle hours traveled (“VHT”) for morning rush hour is four percent, and for evening rush hour is five percent. The average annual daily reduction in VHT is just over three percent (a reduction from 226,033 to 218,803), and an average daily increase in travel speed from 27.72 mph to 29.34 mph. The data also shows the greatest reduction in vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) is six percent. Notably, the new corridor would result in an improvement of the LOS for less than half of the roadways within the study area. 8th Street, east of 157th Avenue, would improve from LOS D to C; Bird Road would improve from LOS E to D; 120th Street would improve from LOS D to C; and 157th Avenue, north of 136th Street, would improve from LOS F to C. The remaining seven segments studied would remain at their existing LOS, 14 The LRTP identifies “[i]mprove[ment] [of] access to and from the area to major employment centers such as the MIA, the MIC, the Port of Miami, Downtown Miami, Doral, as well as educational and commercial centers within the study area,” as one of the primary purposes of the project, in addition to improving mobility in the Kendall area. The Plan Amendment includes new Policy TC-1M, which provides that the County approves the new corridor “only to the extent necessary to relieve existing traffic congestion in the [West Kendall] area of the County and to provide a reliable, robust, and faster connection to Downtown Miami and other major trip attractors across the County.” including 137th Avenue, south of the new corridor, which would continue to operate at LOS F. Not only does the data reveal that the improvements in West Kendall congestion would be, as Petitioner’s expert described, “meager,” but also they provide no support for a finding that the Plan Amendment will accomplish its second objective—improving the commute time to downtown and other employment centers. The County relies upon the PD&E study, the goal of which is to identify an appropriate corridor for the southwest extension of the Dolphin Expressway, which does not include downtown, the airport, or other employment centers, within either the study area or the impact area. Mr. Mullerat, Petitioner’s expert transportation planner, described the problem as follows: [I]f the intent of this project is to solve in part the commuter issues for commuters, the whole path of the commuter should have been looked at … [the study] doesn’t look at some of the destinations—not just downtown and to the east, but also to the north. … And both origin and destination should have been looked at. Mr. Mullerat testified, credibly, that it was not an acceptable planning practice to have ignored origin and destination trips. The majority of the commuters who utilize the new corridor will be traveling beyond this three-mile stretch on to downtown, the hospitals, the airport, and other major trip attractors, yet the study contains no information about impact on commute times to those destinations. The data is silent on whether the time to those destinations will increase, decrease, or stay the same. Furthermore, the existing segment of the Dolphin Expressway operates at a LOS C, at least for the first three miles traveling east from its current termination point. The data shows that, after the new corridor is built, the LOS drops to D in that three-mile stretch. So, commuters will drive 13 miles, outside of the UDB, through active agricultural lands, through environmentally-sensitive lands, and through the West Wellfield, only to connect with the existing expressway operating at an LOS lower than it operates at today.15 Relating to transportation issues, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following goals, objectives, and policies in the Plan: TC-1A; TC-4A and F; and TC-6 and 6B. TC-1A requires the County to update and readopt the LRTP to achieve the objective of TC-1, which requires the County to operate its roadways at the adopted LOS, and strive to achieve a better LOS, in a manner consistent with the other objectives of the Plan. It requires the County to prepare proposals to enhance the Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit subelements following each LRTP update. The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy. The Plan Amendment will assist in achievement of the adopted LOS D on at least some roadway segments within the study area, and achieve a better LOS on others. While it will not improve the LOS on all segments, including at least one that is operating at LOS F, it is at least fairly debatable that the Plan Amendment is consistent with this policy. Policy TC-6A requires the County to “avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in … environmentally sensitive areas[.]” For the reasons discussed in Findings of Fact 59 through 62, the Plan Amendment does not “encourage increased development” and is not inconsistent with this policy. TC-6B requires that land access interchanges “shall not be placed or constructed in a manner that would provide access to environmental 15 A project to widen the existing segment of the Dolphin Espressway from four to six lanes is expected to re-establish the higher functioning LOS C. However, no evidence was introduced at final hearing to establish the timeframe for that project. protection areas or other areas to be conserved” in order to prevent undue pressure for development in those areas. There is no evidence that the interchanges proposed for the new corridor to connect with existing roads in West Kendall would provide “land access.” Further, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the policy for the same reasons it is not inconsistent with TC-6A. TC-4C provides, “Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided” when the County prioritizes construction of roadways, and allocation of financial resources for said construction.16 At first, it appears the Plan Amendment may be inconsistent with this policy because it allows construction of the new corridor in the Pennsuco wetlands. However, the Plan must be construed as a whole. This policy must be read in conjunction with Policy TC-6C, which provides that “[i]f no feasible alternative exists,” roadways may traverse environmental protection or conservation areas, “however such access should be limited and design techniques should be used to minimize the negative impact upon the natural systems.” Petitioners argue that alternatives to the new corridor exist which would accomplish the objective of relieving congestion in West Kendall. Mr. Kulash opined that congestion could be relieved by lane widening, extending turn lanes, and other roadway improvements; alternately, he expressed an opinion that congestion could be relieved by mass transit improvements. The County experts demonstrated that the alternatives proposed by Petitioners were not feasible, due to costs of land acquisition in the urban area, and the limitations of transit service. 16 The same language is expressed in CIE-6A. For the reasons stated herein, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with that policy. Petitioners did not carry their burden of proof with regard to Policy TC-4C. Petitioners must have done more than suggest alternatives exist, they must have proven the feasibility of those alternatives. Petitioners also raised concerns with the energy inefficiency of a new expressway and increased emissions and greenhouse gases. They identified Intergovernmental Coordination Element (”ICE”) policies ICE-5F and 5G as policies with which the Plan Amendment conflicts. ICE-5F requires the County to participate in the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and to coordinate with other agencies in developing initiatives to address climate change mitigation and adaption. Policy ICE-5G requires County departmental master plans to “include and prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.” The Plan Amendment has no impact on the County’s ability to implement either of those policies. Mass Transit The County has adopted the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan (see Figure 3). [Remainder of page intentionally blank] Figure 3 The SMART plan includes two east/west corridors, including the Kendall Corridor, which will connect residents in West Kendall from 167th Avenue east to existing lines serving downtown, and two planned north and northeast corridors. Transportation Element Policy TE-3C states, “It is the policy of [the County] to develop all the transportation facilities identified in the MPO’s [LRTP] … as soon as feasible, in accordance with the LRTP phasing program.” The Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement is to “[m]aintain, operate, and develop a mass transit system in [the County] that provides efficient, convenient, accessible, and affordable service to all residents and visitors,” and it adopts the corridors identified by the SMART plan as Figure 2 in the element’s map series. Policy TE-1A provides that “the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to personal automobile.” The overarching Goal of the Traffic Circulation Element includes developing and operating a traffic circulation that “supports the usage of transit,” among other broad goals. Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with several existing Plan provisions regarding mass transit service and prioritizing alternatives to private vehicle travel. Primary among them are Transportation Element TC-1A and Traffic Circulation Subelement TC-4F. Based on the same arguments, Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(b), which requires a transportation element “to plan for a multimodal transportation system that places emphasis on public transportation systems, where feasible” and to “provide for a safe, convenient multimodal transportation system, coordinated with the future land use map . . . and designed to support all elements of the comprehensive plan,” as well as section 163.3177(6)(b)2.a, which requires that a transportation element address “[a]ll alternative modes of travel, such as public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle travel.” Policy TC-4F provides, as follows: The County shall consistently improve strategies to facilitate a Countywide shift in travel modes from personal automobile use to pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The priority for transportation infrastructure expenditures shall be to insure that pedestrian, bicycle, and transit features are incorporated into roadway design. (emphasis added). Policy TE-1A provides, as follows: As provided in this section and the Mass Transit Subelement, the County shall promote mass transit alternatives to the personal automobile, such as rapid transit, (i.e. heavy rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit, premium transit (enhanced and/or express bus)), local route bus and paratransit services. (emphasis added). Petitioners’ experts testified that the new corridor will accomplish the opposite of what is required by the Plan—it will incentivize the use of personal vehicles by residents of West Kendall, who will take the expressway to escape the congestion of the roadways within the UDB. Respondent countered that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Plan’s emphasis on alternative mass transit because it requires the new corridor to be built as a multi-modal facility, and will provide connections between the planned new east/west corridors. The Plan Amendment includes the following new policies in the Mass Transit Subelement of the Transportation Element: Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4D. Pursuant to Traffic Circulation Subelement Policy TC-4F, [MDX] (or successor agency) shall provide for mass transit service in the [new corridor], to be funded by MDX. The mass transit service shall incorporate lanes having technologies that facilitate the safe travel of automated vehicles, including mass transit vehicles, at high rates of speed for a connection with the transit service being implemented as part of the current SR 836 reconstruction generally east of the Turnpike. MDX shall coordinate the mass transit service with [the County] through the Department of Transportation and Public Works (or successor department). Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. Mass Transit Subelement Policy MT-4E. In coordination with [the County] Parks, Recreation and Open Space Department and [the County TPO], [MDX] shall design a multi-use recreational trail within the corridor of the [new corridor]. Additionally, to the maximum extent feasible, the multi-use recreational trail shall be designed to provide for seamless connections to the County’s existing and planned trails and greenways network proximate to the corridor. Said coordination shall occur prior to the earlier of the issuance of the first permit for construction of the expressway extension or prior to the commencement of any construction of the expressway extension. These policies satisfy the requirements in Policies TC-3D to “design new roadways in a way that … incorporates planned rapid transit corridors,” and TC-4F to “insure that … transit features are incorporated into roadway design.” The question is whether the Plan Amendment satisfies the Plan requirement to “promote mass transit use.” Petitioner’s expert planners maintained it will not. Mr. Hawkins explained: The expressway is located outside of the Urban Development Boundary to the west of the urbanized area. For folks to use a transit corridor or a transit route that runs along the expressway corridor, they would have to travel by automobile outside the UDB to the west, to access a park-and-ride facility, and then get on a transit facility—a transit vehicle that operates in that corridor. It would not be back in an urbanized area until it is in the area of Northwest 12th Street and back in the UDB. If you were going to plan a corridor for a transit facility, you would have a much more direct line. You would run a transit facility through the developed area. Why? One is so that people can get to it more quickly. And two, so that all of the stops along its way are functional. When you are running through an agricultural area, you can't have any functional stops until you are all the way back in the UDB. It is just—the suggestion that this is a functional transit corridor or that this was designed with transit in mind is—I will use the word farcical. Respondent’s own planning expert, Mr. Woerner, agreed that the Plan Amendment “does not shift the travel mode from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit,” and “does not reduce dependence on the use of personal vehicles.” The County introduced no data on ridership for the transit lanes or other data to support that the mass transit option incorporated in the Plan Amendment would actually promote use of that option. Mr. Woerner seemed to recall some figures on ridership from the PD&E study, which evaluated a mass transit alternative to the new corridor. The figure Mr. Woerner referenced was an estimated 2,772 transit boardings from the alternative corridor analysis conducted during the PD&E study. However, that study was a mass-transit-only alternative to the new corridor. That ridership number is an estimate of the number of West Kendall residents who would choose to take mass transit if that were the only option in the new corridor. It does not reflect the number of users who, given an option between driving their personal vehicle along the new corridor or boarding a bus along that corridor, would choose the bus. In response, Mr. Woerner responded that, in his opinion, the most important data the County needed was the corridor connections. (See Figure 3 depiction of the approximate location of the new corridor, hand drawn in red, in relation to the planned east/west SMART corridors). In this case, Mr. Woerner considered the connections with Kendall Drive and Tamiami Trail bus lines to be important connections for users. But, when asked directly whether the County needed ridership information to support new Policy MT-4D, Mr. Woerner said, “No. I don’t believe we needed it, but it certainly was helpful to know that there had been a projection made.” Mr. Woerner’s testimony was not credible. As discussed above, the projection Mr. Woerner referred to was never made. There is no data to determine whether the County’s directive to another agency to fund and build 13 miles of mass transit service along the expressway route, will actually “promote mass transit use,” as required by the Plan. The burden was on Petitioners to prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the cited goals and policies. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy TC-4F, because all the experts agreed that the Plan Amendment does not “shift the travel mode” in this part of the County “from single occupancy vehicle to mass transit.” However, Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Plan’s provisions to: “promote mass transit use,” as required by Policy TE-1A; “support[] use of transit,” as required by the Transportation Element Goal; “significantly enhance public transit services and implement transportation system management programs … to provide feasible alternatives to private automobile use,” as required by CON-1B; or maintain an “efficient” mass transit system, as required by the Goal of the Mass Transit Subelement. Petitioners did prove that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis to determine whether it is internally consistent with the cited goals and policies.
Conclusions For Petitioners, Limonar Development, LLC; Wonderly Holdings, LLC; and Mills Family, LLC: John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers 75 Valencia Avenue, Suite 600 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 220 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 For Petitioners, Tropical Audubon Society and Michelle Garcia: Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse 1 Miami, Florida 33133 Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso, P.A. 6511 Nova Drive, Mail Box 300 Davie, Florida 33317 For Respondent, Miami-Dade County: Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 2018-109 on September 27, 2018, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 30th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos A. Gimenez, Mayor Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center, 29th Floor 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Dennis Alexander Kerbel, Esquire Miami-Dade County Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) John C. Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A., Trial Lawyers Suite 600 75 Valencia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Francisco J. Pines, Esquire Francisco J. Pines, P.A. Suite 220 3301 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (eServed) Christopher J. Wahl, Esquire Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office Suite 2810 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) James Michael Porter, Esquire James M. Porter, P.A. 10th Floor 9350 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33156 (eServed) Paul J. Schwiep, Esquire Coffey Burlington, P.L. Penthouse 1 2601 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133 (eServed) Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso P.A. Mail Box 300 6511 Nova Drive Davie, Florida 33317 (eServed) William Chorba, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) James Uthmeier, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Executive Office of the Governor Suite 209, The Capitol 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-001 (eServed) Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 (eServed)
The Issue Whether an amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, PC-93-12, adopted by Ordinance 93-42, renders the Broward County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993)
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Francis C. Nipe, is an individual who resides and owns real property located in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Nipe presented oral and written comments to Broward County concerning the plan amendment which is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent, Broward County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is a local government charged with responsibility by Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), and the Broward County Charter for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County. The County is also responsible for amendments to the comprehensive plan. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged by the Act with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Intervenor, Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of business located in the County. Intervenor, Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, also has his principal place of business located in the County and is the contract purchaser of the property which is the subject of the amendment at issue. Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., submitted oral and written comments to the County concerning the subject amendment during the amendment process. (Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., and Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, will hereinafter be jointly referred to as "Swerdlow"). Intervenor, VST/VMIF Oakridge Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "VST"), owns the real property which is the subject of the amendment at issue in this proceeding. VST submitted written comments during the amendment process. Michael Swerdlow Companies, Inc., as agent for Michael Swerdlow, Trustee, and VST, was the applicant for the amendment at issue in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is generally a rectangular-shaped geographic area located in southeastern Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Dade County, on the west by Collier and Hendry Counties and on the north by Palm Beach County. The County's Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted a comprehensive plan in compliance with the Act on March 1, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "County Plan"). Volume 1 of the County Plan consists of the Broward County Land Use Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Use Plan"). The Land Use Plan applies throughout the County. Broward County composite exhibit 1. Volume 2 of the County Plan contains the other elements required by the Act. Some of the elements of Volume 2 apply throughout the County and some apply only to unincorporated areas or areas in which the County provides services. Volume 3 of the County Plan consists of supporting documents for the Land Use Plan. Broward County composite exhibit 1. The County Plan includes a 1989 Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), which is a part of the Land Use Plan. Broward County exhibit 6. The Land Use Plan establishes several categories of land uses. The future land use categories established are: Residential: A number of uses are allowed within areas designated "residential." The following subcategories, based upon dwelling densities, are established: Estate (1) Residential. Low (2) Residential. Low (3) Residential. Low (5) Residential. Low-Medium (10) Residential. Medium (16) Residential. Medium-High (25) Residential. High (50) Residential. Other subcategories of residential property include: Rural Estates. Rural Rances. Commercial. Office Park. Commercial Recreation. Industrial. Employment Center. Recreation and Open Space. Conservation. Agricultural. Community Facilities. Transportation. Utilities. Regional Activity Centers. Mining. The FLUM depicts the proposed distribution, extent and location of land use designations for the County. The County Plan creates the Broward County Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Council"), as an advisory body to the County Commission. Initial Consideration of the Subject Amendment. The County received a request to amend the County Plan by changing the land use designation of approximately 143 acres of real property from Low-Medium (10), Commercial Recreation and Irregular (6) Residential to primarily Low (5) Residential. In June of 1993 the area included in the application was reduced from 143 acres to 109 acres. The 109 acres are classified as Commercial Recreation. On July 7, 1993, it was requested that the land use designation of the 109 acres being sought by the applicant be reduced to Low (3) Residential. The County approved the request to change the land use designation of the 109 acres of Commercial Recreation to Low (3) Residential (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"), and transmitted the Amendment to the Department for review. The Department's Initial Review of the Subject Amendment. The Department reviewed the Amendment and prepared its Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (hereinafter referred to as the "ORC"), dated September 24, 1993. Comments of various entities were considered by the Department during its review. The Department raised two objections to the Amendment in the ORC. One objection was that the County had not provided peak hour analysis of traffic conditions impacted by the Amendment both before and after the Amendment. The Department's objection concerning traffic conditions was based upon comments from the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"). DOT had requested that a P.M. peak-hour traffic analysis be provided for roads serving the property which is the subject of the Amendment. The Department also objected to the Amendment because the County had failed to provide adequate data and analysis demonstrating a need for increased residential density to accommodate the projected population. The County's Response to the ORC and Approval of the Amendment. On October 28, 1993, the Planning Council recommended approval and adoption of the Amendment, as modified. On November 10, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance 93-42. Included in Ordinance 93-42 were a number of amendments to the County Plan, including the Amendment, PC-93-12. Pursuant to the Amendment, the land use designation of approximately 109 acres of real property, was amended from Commercial Recreation to Low (3) Residential. In response to the ORC, the County informed the Department that a P.M. peak-hour traffic analysis was not required for the Amendment because the Traffic Circulation Element of the County Plan is based upon an analysis of average daily trips. The method utilized in the County Plan utilizes average daily traffic in the calculation of levels of service for affected roadways. In response to the Department's objection concerning the need for additional residential property, the County reported that the Amendment property is located in the southeast sector of the County and that the southeast sector is generally built out. The Department was also informed that facilities and services in the Southeast sector are in place. The County also took the position that the Amendment constitutes "infill" development. Finally, the County pointed out to the Department that the number of dwelling units permitted by the Land Use Plan for the southeast sector have been reduced by over 2,124 units through amendments to the County Plan. The County also informed the Department that revised population figures suggest an additional increase in population for the southeast sector of 1, 327. Therefore, there will be no increase in total projected residential units in the southeast sector as a result of the Amendment. Final Department Review. The Department discussed the County's response concerning traffic projections with DOT. DOT withdrew its objection and the Department accepted the County's explanation. The Department considered and accepted the County's response to the objections contained in the ORC concerning the adequacy of data and analysis to support an increase in residential property. The Department determined that the additional data and analysis were adequate. The suggestion that the Amendment constitutes "in fill" was not part of the reason the Department accepted the County's explanation for why an increase in residential property was being approved. On January 4, 1994 the Department entered a Notice of Intent to find the Amendment in compliance. Ms. Nipe's Challenge to the Amendment. On or about March 11, 1994, Ms. Nipe filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing of Frances Nipe with the Department challenging the Amendment. In the petition, Ms. Nipe alleged that the Amendment is not "in compliance" for essentially the following reasons: The "residential density has not sufficiently been supported by data and analysis that the increase in residential density is necessary to accommodate the projected population." In support of this argument, Ms. Nipe cited Rules 9J-5.006(2)(a) and (c), Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 9J- 11.006(1)(b)4. and (3) [incorrectly cited as 9J-11.00.006(1)(b)4. and (3)], Florida Administrative Code. The Amendment is inconsistent with Broward County Land Use Plan - Chapter 5, Section B, Commercial Recreation Use, 2., . . ." and will have a detrimental impact upon tourism development in the County. The Amendment will further degrade the level of educational services. The Amendment will "place additional trips on existing over capacity roads." The rationale of the applicant for the Amendment is inadequate in that the subject property "contains sufficient acreage that a redesigned golf course would meet USGA Standards as well as accommodate some residential development" and "[n]eighbors and Patrons are not Golf Professionals and don't care if the course meets USGA Standards to the Letter." The Amendment is "highly insensitive to the natural oak hammock areas on the subject property " The Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 02.03.00, Goal 03.00.00, Objective 03.03.00 and Policy 03.03.00 "in that it contradicts the Tourism development policies and undermines the Commercial Recreation Land Use designation." Ms. Nipe also suggested in her petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. I. The Subject Property. The property which is the subject of the Amendment (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), consists of 109 acres of real property located in the City of Hollywood, a city located in the County. The Property is located in the southeast section of the County. The Property is located east of Southwest 35th Terrace, south of Griffin Road, west of Southwest 31st Avenue and north of Stirling Road. The Property, and the property of which it is a part, is currently being used as a golf course. The golf course is named Oakridge Golf Course. Oakridge Golf Course is an eighteen hole course. Most, but not all, of the eighteen holes are located on the Property. The land use designation of twenty-nine acres of the parcel of property of which the Property is a part has been changed from Commercial Recreation to Commercial. The amendment changing the designation was adopted September 14, 1992 and has become final. The twenty-nine acres of commercial property include portions of four of the holes of Oakridge Golf Course. Oakridge Golf Course is the closest golf course to downtown Fort Lauderdale, a city located in the County; the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport; the Broward County Convention Center; Port Everglades, a port used by cruise ships; and several large hotels located in the eastern part of the County. Compliance with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. The City of Hollywood approved a Land Use Plan Amendment for the Property changing the land use designation of the Property to Low (3) Residential. The City's amendment has become final. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis to Support an Increase in Residential Property. The Land Use Plan includes the following Goal and Objective concerning residential use of property in the County: GOAL 01.00.00 PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITH A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND DENSITIES OFFERING CONVENIENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL SEGMENTS OF BROWARD COUNTY'S POPULATION WHILE MAINTAINING A DESIRED QUALITY OF LIFE AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES. OBJECTIVE 01.01.00 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES AND PERMITTED USES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Accommodate the projected population of Broward County by providing adequate areas on the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) intended primarily for residential development, but which also permit those non-residential uses that are compatible with and necessary to support residential neighborhoods. The Low (3) Residential land use designation is defined by the County Plan as permitting "up to three (3) dwelling units per gross acre." Page IV-23, Volume one, BC exhibit 1. There has been a decrease of 2,214 dwelling units in the southeast sector of the County while the County's projected population increase has been increased by 1,327 people. The evidence failed to prove that consideration of population needs of the southeast sector of the County is unreasonable or inappropriate. The evidence also failed to prove that consideration of the need for residential property by sectors is inconsistent with the County Plan or otherwise is unreasonable. The City of Hollywood currently has sufficient land for approximately six thousand housing units. The evidence, however, failed to prove that all of the land can be utilized to meet future housing needs. As stated by Robert L. Davis, the Director of Community Planning and Development of the City of Hollywood, "[i]t really to be perfectly understood you need to explore the locational aspects of where that area is, how large an area it is and what inducement it would have to really encourage the kind of investment we think is necessary." Pages 276-277 of the transcript of the final hearing. Ms. Nipe failed to present evidence to prove that the information submitted to the Department in response to the ORC as Attachment 8 to the Staff Report was inadequate to support the County's suggestion that the increase in residential property is necessary to accommodate projected population for the County. Ms. Nipe also failed to present evidence to refute the methodologies used by the County and accepted by the Department. Commercial Recreation Requirements of the Plan. The "Plan Implementation Requirements" of the Land Use Plan provides the following concerning the Commercial Recreation land use designation: Commercial Recreation areas are designated on the Future Broward County Land Plan Map (Series), consistent with Objective 02.03.00, to accommodate major public and private commercial recreation facilities which offer recreational opportunities to the residents and tourists of Broward County. Although some of these facilities operate as an adjunct to or an integral part of other types of development, most of these facilities were conceived as profit-making enterprises. Commercial recreation ventures in Broward County can be divided into two categories; golf courses and commercial recreation associated with structures and/or indoor facilities. Those uses permitted in areas designated commercial recreation are as follows: Outdoor and indoor recreation facilities such as active recreation complexes, marinas, stadiums, jai-alai frontons, bowling alleys, golf courses, and dog and horse racing facilities. Accessory facilities, including outdoor and indoor recreation facilities, that are determined by the local government entity to be an integral part of and supportive to the primary recreation facility (excluding residential uses). Hotels, motels and similar lodging ancillary to the primary commercial recreation use. Other active and passive recreation uses. Recreational vehicle sites at a maximum density of ten (10) sites per gross acre if permanent location of recreational vehicles on the site is permitted by the local land development regulations, or twenty (20) sites per gross acre if such location is prohibited by the local land development regulations; subject to the allocation by the local government entity of available flexibility or reserve units. The following Objective and Policy relating to the Commercial Recreation land use designation is provided in the Land Use Plan: OBJECTIVE 02.03.00 COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE CATEGORY Establish within the Future Broward County Land Use Plan Map (Series) a commercial recreation category which would encompass those public and private recreational facilities necessary within a resort area such as Broward County. POLICY 02.03.01 Permit those uses within designated commercial recreation areas which are identified in the Commercial Recreation Permitted Uses subsection of the Plan Implementation Requirements section of the Broward County Land Use Plan. Objective 02.03.00 merely requires the establishment of a "commercial recreation" category in the County Plan. It does not require that any specific amount of land be designated as commercial recreation or that, once so designated, the designation of a parcel of real property as commercial recreation should not be changed. Policy 02.03.01 merely requires that any parcel of real property classified as commercial recreation may be utilized for the purposes identified in the Commercial Recreation Permitted Uses subsection of the Plan Implementation Requirements section of the County Plan. This policy does not require that any specific amount of land be designated as commercial recreation or that, once so designated, the designation of a parcel of real property as commercial recreation should not be changed. The "Plan Implementation Requirements" of the Land Use Plan concerning the Commercial Recreation land use designation merely explain the purpose of the designation and identify the permitted uses within areas designated commercial recreation. There is no requirement contained in the Plan Implementation Requirements that a certain amount of land be designated commercial recreation or that, once so-designated, real property cannot be placed in a different category. The evidence failed to prove that the County Plan prohibits the reclassification of real property from commercial recreation to other categories. No provision of the County Plan has been referred to that establishes a minimum requirement for commercial recreation. The Property is not considered part of the parks and recreation property on the County. Therefore, the Amendment will not result in a decrease in the level of parks and recreation services available. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the County Plan as alleged in her petition. Degradation of School Services. The County Plan does not establish "levels of service" for schools or a methodology for determining schools that are "affected" by an amendment. Although the County has adopted goals, objectives and policies pertaining to educational facilities, those goals, objective and policies were not in effect at the time the Amendment was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that any school services will be degraded as a result of the Amendment or that the impact of the Amendment on school services was not considered by the County in adopting the Amendment. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with any portion of the County Plan dealing with school services. Degradation of Roads. There are a number of goals, objectives and policies contained in the County Plan which address the issue of traffic facilities and circulation. Ms. Nipe has failed to cite any of those provisions in support of her argument that the Amendment "would place additional trips on existing over capacity roads. The County and Swerdlow have cited a number of provisions of the County Plan that deal with transportation. Those findings (County 37 and 38) are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order. An analysis of the traffic impact of the Amendment was prepared by the Planning Council and presented to the County for consideration. That analysis addressed: the net difference between vehicular trips from the golf course and those expected from the new classification of the Property; the distribution of the projected increase in traffic to affected roads (Griffin Road in the north and Stirling Road in the south); the average daily traffic on affected roads after the increase in traffic; and the anticipated level of service of the affected roads in the years 1997 and 2010. The County's analysis indicated that the Amendment would not cause the affected roads to exceed the level of service contained in the County Plan in the short-term or long-term. The method used in the County Plan and utilized in conjunction with the Amendment is consistent with plan amendment data and analysis requirements of Rule 9J-5 and Rule 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. The only evidence offered by Ms. Nipe in support of her challenge concerning traffic impact is a memorandum from "Roy Groves" of the County Office of Planning. Mr. Groves did not testify in this proceeding. The comments made by Mr. Groves, therefore, cannot be relied upon to support Ms. Nipe's contention. Additionally, Mr. Groves' comments deal with a "compact deferral area" resulting from an over-capacity road segment of State Road 7 and U.S. 441. The evidence failed to prove that the roads impacted by the Amendment are part of a compact deferral area or that State Road 7 and/or U.S. 441 will be impacted. Ms. Nipe failed to prove that the impact on traffic of the Amendment is inconsistent with the Act, Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code or the County Plan. The Applicant's Rationale for the Amendment. The Planning Council informed the County of the reasons advanced by the applicant for the Amendment. It was suggested that the proposed classification of the Property is consistent with the surrounding area and that the continued operation of the golf course is not longer financially feasible. The evidence failed to prove that the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, state and regional plans, or the County Plan require that applicants for County Plan amendments include a rationale or justification for the requested amendment. The evidence also failed to prove that the applicant's rationale provided formed the basis for the County's decision to adopt the Amendment. The Impact on Oak Hammocks. The Property does not include any oak hammocks. The evidence failed to prove that there will be any impact on oak hammocks as a result of approval of the Amendment. Enhancement to the County's Tourist Industry. The County Plan contains the following Goal, Objective and Policy relating to the tourist industry in the County: GOAL 03.00.00 ACHIEVE A MORE DIVERSIFIED LOCAL ECONOMY BY PROMOTING TOURISM AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND PROVIDING OPTIMUM PROTECTION OF THE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTAINING A DESIRED QUALITY OF LIFE. . . . . OBJECTIVE 03.03.00 ENHANCE BROWARD COUNTY'S TOURIST INDUSTRY Increase Broward County's attractiveness to tourists through the establishment of a land use pattern and development regulations aimed at enhancing the area's natural and man-made environments such as beaches, shorelines and marine facilities. . . . . POLICY 03.03.03 Activities intended to diversify Broward County's economy should not adversely impact the quality of life of the County's permanent, seasonal, or tourist populations. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of the Goal, Objective or Policy quoted in finding of fact 78. There will still be three golf courses owned by the City of Hollywood and three privately owned golf courses open to the public in the City of Hollywood after the closure of Oakridge Golf Course. Although there was testimony concerning the proximity of the Property to various areas of the County, the evidence failed to prove that tourist are attracted to the Property or that the loss of the golf course on the Property will adversely impact the tourist industry in Broward County. There was also evidence that there are a limited number of commercial recreation uses of property such as golf courses in the County and that the establishment of additional commercial recreation golf courses is unlikely in urban areas. That evidence, however, failed to prove that the limited number of such uses is inadequate or that there is a need for additional golf courses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order finding that the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, as amended by Ordinance 93- 42, is "in compliance" within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code (1993). DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX Case Number 94-1610GM The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Ms. Nipe's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 35 and 36. Statement of law. 3 Accepted in 10, 20, 27 and 41-42. 4 Accepted in 20 and 27. 5-6 Accepted in 56. 7-9 Accepted in 55. 10-11 Accepted in 43. 12-13 Although true, Ms. Nipe failed to explain the relevancy of these findings. See 57-60. 14-18 Accepted in 45. Although true, Ms. Nipe failed to explain the relevancy of these findings. See 57-60. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21-23 Accepted in 78. 24 Not relevant. 25-26 Not relevant. These proposed findings pertain to arguments not raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 27 Accepted in 27. 28-29 Not relevant. 30-31 Accepted in 82. 32 Not relevant. These proposed findings pertain to arguments not raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 33-34 Hereby accepted. See 52. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The County's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 5 and 7. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 41-42. Not relevant. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19. 18-19 Accepted in 20. 20 Accepted in 25. 21-22 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 78. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 79. Accepted in 55. Accepted in 56. Accepted in 55. 31-32 Not relevant. Accepted in 49. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 49. Not relevant. Accepted in 67. To the extent relevant, accepted in 67. Not relevant. See 64. Accepted in 63. 41-45 Not relevant. The issue that these proposed findings relate to was not sufficiently raised in Ms. Nipe's petition. 46 Accepted in 57-60. 47-48 See 65. 49 Not relevant. 50 See 65. 51 Not relevant. See 64. 52 Accepted in 76. 53-54 Not relevant. 55 Hereby accepted and see 36. 56-61 Not relevant. 62-63 Accepted in 74. 64 Accepted in 73. 65-66 Accepted in 21. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 29 and 51. Accepted in 31. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 53-54. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 23 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 28. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 68. 79-84 Hereby Accepted. Accepted in 68. Accepted in 70. Accepted in 71. 88-91 Hereby accepted. 92 Accepted in 72. 93-94 Not relevant. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Accepted in 1-2. 2 Accepted in 4. 3 Accepted in 3. 4 Accepted in 5. 4 Accepted in 6. 5 Accepted in 8. 6 Accepted in 9. 7 Accepted in 10. 8 Accepted in 11. 9-10 Volume 2 was not offered into evidence. 11-12 Accepted in 15. 13-14 Accepted in 56 and 78. Accepted in 57-58 and 79 Accepted in 26. Accepted in 35-36. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 38 and 40-41. The Property is not, however, in the unincorporated area. Accepted in 21-22. Accepted in 23-24. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 29 and 31. Accepted in 28, 70 and 72. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 32. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 53-54. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 65-66. Swerdlow's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 5 and 7. Accepted in 6. Accepted in 8. Accepted in 9. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 17. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 16. Accepted in 55. See 15. Accepted in 15 and 49. Accepted in 48. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 35-36. Accepted in 20 and 27. Accepted in 38-40. Accepted in 41. Accepted in 43. Accepted in 46. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 20. 30-32 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 21 Accepted in 21 and 23. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 228 and 32. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 29 and 31. Accepted in 33. Accepted in 33 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 53. Accepted in 50. Accepted in 51. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 36 and 55. 49-50 Accepted in 57-60. 51-56 Not relevant. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 63. See 64. Accepted in 65. See 65. Not relevant. Accepted in 65. Not relevant. Accepted in 36. 66-67 Accepted in 71 68-69 Hereby accepted. 70 Accepted in 68. 71-73 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 67. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68-69. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68. Hereby accepted. 80-81 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 68-69. Accepted in 67. 84-85 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 32. Accepted in 36. 89-90 Accepted in 74. Accepted in 36. Accepted in 76-77. Accepted in 79. Accepted in 81. Accepted in 80. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Chris Mancino, Esquire 1215 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 102 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Tracy H. Lautenschlager Assistant County Attorney 115 South Andrews Avenue Room 423 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Barbara A. Hall, Esquire 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 William S. Spencer, Esquire Post Office Box 6 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Edwin J. Stacker, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 John H. Pelzer, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Walton County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) is in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act), the State Comprehensive Plan (Section 187.201, F.S.), the West Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Findings Of Fact 1. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 2-4. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5. Rejected, argumentative. 6-7. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8. Rejected, argumentative and legal conclusion. 9-12. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13. Rejected, legal conclusion. 14-17. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence and much of these proposed findings are argumentative legal conclusions. 18-21. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Also many of these proposed findings are merely arguments of law. 22-36. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Again, many of these proposed findings are argumentative and mere conclusions of law as opposed to statements of factual findings supported by the record of evidence admitted at hearing. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected, argumentative. 40-42. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 43. Adopted by reference. 44-48. Rejected, argumentative, mere recitation of testimony. 49. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. 50-62. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence, argumentative, and, again, counsel argues law as opposed to presenting facts. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, the failure of the county to adopt a traffic circulation map simply renders moot any need for discussion of adequacy of maps in data and analysis. 66-67. Rejected, see statement for finding number 65 above. 68-69. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 70-71. Rejected, argumentative. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, conclusion of law. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Counsel continues also to engage in legal argument as opposed to presenting findings of fact. 77-79. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. Rejected, subordinate to Hearing Officer's finding of fact. Rejected, generally this finding consist of an argumentative conclusion of law. 82-83. Rejected, the weight of the evidence does not support findings that these policies comply with requirements of 9J5. 84-96. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence does not support any finding that these objectives comply with requirements of 9J5. 97-118. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32301 George Ralph Miller, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, FL 32433 Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 David J. Russ, Esq. Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esq. Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Fred H. Kent, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 53075 Jacksonville, FL 32201-3075 Chris Cadenhead, Esquire Post Office Box 5354 Destin, FL 32540 Richard Grosso, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, FL 32314-5948
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Administration Commission for enter a final order determining that the Walton County Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1080GM The following constitutes my specific rulings in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on Findings of Fact submitted by the parties.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the subject plan amendment, which changes the future land use designations of parcels owned by each of the Petitioners, is not in compliance for the reasons set forth in the petitions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Each Petitioner submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings culminating in the adoption of the plan amendment at issue. Petitioner Wilson owns about 2.5 acres on the north 1/ side of State Route 524 and east side of Westminster Drive. The Wilson parcel, which is vacant, contains about 300 feet of frontage on State Route 524 and about 250 feet on Westminster Drive. Petitioner Tompkins owns about 3.5 acres on the north side of State Route 524 and west side of Westminster Drive. The Tompkins parcel, which is vacant, contains about 600 feet of frontage on State Route 524 and about 250 feet on Westminster Drive. The Wilson and Tompkins parcels lie between State Route 524 and Cocoa North, which is a large residential subdivision. The existing land uses near the area, which is a growth center in Cocoa, are largely low density residential, and there remains considerable vacant land. There are no commercial uses within the Cocoa North subdivision. The only access to Cocoa North is by way of State Route 524, using Westminster Drive or one of two other roads. The nearest convenience store is about two-thirds of a mile east of Westminster Drive on State Route 524. An I-95 interchange lies about 1.8 miles to the west of Westminster Drive on State Route 524. The nearest property to the west designated Commercial is at the northwest corner of the Tenzel property, which is discussed below. The Commercial parcel on the Tenzel property is about one and one-quarter miles from Westminster Drive. Petitioner Messiah Church owns about 2.3 acres on the east side of U.S. Route 1 about 300 feet north of Michigan Avenue. Petitioner Fountain owns about 0.72 acre on the east side of U.S. 1 about 1200 feet north of the Messiah Church's property. The Messiah Church parcel contains a church. The Fountain parcel is vacant. The Messiah Church and Fountain parcels lie between U.S. Route 1 and a wide strip of existing low density residential uses bordered on the east by the Indian River. The narrower strip containing the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels is located in an underutilized area characterized by a mix of existing commercial uses. For example, a flea market occupies the west side of U.S. Route 1 across from the Messiah Church parcel. Respondent Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing plans under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Respondent the City of Cocoa (Cocoa) is a local government required to adopt a revised comprehensive plan under Sections 163.3164(12) and 163.3167, Florida Statutes. History of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan Cocoa adopted its comprehensive plan and transmitted it to DCA on October 4, 1988. DCA issued a notice of intent to find the plan in compliance. A petition was filed challenging the determination of compliance and requesting a hearing under Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes. Following an administrative hearing, an order recommended that DCA forward the case to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining the plan not to be in compliance. The parties then negotiated a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the Administration Commission entered a final order and later an amended final order determining the plan not to be in compliance and identifying the remedial amendments necessary to attain compliance. The designations challenged by Petitioners are part of a set of plan amendments consisting of the remedial amendments ordered by the Administration Commission, amendments required to settle a federal court action in which Cocoa was a defendant, and amendments having nothing to do with either legal proceeding. The challenged designations fall in the last category. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the original plan adopted in 1988 designated as Commercial a strip of land containing the Wilson and Tompkins parcels. The entire strip runs 2700 feet along State Route 524, which is a two lane undivided minor arterial, and extends about 250 feet deep. The Wilson and Tompkins parcels constitute about 40% of the strip and are located at its extreme western end. State Route 524 operates at a level of service C and is projected to remain at this level of service though 1997. The FLUM designated as High Density Residential a strip of land containing the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels. The entire strip, which is generally quite shallow, runs about 3400 feet along U.S. Route 1, which is a four lane divided principal arterial. The Messiah Church and Fountain parcels constitute about 20% of the strip and are located in its northern half. U.S. Route 1 is operating at level of service D and is projected to be operating at level of service E by 1992 and level of service F by 1997. Transmittal and Adoption Process On October 30, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Board, which acts as the local land planning agency (LPA), conducted a public meeting at which it discussed at length new public participation procedures that it was considering adopting. Specific provisions were prepared following the meeting, circulated at the next LPA meeting on November 13, discussed, revised somewhat, and finally adopted. On November 21, 1989, the LPA met to discuss remedial amendments necessary to comply with the requirements of the Amended Final Order of the Administration Commission. Pursuant to a contract with Cocoa, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (Regional Planning Council) had prepared a draft set of amendments for review by the LPA. At the beginning of the November 21 meeting, the city attorney stated that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain information and comments from the public. He explained that he and city staff recommended that the LPA defer any formal action on the proposed amendments until their next scheduled meeting on November 27. A representative of the Regional Planning Council was in attendance to assist in the discussion. The proposed amendments drafted by the Regional Planning Council did not change the designations of the parcels owned by any of the Petitioners. In fact, according to the minutes, none of the four parcels nor either of the two strips containing the parcels was even mentioned at the November 21 meeting. Following a very short meeting on November 27 to discuss remedial amendments, the LPA next met on November 30. By this time, the Regional Planning Council had prepared a "final draft" of proposed remedial amendments. Following discussion, the LPA voted to recommend the proposed amendments to City Council. Toward the end of the meeting, the Vice Chairman moved that the strip containing the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels be designated Low Density Residential. The motion passed. At a regular meeting on November 28, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-37, which provides for public participation procedures in connection with the comprehensive planning process. The ordinance calls for advertising of transmittal and adoption hearings in accordance with applicable law, the encouragement of oral or written public comment, and responses from the City Council or its designee. At a special meeting on December 5, the City Council considered the proposed amendments that had been recommended by the LPA. At this meeting, the City Council voted to change the designations for both strips, including all of Petitioners' parcels to Low Density Residential. The vote on the strip containing the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels was unanimous. The vote on the strip containing the Wilson and Tompkins parcels was four to one. Neither DCA nor Cocoa staff originally suggested the new designations for Petitioners' parcels. The new designations were not prompted by any changes to the original data and analysis. It does not appear that the Regional Planning Council, which also assisted in the preparation of the original plan, proposed that the parcels originally be designated Commercial, but it does not appear that the Regional Planning Council made the suggestion for a change in designation. At a special meeting on December 11, the City Council considered the proposed amendments, including the new designations for Petitioners' parcels, as well as the amendments to settle the pending state and federal litigation. No one appeared on behalf of any of the Petitioners to object to the proposed designations. However, in response to the objections of an owner of other property on the south side of State Route 524, whose property was also proposed for redesignation as Low Density Residential, representatives of Cocoa explained that the redesignation on both sides of State Route 524 was based on Cocoa's recent experience with DCA on unrelated plan amendments involving what is known as the Tenzel property. The city attorney indicated that staff was concerned that the objections lodged by DCA to the plan amendments involving the Tenzel property, which Cocoa was at the same time annexing, could possibly be made against the Commercial designation along both sides of State Route 524. The city manager also mentioned his concern that the plan be internally consistent. The Tenzel property consists of 157 acres on the south side of State Route 524 about one mile west of Westminster Drive. Cocoa transmitted the proposed Tenzel amendments to DCA on March 13, 1989. The proposed amendments designated 60 acres, including its entire State Route 524 frontage, Commercial and the remainder Industrial. Cocoa was planning to annex the Tenzel property, which was at the time of the transmittal in unincorporated Brevard County. In its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) dated July 6, 1989, DCA objected that, among other things, the proposed designation was inconsistent with Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 1.2, which is to discourage new linear commercial development. Instead, DCA recommended that new commercial uses should be clustered. DCA also complained that the designation was not supported by data and analysis and the portion of the FLUM covering the Tenzel property did not depict natural resources. On September 6, 1989, Cocoa annexed the Tenzel property and amended its plan. The adopted plan amendments designated only 10 acres Commercial and the remaining 147 acres Residential. 2/ The property designated Commercial was limited to only about half of the available frontage and was restricted to the northwest corner, which is farthest from the Tompkins and Wilson parcels and closest to the I-95 interchange at State Route 524 to the west. The adoption package contained considerable data and analysis concerning the newly annexed property. DCA issued its notice of intent to find the plan amendment in compliance on October 25, 1989. Notwithstanding the Tenzel-related concerns expressed at the December 11 hearing of the City Council, an owner of about 2.5 acres of land on Westminster Drive near State Route 524 objected to the redesignation of his land from Commercial to Low Density Residential. He argued that the land was unsuitable for residential uses due to traffic and other factors. In response, the city manager stressed the possibility of conflict with the plan if strip commercial were "proposed." 3/ With one member changing his vote as to the strip containing the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, the City Council voted three to two to transmit to DCA the proposed amendments, including the new Low Density Residential designations for the two strips containing the four parcels of Petitioners. The sole issue concerning the advertisements for the transmittal hearings of December 5 and 11 is their failure to identify the Wilson and Tompkins parcels as the subject of proposed land use changes. The advertisement for the December 11 hearing states in bold, capital letters at the top: "Notice of Change of Land Use and Comprehensive Plan." Following a brief paragraph announcing the time and place, the first item to be discussed is: "Proposal to change the use of land within the areas shown on the map below." Immediately below this sentence is a map of the entire city. Beside the map in one block is the statement: "Landuse changes to the future landuse map." A second block below the first states: "Black shaded areas to low density residential." The shading covers the High Density Residential strip including the parcels owned by the Messiah Church and Fountain, but omits the Commercial strip including the parcels owned by Wilson and Tompkins. The map for the December 11 hearing was published on December 4. The change of designation for the Wilson and Tompkins parcels was first proposed at the City Council hearing the following day. By letter dated March 22, 1990, DCA transmitted its ORC on the proposed plan amendments. The ORC informed Cocoa that DCA had no objections, recommendations, or comments on the transmitted amendments. Following receipt of the ORC, the LPA met on May 2, 1990, to review staff's response. During the meeting, the LPA discussed the Wilson parcel with her attorney, who objected that the Commercial designation would render the property useless due to its shallow depth. The attorney pointed out that a residential designation was impractical at that location; to the east, on the north side of State Road 524, townhouses had remained unsold for a long time. A motion not to change the Commercial designation on the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, while changing the designation for the rest of the strip to Low Density Residential, was seconded and discussed. It failed by a vote of four to three. At this point, the city attorney suggested that condominiums already in the area would be incompatible with Low Density Residential. The discussion acknowledged the protests of surrounding homeowners to the Commercial designation. A motion, seconded, to designate the entire strip north of State Route 524 as High Density Residential failed by a four to three vote. This vote was immediately followed by a motion, seconded, to designate the entire strip north of State Route 524 as Medium Density Residential. This motion passed by a five to two vote. The same attorney also represented the Messiah Church at the LPA meeting. He stated that the church intended to sell the property and the new designation was disadvantageous to a sale. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that central sewer had yet to reach this site. A motion, seconded, was made to designate the Messiah Church parcel High Density Residential. The motion failed by a five to two vote. A motion, seconded, to designate the entire strip along the east side of U.S. Route 1 Low Density Residential passed unanimously. At the conclusion of the meeting, the LPA voted to adopt the amendments, subject to changes made at the meeting, and send the package to the City Council. The City Council meeting of May 8 was announced by a large display newspaper advertisement, which was published on April 27. The advertisement contained a map shaded to indicate that the designation of the two strips in question was proposed to be changed to Low Density Residential. During the meeting, the city attorney discussed the redesignation of the strip along State Route 524 from Low Density Residential, as it was shown in the transmittal amendments, to Medium Density Residential, as had been recommended by the LPA at its May 2 meeting. An attorney representing Wilson and Tompkins argued in favor of the Commercial designation given the property in the original plan. The city manager responded that the property was reexamined as a result of Cocoa's recent experience with DCA on the Tenzel plan amendments. Trying to avoid the appearance of strip commercial zoning, staff favored the proposed recommendation. The city attorney likewise warned the City Council to consider as a matter of policy the concern of DCA to avoid urban sprawl and strip commercialism. Nearby residents were almost uniformly in favor of a residential designation. Wilson complained that she purchased the property after being told by Cocoa that she could use it for commercial purposes. She also argued that 15 units per acre would allow 30 homes, which would add to the congestion in the area. After everyone had a chance to speak, a motion, seconded, called for designating the Wilson and Tompkins parcels as Commercial with the remainder of the strip designated Medium Density Residential. The motion failed three votes to two. A motion, seconded, to accept the recommendation of the LPA passed three to two. After other parcels were discussed, the city attorney raised the redesignation as Low Density Residential of the High Density Residential strip along the east side of U.S. Route 1. The attorney representing Messiah Church asked that the City Council consider the church property separately because it was for sale and worth more in its present designation as High Density Residential. He argued that buffering provisions of the plan would be violated by a Low Density Residential designation. Concerning his property, Fountain agreed with the attorney's reasoning and informed the City Council that no home had been built along U. S. Route 1 from Sharpes to south Rockledge for over 30 years. Following discussion, during which the Mayor noted that the Regional Planning Council had recommended that the property be designated Low Density Residential, a motion, seconded, to leave the strip High Density Residential failed three votes to two. A motion, seconded, to approve the recommendation of the LPA passed by the same margin. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council approved on first reading the ordinance adopting the plan amendments. Following another display newspaper advertisement indicating proposed land use changes for the two strips, the City Council again met on May 22, 1990. A minister of the Messiah Church praised the City Council for its recent decisions and announced that the church had decided that to meet the needs of the community it would minister to persons whose needs were presently unmet, like transients, mentally retarded persons, handicapped persons, and residents of halfway houses. Church officials had decided that such a ministry could be carried out from the present location with the proposed designation, which nonetheless remained an example of bad planning in their opinion. Addressing the strip north of State Route 524, the attorney representing Wilson and Tompkins objected to the absence of representatives from the Regional Planning Council despite the fact that they had been responsible for drafting the plan amendments. The city attorney advised that the Regional Planning Council had originally recommended that these parcels be designated Low Density Residential, but the City Council, as it was then constituted, decided to change the designation to Commercial in the original plan. The city manager again justified the decision as to the Wilson and Tompkins parcels based on DCA's objections to the transmittal amendments for the Tenzel property. After discussion on the State Route 524 strip concluded, the attorney for Messiah Church objected to the proposed redesignation from High Density to Low Density Residential. Again protesting the absence of the Regional Planning Council planners, he asked for an explanation of this action. The city manager responded that staff's concerns involved compatibility with existing uses and recommendations of citizens in the area. The city attorney added that the central sewer lines ended south of the Messiah Church parcel. Various persons spoke on both sides of the issue. After discussion of other plan issues, the City Council adopted Ordinance 15-90, which includes the plan amendments that, among other things, redesignate the Commercial strip containing the Wilson and Tompkins parcels to Medium Density Residential and the High Density Residential strip containing the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels to Low Density Residential. The failure of the published map to depict the four parcels or the two strips undoubtedly accounts for the absence of the Petitioners from the second transmittal hearing. However, the arguments of similarly situated landowners were presented at the hearing. Moreover, five months passed between the transmittal and adoption hearings. Nothing in the record suggests than any Petitioner could have accomplished more in a few days before the second transmittal hearing that he, she, or it accomplished in the several months that passed before the adoption hearings. All Petitioners complain that the inadequacy of explanations received at the hearing for the redesignations deprived them of effective public participation. Generally, they received responses to their demands for explanations. Several reasons emerge from the record for the redesignation of Petitioners' parcels. As to the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, Cocoa staff officials expressed concerned about the appearance of strip commercial designations. This explanation is difficult to justify objectively because the Commercial designations probably could not have been challenged by DCA in the subject plan amendments. DCA's objections to the transmittal plan amendments on the Tenzel property were not relevant to the Commercial designations given these four parcels, especially if taken in isolation from the strips of which they were a part. It is of course possible that, given Cocoa's recent experience in federal and state review of its land use planning efforts, beleaguered staff and local officials chose to exercise an abundance of caution. As to the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels, Cocoa staff and officials expressed concern about the unavailability of central sewer. However, the concern, at least as voiced personally by the Mayor at the May 8 City Council hearing, was not so much for the protection of natural resources as for the protection of nearby homeowners from the expense of tying in to central sewer lines if they were extended through the High Density Residential strip. Transcript of May 8 hearing, pages 48-49. The Mayor's concern points to the most compelling explanation for the new designations for all four parcels. Each designation was driven by political pressure from residents, which, to some extent in this case at least, may be characterized in the more appealing terms of concerns about surrounding land use compatibility. The forces of neighborhood preservation confronted the forces of development and, in this encounter, the former prevailed by a bare majority of the City Council. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the above-described facts are not consistent with the applicable public participation criteria. Data and Analysis in Support of Designations Cocoa did not submit new data or analysis when it submitted the adopted plan amendments. However, data and analysis transmitted with the original plan, as well as the Tenzel amendments, bear on the new designations. More pertinent to the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, the data and analysis note: Neighborhood commercial uses of low density and intensity should be located within neighborhoods or central to several residential clusters. Such a locational strategy would produce the beneficial effects of reducing the time and distance to neighborhood commercial, making trips quicker, easier, and more economical. Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-26. At the same time, the data and analysis predict significant traffic impacts on State Route 524 as the impact of new residential developments is felt. Background Analysis, Traffic Circulation Element, page 2-16. On the other hand, another locational recommendation in the data and analysis is for the central business district, which is south of all four parcels, to serve as "the community focal point providing a mixture of retail and services." Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-26. Projecting a population increase of nearly 4000 persons from 1986 to 2000, the data and analysis report that there is generally enough land available for residential needs. Background Analysis, Housing Element, p. 3-15. The analysis concludes that County will need about 309 acres for residential development through 2000. Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-26. Additional data and analysis accompanying the Tenzel plan amendments lower this amount to 130.6 acres, at least as to single family residential. Tenzel Data and Analysis, Part II. However, a corresponding increase in projected population probably should have accompanied the Tenzel plan amendments because they involved an annexation. Although the data and analysis provide little useful information concerning the amount of acreage designated, rather than zoned, residential, there is no evidence on which to base a conclusion that changing the designations of the State Route 524 strip from Commercial to Medium Density Residential and the U.S. Route 1 strip from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential defy the data and analysis regarding the need for residential land. The data and analysis project that 385 acres will need to be devoted to commercial uses by 2000. Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-26. In 1987, about 276 acres were in commercial use. Table 1-2, Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-6. Although the data and analysis do not indicate the number of vacant or developed acres designated Commercial under the plan, Tables 1-3 and 1-4 indicate that about 800 acres are zoned commercial. Background Analysis, FLUE, page 1-7 and 1-11. The acreage zoned commercial and acreage designated Commercial are probably about the same. Table 1-4 indicates that 170 acres zoned commercial are vacant and suitable for development. If Cocoa requires another 100+ acres for commercial uses in addition to the 276 acres already in commercial use, the designation of 800+ acres as Commercial is ample to meet this need. Thus, the removal of a Commercial designation from the 15-acre strip, of which the Wilson and Tompkins parcels are a part, does not defy the data and analysis. The fairest conclusion that can be drawn from the data and analysis is that Cocoa suffers no deficiency, in terms of projected needs in the year 2000, in land designated Commercial or in either of the relevant residential categories. Pertinent to the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels, the data and analysis indicate that the City's wastewater treatment facility was to be expanded in November, 1988. Background Analysis, Capital Improvements Element, page 9-11. The project was completed, and the wastewater facility has a considerable reserve capacity. Presently, the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels, and the surrounding area, are served by septic tanks. The data and analysis indicate, however, that the City is committed to a program of gradually extending central sewer services to areas within the city not currently served. Background Analysis, Wastewater Element, page 3-5. More recently, the Tenzel analysis states: "A policy of phasing out septic tanks has been in place in order to protect the environment." Tenzel data and analysis, Section IV, Wastewater. A rough estimate of the cost to extend sewer lines the necessary one- quarter mile to the area of the Messiah Church parcel is $500,000. Although it might be more feasible for the developer of a High Density Residential project to provide the funds to extend sewer lines, the feasibility is not clear given a project on a 2.3 acre parcel in an underutilized part of town. In any event, Cocoa has demonstrated a commitment to expanding the central sewer system, require connections, and finance the expansion by special assessments. The data and analysis would support either designation. The evidence thus does not establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are not supported by the data and analysis. Consistency of Designations with Criteria of Land Use Suitability Analysis, Encouraging Redevelopment of Blighted Areas, and Discouraging Urban Sprawl For the four parcels, the land use suitability analysis accompanying the original plan supports the designations adopted in the plan amendments. This issue has been considered above with respect to the issue involving supporting data and analysis. Given the changes in designations from Commercial and High Density Residential to Medium and Low Density Residential, respectively, no additional land use analysis was required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law corresponding to the preceding section. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are not supported by a land use suitability analysis. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law corresponding to this section, no findings are necessary to address the issue of the consistency of the plan amendment with the criteria of Chapter 163, Part II, and Chapter 9J- 5 concerning redevelopment of blighted areas and urban sprawl. Findings concerning urban sprawl in the context of internal consistency are in the following section. Although not alleged as a basis for a finding of internal inconsistency, the issue of redevelopment of blighted areas has been considered in the following section as well, for the reasons set forth in the corresponding Conclusions of Law. Consistency of Designations with Plan Provisions Encouraging Redevelopment of Blighted Areas and Discouraging Urban Sprawl FLUE Objective 1.1 is to adopt land development regulations to "discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Goal 1 of the Public Facilities Element is to provide public facilities in a manner that "protects investments in existing facilities and promotes orderly, compact urban growth, and discourages urban sprawl." Similarly, Public Facilities Element Objective 4.1.2 is to coordinate the provision of public facilities with the FLUE "to discourage urban sprawl and maximize the use of existing facilities." Other provisions relied upon by Petitioners to show internal inconsistency are Public Facilities Objective 4.2.5 and FLUE Policy 1.1.2 Residential Areas--General Paragraphs 1-2 and 5-6. Public Facilities Objective 4.2.5 is to adopt land development regulations that prohibit the installation of additional septic tanks within the incorporated city limits will be discouraged except when it is determined that the use of a septic tank system is the most efficient, cost effective and environmentally compatible alternative. [sic] FLUE Policy 1.1.2 Residential Areas--General Paragraphs 1-2 and 5-6 provide that land development regulations shall be based upon the following locational criteria: Provisions of new residential uses shall be adequately balanced with the availability of residential support services including community facilities, shopping, schools, parks and open space, and transportation services. The City will encourage infill development in areas of existing viable housing, provide for redevelopment in blighted areas or areas in transition, and encourage new housing development in appropriate areas where community services exist or are programmed to occur. Residential areas shall be buffered from major transportation arteries and from incompatible non-residential uses. Residential areas should be served by sidewalks and, where practical, bikeways with convenient access to recreation, shopping, and schools. FLUE Policy 1.1.2 Commercial Areas Paragraph 2 4/ provides: New commercial uses shall be discouraged from linear commercial development and shall be encouraged to develop in clusters, with coordinated parking facilities, and with frontage roads where practical. Resulting in most cases from ineffective or no land use planning, urban sprawl is the extension of urban-type development into rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed lands in a haphazard development pattern in which land uses are not functionally related to each other. Common patterns of the premature land development characteristic of urban sprawl are the ribbon pattern, leapfrog pattern, and concentric circle pattern. In the ribbon pattern, development not functionally or proximately related to other non-urban development in the area extends in ribbons or strips along certain roads and away from urban development. In the leapfrog pattern, development not functionally or proximately related to other non-urban development in the area leaps from urban development so as to leave significant amounts of rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed land between the existing urban development and the scattered leapfrog development. The concentric circle pattern is similar except that the development not functionally or proximately related to other non-urban development in the area assumes the pattern of concentric circles, such as along rural roads bypassing an urban area, and is characteristically more exclusively low-density residential. Urban sprawl typically interferes with one or more of four general objectives of effective land use planning: 1) promotion of the efficient use of land in the development of new, and maintenance of existing, viable mixed-use communities; 2) protection of natural resources in rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed areas; 3) protection of agricultural lands and uses in rural, agricultural, or other undeveloped or sparsely developed areas; and 4) promotion of the efficient provision to both urban and non-urban areas of public facilities and services, such as water, sewer, roads, schools, police, fire, drainage, and other infrastructure, whether provided by public or private entities. The long strip of Commercial along State Route 524 suggests the presence of commercial sprawl along a thoroughfare. By removing the Commercial designation, Cocoa eliminates this type of sprawl. On the other hand, with respect to the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, Cocoa North resembles another example of sprawl. The introduction of compatible neighborhood commercial uses would tend to mix the uses with an immediate impact of relieving some traffic on State Route 524, as residents could make small purchases at, say, a convenience store located at State Route 524 and Westminster Drive. However, the solution adopted by Cocoa for the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, although possibly not the only one available under the circumstances, is consistent with the provisions of the plan to discourage urban sprawl. When compared to the prospect of the entire strip remaining designated Commercial, Cocoa's solution represents an improvement in terms of urban containment. The reduction of density for the strip east of U.S. Route 1 has few evident sprawl implications. To the extent this action may focus more dense residential development in the central business district or elsewhere where central sewer is already provided, the new designation serves the objectives to discourage urban sprawl. In any event, the new designation is not inconsistent with the sprawl provisions of the plan. The puzzling septic tank policy is probably intended to read that septic tanks are prohibited except when the use of a septic tank is the most efficient, cost effective, and environmentally compatible solution. The new designation for the strip east of U.S. Route 1 is not inconsistent with this policy. Consequently, the evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are inconsistent with the provisions in the plan to discourage urban sprawl. FLUE Objective 1.3 is to eliminate "[e]xisting conditions of slum and blight . . . by the year of 2000." FLUE 1.1.2 Redevelopment Area Paragraph 1 designates the Redevelopment Area, which is depicted by map and excludes the two strips containing Petitioners' parcels, as an area of slum or blight pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Paragraph 3 adds that the City shall redevelop the central business district, which is within the Redevelopment Area, as a viable business district consistent with surrounding historic resources, residential neighborhoods, and natural resources. There is no evidence of blight as to the Wilson and Tompkins parcels, notwithstanding the marketing problems experienced in connection with the nearby townhouses. Concerning the Messiah Church and Fountain parcels, a haphazard collection of largely commercial uses, such as a flea market, have accumulated over the years along U.S. Route 1 in the vicinity of the two parcels. The immediate area appears not to be economically vibrant, but no evidence establishes that the area is blighted. Further, no evidence suggests that the area's economic fortunes would be enhanced if the strip were designated High Density Residential, notwithstanding the Messiah Church's intended use of the parcel if it is not given a High Density Residential designation. The evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are inconsistent with plan provisions to encourage the redevelopment of blighted areas. Consistency of Designations with Regional and State Plans Regional Plan Policy 51.12 states: The "infilling" of existing urban areas and the renovation of blighted areas shall be encouraged in areas where existing wastewater transmission and treatment capacity are available for allocation, or funding has been committed for the provision of sufficient capacity. Emphasis should be placed on encouraging development activities within the urban service area boundaries as identified in local government comprehensive plans. Techniques of encouragement include but are not limited to: Provision of public or private facilities and services in strict accordance with adopted growth management objectives and policies . . Providing incentives for restoration or rehabilitation of blighted areas with existing sewer service through various actions such as but not limited to rezoning to other uses or higher densities Strengthening and preserving existing residential areas through the planned provision of public services, zoning and other techniques. Regional Plan Policy 57.7 5/ specifies the "designation of . . . activity centers . . . as a means of planning appropriate and balanced land uses on a scale and at an intensity consistent with the availability of public facilities and services . . Regional Policy Plan 51.10 limits the use of septic tanks in areas where conditions are suitable for installation and effective operation, provided that central sewer system services are not available due to lack of available treatment capacity, accessible facilities, or other considerations . . .. The following minimum criteria and procedures shall be adhered to . . . where regional resources may be adversely affected: * * * 3. The decision to require phasing out of septic tank systems where centralized sewer systems are available should be based solely upon the availability of those centralized systems and not upon any other consideration of ground water hydrology and current performance levels of septic tanks. For the reasons already discussed, the evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are not consistent with these provisions of the Regional Plan. Section 187.201(18)(a), Florida Statutes (the State Plan) is for Florida to "protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and . plan for and finance new facilities . . . in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Goal 16 of the State Plan is to direct development "to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner." The first three policies under Goal 16 are: Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Enhance the liveability and character of urban areas through the encouragement of an attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping, and recreational activities. In addition to the above-cited provisions relied upon by Petitioners, Policy 3 of Goal 5 of the State Plan is to increase the supply of safe, affordable, sanitary housing for low- and moderate-income persons by, in part, "recycling older houses and redeveloping residential neighborhoods." For the reasons already discussed, the evidence fails to establish to the exclusion of fair debate that the designations are not consistent with these provisions of the Regional Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order dismissing the petitions of the four Petitioners. ENTERED this 8 day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Commission adopts the hearing officer's Findings of Fact Numbers 1 through 445, set out in pages.12 to 143 of the Recommended Order. 2. In reviewing Ultimate Findings Number 446 through 592, on pages 144 to 202 of the Recommended Order, the Commission is guided by the principle that ultimate findings are usually mixed with ideas of law and policy, and involve either conclusions of _law or determinations of mixed questions of law and fact. See Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company, 300 U.S. 481, 491 (1937). The Commission adopts Findings Number 446 through 592 to the extent that they represent findings of fact. Conclusiohs of Law 3, The Commission adopts the legal conclusions stated within Ultimate Findings Numbers 446 through 470 on pages 144 through 154 of the Recommended Order, 472 through 473 on pages 154 through 155 of the Recommended Order, 475 through 487 on pages 156 through 161 of the Recommended Order, 489 through 530 on pages 162 through 177 of the Recommended Order, 531 through 537 on pages 178 through 180 of the Recommended Order, 540 through 548 on pages 181 through 186 of the Recommended Order, 550 through 551 on pages 186 through 187 of the Recommended Order, and 553 through 592 on pages 187 through 202 of the Recommended Order, particularly with respect to internal plan consistency and consistency of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.Ss. 4. The Commission does not adopt the Ultimate Findings listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. : (a) The Commission does not adopt Ultimate Findings 471 on page 154 of the Recommended Order, 474 (insofar as it refers to an "unidentified potential wellfield") on pages 155 _ through 156 of the Recommended Order, 488 on pages 161 through 162 of the Recommended Order, 538 and 539 (to the extent they find that floodplains were omitted from the Future Land Use Map) on pages 180 through. 181 of ‘the - Recommended Order, 549 on page 186 of the Recommended Order, and 552 on page 187 of the Recommended Order. 5. The Commission adopts Conclusions of Law Numbers 1 through 74 on pages 202 through 229 of the Recommended Order, 76 through 78 on pages 230 through 231 of the Recommended Order,: 80 through 92 on pages 231 through 236 of the Recommended Order. 6. The Commission does not adopt the Conclusions of Law listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (a) The Commission does not adopt Conclusions of Law 75 on pages 229 through 230 of the Recommended Order, and 79 (to the extent it says the County did not include floodplains on its Future Land Use Map) on page 231 of the Recommended Order. . 7. .The Act clearly requires that local government comprehensive plan goals and policies be based on appropriate data. See sections 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), F.S. The Commission concludes that there is competent substantial evidence in the record that supports a determination that the Comprehensive Plan is internally inconsistent based on repeated failures to reconcile its future directives with the requisite factual basis and analysis provided. 8. The Commission concludes that the elements of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan are internally inconsistent with respect to efficiency of land use, protection of natural resources, protection of agricultural resources, efficiency of provision of public facilities, and coastal management. See sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3184(10)(a), F.S. 9. ‘The Commission concludes that the Comprehensive Plan does not meet the minimum criteria required by the Act and Rule 93-5, with respect to the following elements: Future Land Use; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and 6 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge ("Infrastructure"); Conservation; Coastal Management; and Capital Improvements. 10. The Future Land Use Element, as well as the remainder of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 90-5 with respect to the following: (a) The Commission concludes that the County's designation of densities for certain agricultural areas at one unit per acre on the Future Land Use Map is inconsistent with projected population demand established by data and analysis for the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives coordinating future: land uses with appropriate topography, soil conditions, and the availability of public facilities and services. {c) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, coordinating coastal area population densities with applicable plans, and ensuring the availability of suitable land for utility facilities necessary to support proposed development. (d) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required policies toward activities providing for compatibility of adjacent land uses; drainage, stormwater Management and open space; protecting potable water wellfields and environmentally sensitive land; and establishing. standards for densities or intensities of use for each land use designation. 11. The Comprehensive Plan's Infrastructure Element is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 9J-5. (a) The Infrastructure Element is not correlated to the future land uses and does not indicate ways to provide for the County's sanitary sewer, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater recharge needs. : (b) The Infrastructure Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not contain required objectives addressing the correction of existing facility deficiencies, the coordination of the extension and ‘increase of facilities to meet future needs, the maximization of the use of existing facilities, the conservation of potable water, and the protection of the function of natural groundwater recharge areas and natural ~ drainage features. (c) The Infrastructure Element does not contain required policies toward using potable water conservation strategies and techniques and toward regulating land use. and development to protect the functions of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. 12. The Conservation Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the following requirements of section 163.3177, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. (a) The Conservation Element does not contain required objectives effectively conserving, appropriately using, and protecting: the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources and waters that flow into estuarine or oceanic waters; soils and native vegetative communities; and fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine . habitat. {b) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies toward protecting native vegetative communities from destruction by development activities and restricting activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. (c) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies protecting and conserving the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, wetlands, and marine habitats. 13. The Coastal Management Element, as well as the remainder of the Compreherisive Plan, does not contain objectives and policies required by the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Coastal Management Element does not contain objectives protecting, conserving, or enhancing remaining coastal wetlands; wildlife habitat; and coastal barriers; nor does the element contain objectives directing population concentrations away from known coastal high hazard areas, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation times, and preparing post-disaster redevelopment plans to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards. (b) The Coastal Management Element does not contain required policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems; restoring or enhancing disturbed or degraded natural ' resources including beaches and dunes, estuaries, wetlands, and drainage systems; mitigating future disruptions to disturbed or degraded hatural resources; mitigating hazards by regulating floodplains, stormwater management, sanitary . sewer and septic tanks, and land use to reduce the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards; addressing hurricane evacuation; providing for post~disaster redevelopment; identifying areas in need of redevelopment; and limiting development in coastal high hazard areas and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. 14. The Capital Improvements Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not include the following required objectives consistent with the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Capital Improvements Element does not address the County's needs for capital facilities, including land acquisitions, to meet existing deficiencies, accommodate desired future growth, and replace worn-out facilities; 10 (b) The Capital Improvements Element fails to demonstrate the County's ability to provide or require the provision of the items identified elsewhere.in the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) The Capital Improvements Element does not adequately relate to managing the land development process . so that public facility needs created by previously issued land development orders or future development do not exceed the County's ability to ensure provision of needed capital improvements. , 15. The Commission concludes that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S., ("State Plan") construed | as a whole. See section 163.3184(1)(b), F.S. This consistency determination requires the Commission to assess whether the local government comprehensive plan is compatible with and takes action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the State Plan. Section 163.3177(10)(a), F.S. (a) The Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Water Resources goal of the State Plan to protect existing water supplies, “£loodplains, surface and groundwater quality and quantity; to consider alternative methods of wastewater treatment; and to reserve from use the water necessary to support essential nonwithdrawal demands. 11 (b) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Coastal and Marine Resources goal of the State Plan; in particular, the Charlotte County/city of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan fails to encourage land uses that are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. . , (¢) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Natural Systems and Recreational Lands goal, - which requires Florida to protect and acquire natural habitats and ecological systems and restore degraded systems to a functional condition. ) (d) Comprehensive Plan provisions also conflict with the State Plan's Land Use goal, which requires that development shall be directed to areas that already have in place, or have agreements to provide, land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. (e) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Downtown Revitalization goal, which encourages the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. (£) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Public Facilities goal, which requires the planning and financing of new facilities to serve new residents ina timely, orderly, and efficient manner. 12 Rulings on Exceptions The Commission notes that Charlotte County filed exceptions to the hearing officer's Recommended Order, which stipulated that in the event the Commission adopted the Agreement between the . County and the DCA, the County would waive its right to file such : exceptions. ‘At a meeting with Cabinet Aides on March 7, 1990, Sandra Augustine, counsel to the County, stated that the county would not seek a ruling on the exceptions provided that the Commission adopted the remedial actions specified in the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum and the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order. Determination of Compliance and Order 16. It is hereby concluded by the Administration Commission that the 1988 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Charlotte County Commission on December ° 16, 1988, is not in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and with Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S. 17. Pursuant to Chapter 28-39.005(1), F.A.C., the Commission has requested the DCA to provide a recommendation as to the remedial actions which would bring the County's Comprehensive Plan into compliance, as well as the type and extent of funds which should be withheld or other sanctions, as specified in section 163.3184(11), F.S. The DCA and Charlotte County have authorized a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and 13 Sanctions ("Joint Agreement"), which is attached as Exhibit B to this Order, and an Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Addendum"), which is attached as Exhibit c to this Order.’ 18. Having determined that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda's Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rule 93-5, F.A.C., the Commission orders that the remedial actions specified in Part I-A of the Joint Agreement, as amended by the Addendum, be implemented by the County in order to bring the plan, as adopted and submitted to the DCA, into compliance. 19. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 18 of this order, with the exception of the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than May 15, 1990. The plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this : paragraph shall include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum. (a) The DCA shall, by May 30, 1990, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by May 15, 1990, the DCA shall notify 14 the Commission by May 30, 1990; and the Commission shall review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by September 30, 1990. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1991. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the ., County's conformance.with.the remedial..actions specified.in this Paragraph. 20. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June 1, 1992. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1992, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment (s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1992, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1992; and the Commission shall 15 review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the _ progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by October 1, 1992. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than - January 31, 1993. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 21. The Administration Commission further orders that the County: (a) Adopt a Conservation Overlay as part of the Conservation Element and Future Land Use Map identifying natural resources and environmental features; (b) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation Element to provide protection to the identified natural resources and environmental features, in conformance with statutory and rule provisions and in furtherance of the State Comprehensive Plan; and (c) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element and other pertinent elements, to 16 ensure consistency with the revised Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Map. 22. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June i, 1991. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1991, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1991, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1991; and the Commission shall ‘review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review. of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this Paragraph by October 1, 1991. , (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1992. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 17 23. Comprehensive Plan.amendments outside the scope of this order shall be reviewed by the DCA in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. 24. The fact’ that the Coastal Management Element is included in the Commission's finding of noncompliance in this order shall be a consideration if the Department of Natural Resources is asked to issue permits under section 161.053, F.S., or if the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is requested to sell, convey any interest in, or lease any sovereignty lands or submerged lands at any time prior to the Commission's determination that the County has complied with the provisions of this order. 25. .Since all issues raised in General Development Corporation and General Development Utilities, Incorporated's ("GDC/GDU") Petition to Intervene for Limited Purpose or, in the alternative, to Remand to DOAH for Evidentiary Hearing ("GDC/GDU Petition") are addressed by the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, the GDC/GDU Petition is moot. 26. The Commission has considered the immediate imposition of sanctions, pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S., in this case. However, based upon the following mitigating factors, the Commission elects not to impose sanctions at this time, while retaining jurisdiction as noted below in paragraph 27 of this order. 18 (a) In this caSe, Charlotte County, pursuant to section 163.3184(10), F.S., proceeded with a DOAH hearing on disputed issues embodied. within the adopted local plan. In particular, the definition of urban sprawl was an issue that had not been litigated, and the County, in good faith, litigated the issue in the DOAH forum. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, issued on November 20, 1989, upheld the DCA's original finding that the adopted local plan was not in compliance with Chapter.163, Part II, F.S., DCA Rule Chapter 9U-5, F. A. C.; and Chapter 187, F.S., largely based upon the disputed urban sprawl issue, which is a component of several plan elements. (b) During the pendency of the DOAH hearing process, the County exercised restraint in issuing development orders » and permits in the area of the County subject to the disputed issues. This course of action by the County is evidence of the County's sensitivity to the need for protection of State resources while the urban sprawl issue underwent review. (c) No precedent existed in law for the urban sprawl determination until the hearing officer's Recommended Order was published. Subsequent local governments have the advantage of the hearing officer's findings and conclusions as a guide in preparing local comprehensive Plans that \ adequately discourage urban sprawl. Once the hearing 19 officer's ruling was known, the County proceeded rapidly, and in good faith, to reach a settlement with the DCA. 27. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the provisions in this order. Lf the Commission determines that the County has complied with the actions specified in this order, the Commission will conclude its jurisdiction over this action. If the Commission determines that the County has not complied with the remedial actions specified in this order, the Commission shall review the Matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S. 28. Any party to this order has the right to seek judicial review of the order pursuant. to section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Commission, Patricia A. Woodworth, Office of Planning and Budgeting, Executive Office of the Governor, Room 415 Carlton Building, 501 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the | applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the day this order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 20 tad DONE and ordered this /S day of March, 1990, in Seu) A. WOODWORTH Secretary to the Administration Commission Tallahassee, Florida. cc: Members of the Commission Counsel of Record 21 Honorable, Bob Martinez Governor The Capitol, PL 05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Bob Butterworth Attorney General The Capitol, PL 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Doyle Connor Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, PL 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 David J. Russ, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 - Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire ' County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Kenneth G. Oertel Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 c. Guy Batsel Batsel, McKinley & Ittersagen, P.A. Manor Pointe Professional Center 1861 Placida Road, Suite 104 Englewood, Florida 34223 Alan S. Gold, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 22 Thomas G. Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer The Capitol, PL 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol, PL 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol, PL 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399- -0001 Pelham Secretary Department, of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley, Emerich and Sifrit, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney City of Punta Gorda Post Office Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Emerson Bruner, Esquire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, Florida 33937 af, LIGLHXa Valuold "ALNNOD 3LLOTYVHO wowtoa some swsagne samo: assert dVW XSdNI “2 s78¥4 er ytevs - ' yor-ta HHSHAOL SIHSNMOL OF FIVE WLe- STF CHS NMOL . F9z-"Ser GIHSNMOL aze~ Sep oIHSAMOL UV FTaVL 2 FTGVE Z F1GVL toasen Shaeweens aaa 5 zee-sie $4 FAz- Git Faz-sie : HUSNMOL eHSNMOL -- ~ AF == net 2 F18V4 aaa + 2 F1AUL l - oe | | l searing 3 1 WLs-S0d 393-"soF aa FeS-SOb | HSNMOL . DIHSNMOL | HSUMOL + . . a A . : AN _- can) i = Tete ae emit - 4 ap _ soot sR —"} " z aunola —_——-+ ae enw —_—, wee, pone ney —_ ——_ EXHIBIT B STATE OF FLORIDA SAM tek ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FLORIDA ‘4-8 AND WATER g Spluoicatory commission DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, . Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY‘ OF PUNTA GORDA, " : ) ) ) ..) CASE NO. 89-0810GM ) Respondents. ) ) NOTICE OF FILING JOINT AGREEMENT ON _ REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached joint agreement on remedial actions and sanctions in this case. Respectfully submitted, D ECEIVE) favidb.( Rubs, Senior Attorney Departmen of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive JAN 22 1990 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 Office of Planning & Budgeting Office.of Director CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Parties listed below this LU day of January, 1990. uss Senior Attorney J. Michael Rooney, Esquire city Attorney P. O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Michael P. Haymans P. O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda,’ Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite :c Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 1/18/90 JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS ~ CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parties to this proceeding do hereby enter into the following Joint Stipulation on Remedial Actions and Sanctions and request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Joint Stipulation as part of the final order in this matter: . I. REMEDIAL ACTIONS A. The County of Charlotte (hereinafter "County") will amend its Comprehensive Plan to include the following: 1. The County shall amend its Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") to limit residential densities, in the areas located south and east of the Peace River and outside of the Urban Service Area ("USA"), in the following manner: ae The areas currently identified as , Agriculture/Conservation on the FLUM shall he : Limited to a density of one unit per 40 acres. b. The C. M. Webb Wildlife Management Area will retain-its designation of Preservation. c. The areas previously identified as Agriculture I and Agriculture II on the FLUM shall be limited to a density of one unit per 10 acres, with the exception of existing (as of January 1, 1990), platted lands which are subdivided into individual lots of less than 10 acres in size, whereby one unit per subdivided lot is the maximum density allowed, except when vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. ao ‘qd. The areas shown on the FLUM with a designation other than those mentioned in a, b, or ¢ above, : shall retain their current’ designation. 2. The County shall amend its FLUM to limit residential densities on the bridgeless barrier islands in the following manner: a. All areas one acre or greater in size (as of January 1, 1990) shall be limited to a density of one unit per acre, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It-is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. b. All platted areas (as of January 1, 1990) less than one acre in size shall have an allowable density of one unit per subdivision lot, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. 3. The County shall amend its designated Urban Service Area boundaries to reflect the following: a. The inclusion of the area known as Charlotte Ranchettes, located near the northwest boundary of the Cc. M. Webb Wildlife Management area. b. The inclusion of the existing mobile home and commercial areas on Burnt Store Rd. just north of the Burnt Store Isles area. : ce. The exclusion of the bridgeless barrier islands (Knight Island, Don Pedro Island, and Little Gasparilla Island). 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infrastructure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. _b. As an interim measure, the County shall amend ; the plan to include a policy which will prohibit the _ extension of water lines, within the unincorporated area of the County, without the simultaneous extension of sewer lines. This will have the effect of limiting the provision of utilities to : areas that are built-out to a degree which would make expansion financially feasible, and directing growth to the areas that have existing infrastructure. . ¢. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's).: d. The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services outside of the urban service area, with the exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. 5. The County shall amend the FLUM to create a separate designation for RV parks, and shall develop -goals, - - objectives, and policies which will assure that areas so designated will accommodate vehicles/structures on a temporary recreational basis. . 6. The County shall amend the language of its goals, objectives, and policies in the drainage element, such that they will be consistent with the rules, regulations and policies of the applicable water management aistricts. It is the intent of this provision to prohibit post-development stormwater discharge at a greater rate than pre-development discharge, consistent with water management district rules. 7. The County shall incorporate the provisions ’ of Ordinance 89-53 (Special Surface Water Protection Districts) into its Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies to assure the protection of those surface water resources. 8. The County shall amend all appropriate text and data to reflect the changes outlined herein. B. Charlotte County agrees to discontinue its rule challenge regarding the urban sprawl issue. II. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING, REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE ABOVE REQUIRED AMENDMENTS. 3 IIr. Iv. Ve A. The Comprehensive Plan amendments required in Part I (with the exception of 4.a.) above shall be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter, "Department") within 90 days of the date of this agreement. B. The procedures for reviewing the above referenced amendments shall be as outlined in Chapter 163. F.S. Cc. The Comprehensive plan amendments required in 4.a. of Part I above shall be transmitted to the Department in the County's Spring, 1992 submission period. However, the amendments to be included in the submission outlined in part A above, will include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to 4.a. Upon receipt of the amendments, the Department shall review them in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. ” SANCTIONS A. The' County of Charlotte shall prepare. and transmit Comprehensive Plan amendments, in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 97-5, Florida Statutes, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. B. In the event that County does not submit the required amendments in a timely fashion or does not amend the Comprehensive plan in a manner which is in conformance with the Final Order, the County may be subject to sanctions, the nature and extent to which will be determined by the Administration Commission in a manner consistent with the extent to which the failure to comply with the Final Order warrants. ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER MATTERS A. Sanctions approved under the terms of the Final Order shall be of no force and effect unless the Department of Community Affairs affirmatively notifies the appropriate state agencies that such sanctions have attached. B. Jurisdiction over these proceedings and parties is retained for the purpose of enforcing the Final Order. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT _ The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BY: __ DATE:__January 22, 1990 Secretary | . . Thomas G. Pelham COUNTY _OF CHARLOTT, BY DATE: is) 9) Board gf County issionéers ATTEST: : Approved as to Form and Legal Oo Sufficiericy Barbara T. Scott . Be Clerk of the Circuit Court Bayete Va ~ , , : Sandra J. Augustine, BY'(_.-7_. Tad . Cte County Attorney EXHIBIT c STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY oF PUNTA GORDA, Respondents, and BABCOCK FLORIDA COMPANY, a Florida corporation, WILBUR H. COLE, FEBRUARY TRUST, and PALM ISLAND RESORT, Intervenors. Sef NOTICE OF FILING ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions previously filed in this case. D Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 28h day of February, 1990, to the parties listed below. J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney P.O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0400 : Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire 2700 Blair Stone Road; Suite c Tallahassee, Florida 32314- 6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan S. Gold, Esquire 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ° The Department of Community Affairs and Charlotte County, Florida, hereby enter into this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions/Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan (hereafter "the Settlement Agreement") previously entered into by the parties on January 22, 1990. 1. The parties agree to amendment of Section I.A.4 of the Settlement Agreement, to provide as follows: 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infra- structure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. cr b. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's). a c. . The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services ,outside. of the urban service area, with the: exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. - 2. In all other respects, the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties on January 22, 1990, .shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The parties hereby request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions as part ef the ~ final order in Case No. 89-0810 GM (DOAH). 4. The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS yp binne DFvps— pare: 2 -DL—9™ Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary COUNTY OF CHARLOTTE pATE: 27-22-90 of County Commissioners ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Barbara T. Scott, Clerk of AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Circuit Court.and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners / Sandra J.\\Au By. Abby County Attorney Deputy Clerk : jo: addendum/89-153/022290
Conclusions This cause came before the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission (the "Commission") on March 13, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida, pursuant to sections 163.3184(10) and 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for consideration of a Recommended Order from the Division of Administrative Hearings, concerning Charlotte County's and the City of Punta Gorda's jointly adopted local government comprehensive plan. Based on review of the Recommended order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, consideration of a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Joint Agreement") between Charlotte County and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), a 1 copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, and consideration of the Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions between Charlotte County and the DCA, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, the Commission issues its final order as follows.
The Issue Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Sierra Club. Sierra alleged in its Petition that it "does business in St. Johns County and has a substantial number of members who reside in and own property in St. Johns County." Sierra is registered as a California corporation and maintains offices in St. Petersburg and West Palm Beach, Florida. The National Organization of Sierra publishes Sierra Magazine, which members receive in the County. Sierra's basic mission is to provide an opportunity for its members to explore, enjoy, and protect the outdoors and natural systems, including those which exist in the County. The Florida Chapter of The Sierra Club (Florida Chapter) is subdivided into 10-12 "groups," including the approximately 1,400-member Northeast Florida Group, serving Duval, St. Johns, and Clay Counties, with approximately 325 members living in St. Johns County. There are approximately 24,000 Sierra members in the State of Florida. Sierra holds monthly meetings in the County. Speakers discuss various educational subjects with members attending the monthly meetings. Sierra members hike in the County, and canoe and kayak on, for example, the Tolomato and Guana Rivers. These activities can be expected to be enhanced if the Plan Amendments are approved and the approximately 1,630-acre preserve area dedicated as planned. Sierra has held fundraisers in the County for the benefit of the three-county Northeast Group. The Northeast Florida Group sends out monthly newsletters, published in and mailed from Duval County, and publishes the Sierra Sentry: Standing Watch on Northeast Florida. Sierra does not maintain a business address or bank account in the County; nor does Sierra own or lease real property, offices or buildings in the County. The Plan Amendments are not reasonably expected to constrain, inhibit, or prevent activities of Sierra's members, including their educational and permitting activities, although a Sierra member testified that the Plan Amendments would potentially "be adverse to [Sierra's] mission in terms of experiencing outdoors and the wildlife associated with the outdoors " Sierra submitted timely oral and written comments to the St. Johns County Commission between the time the County transmitted the Plan Amendment for review and the time the County adopted the Plan Amendment. Sierra made a presentation at the public hearing related to the Plan Amendments. Ellen A. Whitmer. Whitmer resides and owns property within the County and submitted timely oral and written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. The parties agreed Whitmer has standing. Intervenors. SONOC owns the property which is the subject of the future land use map (FLUM) Plan Amendment being challenged in these proceedings. SONOC submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. SONOC has expended approximately $3.5 million in the approval process. The PARC Group is the agent of SONOC, and is the applicant/developer of the Nocatee development, which is the subject of the Plan Amendments. The PARC Group submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. St. Johns County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the County prepared an evaluation and appraisal of the Plan and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (the "EAR") in January 1998. The EAR process allows local government to periodically assess the success or failure of their comprehensive plan. The EAR is subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR-Based Plan Amendment), with supporting data and analysis, which the Department found to be "in compliance." This included the data and analysis for the future land use element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of the Plan. (Joint Exhibit 7-A). This is part of the data and analysis used to support the Plan Amendments at issue in this proceeding. The Department's "in compliance" review became final agency action without challenge. St. Johns County is located in the northeast portion of the State of Florida, south of Duval County and Jacksonville. The St. Johns River separates the County from Clay and Putnam Counties to the west. Flagler County borders the County to the south. There are three (3) incorporated municipalities located within the County, i.e., St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, and the Town of Hastings. The County comprises approximately 423,580 acres. St. Augustine is the largest municipality in the County. Agriculture and silviculture are the leading industries in the County. The County has a large portion of silviculture lands and there are more than 2.5 million acres in Northeast Florida. The intensive agriculture areas of the County are located in the southern part of the County. The Plan Amendments will not adversely affect the economic viability of agriculture or silviculture in the County. A barrier island runs the length of the County, from the Flagler County line to Duval County. Interstate 95 runs north and south through the County and is west of St. Augustine. U.S. Highway 1 also runs north and south and east of Interstate 95 and runs parallel to Interstate 95. The Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers form the majority of the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern portion of the County and separate the barrier island from the mainland portion of the County. The Guana River State Park and Guana River State Wildlife Management Area form a significant part of the barrier island adjacent to the Tolomato River. The Department. As the state land planning agency, the Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and timely filed a Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments "in compliance." The Challenges While Petitioners cite to numerous statutory and rule provisions in their petitions, the principle allegations, that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," may be placed into three general categories: "need" and urban sprawl; natural resource protection; and economic feasibility. Under each of these general subject headings, Petitioners raise allegations that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapters 163 and 187, Florida Statutes, and that they are internally inconsistent with the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. The Nocatee Plan Amendments On February 23, 2001, the County amended its Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 2001-18. The Ordinance contains four changes to the Plan. First, the Ordinance creates a new FLUE category known as "New Town Development" (Text Amendment). Second, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to New Town (Map Amendment). Third, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation for approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation (Preserve Amendment). (Petitioners are not challenging the designation of the Nocatee Preserve as "Conservation.") Fourth, the Ordinance adds text (Policy H.1.6.6) to the Plan authorizing the Nocatee DRI "to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in [Section 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes] to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee [DRI] Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts." (This latter provision allows the use of "pipelining" and is referred to herein as the Transportation Amendment.) These Plan Amendments are related to a proposed development known as "Nocatee." The New Town category was crafted to provide criteria and guidelines for large projects such as Nocatee. The acreage designated New Town by the Map Amendment is the proposed site of the Nocatee development. The acreage designated Conservation by the Preserve Amendment is for the purpose of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee development will utilize the Transportation Amendment to address anticipated development impacts on the roadway system. These amendments and the Nocatee development are discussed in more detail below. Ordinance No. 2001-18 provides that "[t]he data and analysis supporting [these Plan Amendments] includes, but is not limited to, the Nocatee Application for Development Approval, Sufficiency Responses, and Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order adopted concurrently with this Ordinance, application materials submitted by the Applicant and reports generated by the County Growth Management Department." Pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, projects which must undergo Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review are subject to a multi-agency, multi-issue review of the proposed development's impacts and a process for mitigating those impacts. A DRI is a development order issued by a local government. It pertains to approval for a specific type of development for a particular site. A comprehensive plan is a different type of document, which considers long-term planning for an entire jurisdiction, taking into account the cumulative effect of many developments, including consideration of projected supply and demand in the future. DRIs are subject to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. One of the requirements for a DRI is that it be consistent with the requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan, a determination that is separate from that undertaken here. On the other hand, comprehensive plans and amendments, as here, must comply with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which defines "in compliance" as being consistent with Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. A plan amendment does not have to be consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to be "in compliance." A DRI development order does not guarantee that the site will be developed or developed as approved. For example, the development order may be amended through the substantial deviation process, or a development order may expire. Applications for DRI approval are prepared and submitted to the appropriate regional planning council by the developer. These applications are submitted in response to a set of criteria that differ from those applicable to a plan or plan amendment. Some of the information provided by a developer in support of a DRI request may be relevant to the review of a plan amendment, as here. However, a DRI development order, in general, and the Nocatee DRI Development Order specifically, are not subject to an "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At the conclusion of the DRI process, if project approval is attained, the local government issues a development order. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. The development order must include, among numerous other information, a detailed listing of each land use by acreage and magnitude. Rule 9J-2.025(3)(b)(5), Florida Administrative Code. This land use information from the DRI development order is incorporated into the County Plan for any approved New Town. See Finding of Fact 33. In this case, the Nocatee DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA) was reviewed by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, (and by other agencies), and the Council recommended that the ADA be approved, with conditions. It was stipulated that "[i]n considering comprehensive plan amendments, there is no requirement that favorable consideration be provided to a proposed amendment solely because it is a DRI." See generally Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. The Nocatee DRI "is a proposed mixed use development on approximately 13,323 acres, of which approximately 11,332 acres are located in northeastern St. Johns County . . . and approximately 1,991 acres are located in southeastern Jacksonville, Florida." On February 22 and 23, 2001, concurrent with its consideration of the Plan Amendments, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners considered the merits of the Nocatee DRI ADA and approved same through Resolution No. 2001- 30. Accordingly, while Ordinance No. 2001-18, adopting the Plan Amendments, expressly relies on, in part, the data and analysis in the Nocatee DRI ADA and related documents, including the Nocatee DRI Development Order, and Policy A.1.19.15 expressly refers to the Nocatee DRI and incorporates the "allowable uses and mix of uses within the Nocatee" DRI,1 the Nocatee DRI is not subject to "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding. See 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks v. City of Daytona Beach and Department of Community Affairs, et al., 16 F.A.L.R. 2428 (DCA June 16, 1994). See also Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(discussing the scope of Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes). The Text Amendment The Text Amendment adds Objective A.1.19, "New Town Development," to the Plan, which is a new future land use category. The purpose of this new land use category is described as follows: The New Town Future Land Use category shall guide development into a series of clearly identified and distinct villages that together form a larger New Town. Within the New Town there is a clear hierarchy of development types utilizing neighborhoods as the basic development unit. Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town. A central village functions as the Town Center Village, and includes the main employment[,] shopping, and cultural activities for the New Town. Villages shall have central focal points of higher densities and intensities that create an identity and a sense of place. The planned mix of uses of New Towns shall help to provide a positive fiscal impact for the County. New Towns shall offer a wide range of housing choices, including affordable housing. The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested for any Development of Regional Impact that meets the policies set forth herein. The Board of County Commissioners may approve or deny any New Town on a project-by-project basis, after the New Town review. The Text Amendment is proposed to be included in the County's Plan as FLUE Objective A.1.19 – which is quoted in full immediately above – and fifteen (15) implementing policies (Policies A.1.19.1 through A.1.19.15). Unlike many of the other land use categories in the Plan, which are defined only by the statutorily-required minimum list of allowable uses and standards, the New Town land use category contains detail on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from fiscal impact analysis, affordable housing, to the "[i]nterconnectivity of pedestrian and vehicular routes through the [New] Town to encourage multi-modal circulation." The detail contained in the Text Amendment is necessary to ensure that a specific form of development occurs on land bearing the New Town future land use designation. The land use pattern of this category is a tool to combat urban sprawl, as further explained below, and was crafted with guidance from the following Rule definition. "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. Rule 9J-5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The New Town category in the Text Amendment is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, i.e., the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development in a rural area. The Text Amendment sets 2,500 acres as the minimum size for any parcel to be eligible for designation as a New Town. The Text Amendment then establishes general land use standards applicable to the overall New Town parcel, which are embellished by more specific controls for the different components of the New Town. "At least 35% of lands within a New Town development shall be reserved for Open Space/Conservation and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system," and shall be provided for public uses. "The greenway system will serve the additional goal of surrounding and defining villages and the Town Center Village." ("Greenways, wetlands, and similar natural areas are open space/conservation. Open space/conservation does not include parks, golf courses, and other designated recreational lands.") At least 40 percent of the net developable acreage of a New Town must be residential units and, of the total residential units, at least 20 percent must be multi-family, and at least 50 percent must be residential single-family. Workplace land uses, i.e., retail, service, office, and industrial, must comprise at least five percent of the net developable acreage. This proportion of mix of uses is further refined in Policy A.1.19.9, where square footage requirements for each of the non-residential land uses are linked to the number of approved dwelling units, e.g., a minimum of 50 square feet of retail space for each dwelling unit and 30 square feet of civic space per dwelling unit in a Town Center Village and five square feet per dwelling unit for each Village. Other "specific use standards" are provided. New Towns are also required to provide land for libraries, fire stations, local government annexes, school sites and similar public uses and shall provide minimum park acreage equivalent to Comprehensive Plan LOS [level of service] requirements. In addition to this overall guidance, the Text Amendment directs a specific community form by assembling the several mixed uses into components which together will form the New Town. The "neighborhood" is designed to be the "basic development unit" within the New Town. Neighborhoods are to be compact residential areas with a mix of housing types. "Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town." Village Centers are areas designed to provide civic, service, limited retail, and elementary school uses for the surrounding neighborhoods. "A village shall contain distinct neighborhoods that will each have a central neighborhood park, which shall be called the neighborhood commons." At least 10 percent of each village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. While residential uses (at least 10 percent of net developable acreage) are also allowed in village centers, at least 45 percent of net developable acreage of the uses must be non-residential. Villages composed of these centers and neighborhoods are to be surrounded by greenways, golf courses, and natural features, and linked to the remainder of the New Town through interconnected roads and a pedestrian/bikeway system. Also, within villages, low density residential must have an overall net residential density between 1-2 units per acre. Medium density residential development must have an overall net density between 2-6 units per acre. Traditional neighborhoods must have an overall net density of 4-6 units per acre. In addition to the villages, each New Town is to contain a "Town Center Village," which "is intended to serve as the cultural, shopping, employment and civic center for the New Town, and shall include office uses, light industrial areas, and higher density residential uses surrounding a mixed-use core." In addition to some single-family residential and retail, the Town Center Village must contain at least 30 percent multi-family residential (percentage of units) and 45 percent (percentage of square feet) office use in order that "[t]he mixed-core shall have the characteristics of a downtown." The most intense of these uses are to be concentrated in the "Town Center Village Mixed-Use Core," which is to be the "pedestrian-oriented 'Main Street' area of retail, service, office, residential, and civic uses." Both the Town Center Village and its Mixed-Use Core are governed by specific design standards addressing matters such as sidewalks, signs, porches, and on-street parking. Overall, the Objective and Policies contained in the New Town land use category provide meaningful and predictable detail.2 The specific Policies describe the types and uses and how these uses will relate to one another, the mix of uses, transportation issues, interconnectivity, design, and urban features of New Towns. The Map Amendment In the same Ordinance in which the Text Amendment was adopted, the County adopted a Map Amendment changing the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres from Rural/Silviculture to New Town. The Map Amendment was adopted to allow development of a project known as "Nocatee." As required by the Text Amendment, Nocatee has been designated as a New Town on the FLUM, and has been reviewed and approved as a DRI. The "allowable uses and mix of uses" within the Nocatee DRI Development Order have been incorporated into the County Plan Amendments. The Nocatee project includes approximately 11,332 New Town acres in St. Johns County. ("The Nocatee site consists of approximately 15,000 acres, with approximately 2200 acres in Jacksonville and the remainder in St. Johns County. The site is generally bounded on the west by [U.S.] 1, on the east by the Intercoastal Waterway, on the south by Pine Island Road, and extends north of CR 210 approximately 1.5 miles.") However, the portion of Nocatee in the southern portion of Duval County (Jacksonville) is not subject to the instant challenges. The land uses adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order and incorporated into the St. Johns County Plan are as follows: 2,872,000 square feet, 336 acres of office uses; 968,000 square feet, 150 acres and 3,900 parking spaces for retail commercial uses; 250,000 square feet, 29 acres and 500 parking spaces for light industrial uses; 12,579 total dwelling units, comprising 8,811 single family units, 3,228 multi-family units (including single-family attached units), and 540 assisted living units; 54 golf course holes, 485 hotel rooms, 5,531 acres of recreation/open space (including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses), churches, schools, and civic uses. The uses described above are to be developed in five phases, each anticipated to last five years, with various combinations of uses allowed in each phase. Individual phases may be extended pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, or accelerated provided that all mitigation requirements have been satisfied for the particular phase to be accelerated. The Nocatee DRI includes a Town Center Village, a secondary town center, seven other villages, and up to two village centers in each village. Village centers may include limited intensity office and retail commercial uses and an elementary school. However, "[t]he specific location of all land uses will be determined through the [Planned Unit Development] PUD approval process." The Nocatee DRI Development Order contains a "conversion table" which authorizes the conversion, at a defined rate, of one type of land use to another, but prohibits the conversion of non-residential land uses to residential uses during the first two phases of development. The conversion tables cannot be used to convert the Nocatee DRI land uses below those established in the New Town land use category. The Preserve Amendment Along with the Text and Map Amendments, the County adopted the Preserve Amendment, which re-designated approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation for purposes of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee Preserve is an area of over 2500 acres including close to 1800 acres of land above the mean high water line. This strategic location with over 3 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River complements the Guana State Park and the Guana Wildlife Management area directly east of the river. The Nocatee Preserve will expand preserved environmental lands to both sides of the Tolomato River. This expansion of environmental lands will provide additional protection for the northern Tolomato River Basin and will provide passive recreation opportunities for both the Nocatee community and the entire region. Additionally, the Preserve will serve as a buffer between the Tolomato River and future development within Nocatee–a buffer that is between 1 and 1 1/2 mile wide. The Preserve includes the most ecologically significant (and economically valuable) part of the [Nocatee] property. Transportation Amendment The last change to the County Plan (Policy H.1.6.6) here at issue, the Transportation Amendment, provides: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payments of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. Pursuant to operation of the Transportation Amendment, Nocatee "will contribute up to $99,741,366 in cash payments and funded transportation improvements to offset the impacts of the Nocatee development upon the regional transportation system " Agency Review and Notice The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Among the responsibilities of the Department under the Act is the duty to review plan amendments and determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. On or about June 1, 2000, the Department received the County's proposed Plan Amendments, and copies were distributed to various state, regional, and local agencies for their review and comments. On August 10, 2000, the Department submitted its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Comments from the Department of Environmental Protection and the St. Johns River Water Management District were attached to the ORC. On or about January 22, 2001, the Applicant, The PARC Group, submitted its response to the Department's ORC. On February 22 and 23, 2001, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners held noticed hearings on the Nocatee DRI and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments and enacted Ordinance No. 2001-18 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-01D), adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and also enacted Ordinance No. 2001-30, approving the Nocatee DRI. On March 5, 2001, the County furnished the Department with a submission package including documents relating to the Plan Amendments. On April 18, 2001, the Department caused to be published its Notice of Intent to find the Text Amendment, Map Amendment, Preserve Amendment, and Transportation Amendment "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Need and Urban Sprawl The nomenclature "New Town," adopted as the title of the Text Amendment, is a reference to a form of land use described in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. By definition, a "New Town" means, in part, "a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns." In addition, a "New Town" will necessarily contain a full range of uses in order to support a variety of economic and social activities "consistent with an urban area designation." See Rule 9J- 5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The new town land use generally described in Rule 9J-5.003(80), is a category expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, recognizes new towns as one of the "innovative and flexible" manners in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The weight of the evidence demonstrated that the New Town development form contained in the Text Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. For example, Dr. Downs and Mr. Porter, both of whom are national growth management experts with decades of experience, testified that new towns in general, and specifically, the Text Amendment adopted by the County, serve to discourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pennock, the primary author of the urban sprawl rule, which is now a part of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, testified that the types and mix of uses in the Text Amendment are appropriate for a new town and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. The designated Nocatee New Town is located on the St. Johns County/Duval County line in the Northeast Planning District, and lies east of U.S. Highway 1, and straddles County Road 210. The Nocatee New Town lies in the rural/urban fringe, within the fastest growing sector of the County, in the regional growth corridor emanating from southeast Duval County and Ponte Vedra. This is an advantageous location because it is close enough to the main employment center in the area (Jacksonville), to afford residents employment opportunities. Additionally, the Nocatee New Town is a master-planned community, unlike piecemeal fragmented development which has occurred in other parts of the County. Consistent with the Text and Map Amendments, the Nocatee New Town is planned to include preserved natural areas and greenways and villages. Each village is expected to consist of neighborhoods and a village center, which will include elementary schools, civic and retail uses, and higher density housing. The Nocatee New Town serves as a cultural center, providing for a mix of higher density residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, office, and light industrial, schools, churches, a fire station, a library, a county annex, a police complex, parks and public spaces, and as athletic complex. The Nocatee New Town is geographically separated from existing areas by U.S. Highway 1 and preserved greenways, and is a functionally distinct land use. The Nocatee New Town is functionally similar in size and land use composition to other successful new towns, and includes basic economic activities in all major land use categories. Further, the Nocatee New Town is innovative planning, especially for a rapidly urbanizing county like St. Johns. In addition, it provides for flexibility in land use mixes by designating minimum land use percentages, but not requiring fixed percentages. This flexibility is desirable to allow for market adaptation over the 25-year build-out period. The expert testimony at the final hearing was persuasive that the location chosen for the Map Amendment is appropriate for a New Town in the County. Just a short distance to the north of the Map Amendment is Jacksonville, which was accurately described as "the major economic engine for the northeast Florida area . . . ." The past two decades of economic success for Jacksonville have resulted in growth along a corridor to the southeast, i.e., directly toward the site of the Map Amendment and the proposed Nocatee New Town. From 1991 to 1996, approximately 42 percent of the growth in St. Johns County occurred in the area around the proposed Nocatee New Town. The Nocatee New Town can be expected to improve the current, incremental and piecemeal development patterns of the County. Unfortunately, the emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County exhibits indicators of sprawl. Currently, growth is not occurring in the most compact fashion. Sprawl is often viewed as a single-use or low- density residential setting. Here, the New Town concept offers a mixture of uses and the Plan Amendments, in particular, require an overall residential density range of three to eight units per net developable residential acre, whereas most of the residential areas of the County appear to have two residential unit per acre, and the proposed density for Nocatee is higher than the existing average in the northeast portion of the County. If Nocatee is developed according to its approved plan, it will be a New Town and will be a useful tool to fight this undesirable land use pattern of current development and is an anti-urban sprawl alternative to the existing sprawl development in the County. Petitioners maintain that the Text Amendment will allow, and the Map Amendment will promote, urban sprawl for essentially two reasons; first, there is no "need" for a new land use approval; second, there are insufficient guarantees that Nocatee or any future approval will actually develop as a New Town. The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area . . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule, i.e., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code ("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") Finally, the "need" issue is one of the primary factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning time frame applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning time frame and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The testimony in this case from the planning experts is that there is no accepted "hard and fast" allocation ratio at which a local government would be required to deny all future plan amendments. (There is testimony from Department planners that there is a recommended guideline, which set a ratio of 1.25:1 of supply over demand. This ratio has not been adopted as a rule nor has it been proven to be an accepted ratio to be applied in this case.) Rather, the allocation ratio is a planning guideline to be used for two purposes: first, ensuring a local government has enough land to accommodate future population; second, discouraging urban sprawl. The County divides St. Johns County into four Planning Districts (part of the data and analysis of the Plan) for purposes of calculating allocation ratios of the amount of land needed for particular land uses compared to an amount of land so designated. (Disaggregating allocation ratios into planning districts is professionally acceptable.) Planning districts differentiate the County into different growth scenarios, development trends, and land use patterns. County staff explained the analysis performed regarding each of the four Planning Districts. Separate ratios were developed for each Planning District. Population projections were developed based on historical growth and compared to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) numbers. See footnote 5. In part, the County analyzed the amount of developable land designated in the FLUM, which was converted "into a very specific GIS map, so [they] had more definitive areas . . . ." Developable and un-developable land was analyzed. The County also examined the nature of the future land use densities existing on the developable lands to derive "a potential development for those developable areas and compare[d] those to the population projections which converted into housing units." A comparison was made "between population projections or need for housing units and the amount of dwelling units that can be accommodated in this developable area on the map."3 As otherwise noted further in Joint Exhibit 7-A, page A-37, in part: These population projections are then converted into housing demand by planning district as discussed in the Housing Element. The demand for these housing units will occur in different residential densities. However, as an aggregate measure, the total housing units needed is useful for comparison to the maximum net densities allowed for the various residential land use designations. It should be pointed out that rarely are the maximum net densities achieved, particularly at the higher density lands. For instance, while the Mixed Use Districts allow up to 13 units per acre, historically these acres have developed at much lower densities. This trend has been particularly significant due to the shortage of multi-family dwelling units constructed in the County. Single-family residential developments generally cannot achieve the densities at the high density level (6-13 units per acre), and rarely exceed the threshold for low density development (less than or equal to 2 units per acre). The May 2000, County EAR-Based Plan Amendment for the FLUE, provides residential land use allocation ratios for the year 2015 ranging between 1.63:1 for the Northeast Planning District to 11.59:1 for the Southwest Planning District, and an overall County allocation ratio of 3.08:1. These ratios appear in Joint Exhibit 7A at A-41, Table A-10, and were previously approved by the Department. ("A comparison of the allocation of dwelling units from the available developable land with the projected housing demand by planning district is provided in Table A-10.") Intervenors' expert independently calculated County allocation ratios, including the Nocatee New Town Map Amendment, and arrived at a ratio of 2.33:1 for the Northeast Planning District and 2.9:1 for the entire County, using data available as of February 2001.4 It is at least fairly debatable that these allocations ratios are supported by appropriate data and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Numerous witnesses testified that allocation ratios should not be used as a bright line test because there are no adopted rules or clearly defined professional standards which establish a maximum ratio above which a plan amendment may not go. In other words, use of a maximum allocation ratio as a set upper limit, without consideration of other relevant factors to establish need, would offer no concrete, professionally accepted standard. Sierra offered no independent allocation ratios. Rather, Sierra elicited testimony from County staff that, if a series of assumptions supplied by Sierra were used to calculate the allocation ratios, based on Sierra's concept of using maximum theoretical density, the allocation ratios would be as high as 4.36:1 and 6.1:1 for the Northeast Planning District of the County. In other words, Sierra sought to have the County's calculations redone using the maximum theoretical density allowed under each land use category.5 The allocation ratios offered by Sierra raise a concern that, with the Nocatee development, there is a projected over-allocation of supply to meet the projected demand in the County, and, in particular, in the Northeast Planning District of the County. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the strict maximum theoretical density methodology offered by Sierra was professionally acceptable for use in the County to project the future need in light of the Plan Amendments. In fact, the testimony was that an allocation ratio utilizing the maximum theoretical density may be appropriate if only urban lands are included in the calculation, and if appropriate restrictions on the ability to realize this density are made a part of the equation. Sierra did not so limit its inquiry. Also, the weight of the evidence indicates that the use of maximum theoretical densities, as calculated according to Sierra, is more likely than not to overstate the realistic densities that will be achieved on the land designated for residential use by the County. While not mandating that every subsequent plan amendment must be categorically denied, the presence of an over-allocation will trigger a heightened, more thorough review of the indicators of urban sprawl when considering further plan amendments. Only amendments subjected to this greater scrutiny and still found to discourage urban sprawl may be found "in compliance" in the presence of an over- allocation. On the other hand, a higher allocation ratio may be appropriate in relatively high-growth counties, like the County, to offset the difficulties inherent in forecasting growth. An allocation ratio which is set too low may tend to reduce market choice, resulting in increased housing prices and a reduced employment base. There is persuasive evidence that the Map and Text Amendments meet this heightened level of sprawl analysis. Urban sprawl involves, at its core, the spreading of low density or strip commercial development from urban areas into rural lands. The determination of whether any amendment or plan constitutes urban sprawl is undertaken pursuant to the criteria of Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. The emerging development pattern in northeast St. Johns County exhibits numerous symptoms of sprawl. There is persuasive evidence that the Text and Map Amendments can be reasonably expected to make the situation better by providing "an anti-sprawl alternative to what's there now." The rule applicable to sprawl speaks directly to this situation. If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner offered persuasive evidence to rebut the finding that the Map and Text Amendments improve the existing development pattern in northeast St. Johns County. Sierra attempted to imply that the Text and Map Amendments allow for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development. Contrary to this argument, the evidence shows, for example, that the three to eight dwelling units per net developable residential acre contained in the Text Amendment, coupled with the text provisions directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and the myriad of non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl New Town. The flexibility built into the Text and Map Amendments afford a reasonable ability to change and meet the market demands over a long-term build-out. Natural Resource Protection Every New Town development must adhere to the Policies in the Plan. The Plan Amendment adds additional requirements to the Plan in the environmental section, Policy A.1.19.5, "Environmental Consideration." Policy A.1.19.5 of the Text Amendment affords natural resource protection by requiring that at least 35 percent of any land designated New Town shall be "reserved for Open Space/Conservation lands and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system." "At least 15% of this open space component must be uplands." At least ten percent of a village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. According to Policy A.1.19.5, "[s]ignificant environmental characteristics" must "be incorporated into the New Town design, particularly into the greenway system." The applicant for a New Town designation is required to "provide data and analysis regarding potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to[,] impacts to wetlands, sub- surface waters, and surface waters and the presence of plant and animal species that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern." Natural resource protection is furthered through Objective A.1.19 which states: "The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested from any [DRI] that meets the policies set forth " in the Plan Amendments. The application form for a DRI requires a detailed listing of vegetation and wildlife. Rule 9J-2.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Any flora or fauna identified as listed must be protected in accordance with the Department's "Listed Plant and Wildlife Resources Uniform Standard Rule." Rule 9J-2.041, Florida Administrative Code. Master planning, such as in a DRI, better protects natural resource than piecemeal development. Moreover, there is persuasive evidence that natural resources can be better protected under the New Town category than in the existing Rural/Silviculture land use category. Pursuant to these provisions, there are 5,531 of the 11,332 acres designated as New Town set aside for recreation/open space, "including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses." This set aside is based upon data and analysis compiled through the DRI review process. The Nocatee Preserve (an example of an "environmentally significant characteristic") is the most significant environmental resource on the Nocatee site and establishes additional resource protection. (The Plan Amendments designate approximately 1,630 acres (the Nocatee Preserve) lying above the mean high water line in the "Conservation" land use category. Petitioners do not object to this designation.) This Preserve is a mosaic of uplands and wetlands and includes tidal saltwater wetlands. It includes streams, uplands, and a variety of habitats. It fronts the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) of the Guana/Tolomato preserve areas. The Preserve adds protection for the aquatic preserve. The Nocatee Preserve is located between the Nocatee New Town and the Tolomato River and protects the parcel's approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River (Guana-Tolomato Aquatic Preserve). It is likely to ensure the protection of wildlife habitat on both sides of the Tolomato River and a natural view for recreational boaters and others. In addition to the Nocatee Preserve, which is approximately 1 1/2 miles wide, "the greenways," comprising a minimum of 4,961 acres (at least 960 acres of uplands at build-out) in St. Johns and Duval Counties, will be preserved. Greenways will consist of wetlands and uplands. Vegetative communities currently found on site will be preserved. The County's FLUM series includes Map 9-B, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)." Within the County, the ESL designation is given to OFWs, estuaries, wetlands, essential habitat to listed species, coastal barrier resources and beach and dune systems, and other areas specifically designated by the Board of County Commissioners.6 (Policy E.2.2.5 of the Plan also requires the County to protect ESLs "through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternative types of protection for each type of" ESL.) The weight of the evidence indicates that Map 9-B is a generalized depiction of these ESLs. On its face, the Map contains a disclaimer that the data are provided from multiple sources, with varying degrees of accuracy. In essence, Map 9-B is used by the County for "reference only" purposes, i.e., data and analysis only, and is not intended to be used as a predicate for decision-making, for example, a determination is made as to the "exact location of a wetland jurisdictional line." Map 9-B, although part of the data and analysis, is not the best available data for site-specific analysis. Policy A.1.11.7 of the Plan Amendment states that "[i]n the event of a conflict between any of the Maps and the text of the Plan, the text of the Plan shall control." Pursuant to the Plan Amendments, see, e.g., Policy A.1.19.5, the County requires applicants for New Town plan amendments to provide the County with site-specific information, including environmental, and wildlife surveys (conducted pursuant to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC) requirements),7 including vegetative surveys, in order for the County to determine the extent of ESLs on the property, proposed for New Town designation. See Finding of Fact 95. This information is part of the data and analysis required under the Plan Amendments and is required to be based on professionally accepted methodologies. Site visits by County personnel are also required. Sierra alleges that the protective measures mentioned above in the Plan Amendments fail to adequately address natural resources because the term "significant environmental characteristics" in the Text Amendment and the protections attendant such areas are uncertain, and the depiction of greenways, wetland impacts, and development of the "Sandy Ridge Village" as depicted in various maps attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, allow undue impacts. The operation of the Text Amendment as a whole, including the provision for the protection of "significant environmental characteristics," when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan and Plan Amendments, can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The remainder of Sierra's allegations rest on the presumption that the maps of development areas and greenways attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order are part of the County Plan and are subject to this compliance review. However, the only portion of the Nocatee DRI Development Order incorporated into the Plan and subject to this review is the provision that establishes the "allowable uses and mix of uses." Policy A.1.19.15. The location of those uses, as shown in the Nocatee DRI Development Order is not incorporated into the Plan. (However, Ordinance No. 2001-18, recognizes the importance of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. See Ordinance No. 2001-18, Section 2, paragraph 5). Accordingly, and as further set forth below in the Conclusions of Law, Sierra's allegations that the Plan Amendment must be found not "in compliance," e.g., because of the location of uses and their potential impact on natural resources, is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Nevertheless, the data and analysis supporting the Nocatee DRI have been considered herein in order to determine whether the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." The Nocatee site in Duval and St. Johns Counties is approximately 15,000 acres, of which "approximately 8,000 acres of uplands and wetlands will be preserved in the Greenway, the Preserve and within preserved jurisdictional wetlands in the villages and Town Center Village " Further, it was apparent that when several maps are reviewed together, up to 474 acres of wetlands may be impacted by the development, subject to further permitting. At present, it is speculative as to the precise number of wetlands which will be impacted by the development. However, there are general depictions of wetlands delineated on, for example, Maps H-1 and H-3, which are anticipated to be preserved. Ultimately, the wetlands impacts are required to be addressed on a site- specific basis in future permitting by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District.8 Sierra's expert (Mr. Hoctor) opined that the proposed greenways were, in some instances, too narrow because protected areas should be located at least 330 feet from developed areas due to "edge effect." However, Mr. Hoctor also stated that the distance of the edge effect could be less than 330 feet, although he believed that 330 feet "is a good base-line estimate of edge effects." On the other hand, the County and Intervenors' experts opined that the greenways, as designated, are sufficiently wide, and can be expected to provide adequate habitat to sustain the environmental resources on site.9 In general, on the Nocatee site, buffers of upland areas ranging from 15 to 100 feet will be preserved in their natural state adjacent to wetlands systems. In some areas, the width of the proposed buffers will exceed current County requirements. The buffers serve to push incompatible land uses away from surface waters and protect wetland functions. Further, Deep, Durbin, Smith, and Sweetwater Creeks are proposed to be protected by a minimum 100-foot buffer along the Creeks, which is twice as wide as other County requirements for these areas. (Theoretically, estuary systems, require a 50-foot buffer, whereas the Nocatee project has committed to a 100-foot buffer.) The County Land Development Code requires upland buffers adjacent to contiguous jurisdictional wetlands, and the buffer sizes vary, dependent upon the location of the wetlands. For example, a 50-foot buffer is required along the Tolomato River in areas where the high water line can be set; and in all other areas with contiguous wetlands, a 25-foot buffer and a 25-foot setback are required. As noted in the Nocatee DRI ADA, Question 16, Second Sufficiency Response: "The state-of-the-art stormwater management system proposed for Nocatee will limit the 100-year flood plain to greenways, wetlands, and stormwater management facilities. No post-development developed areas in Nocatee will be in the 100-year flood plain." This representation is adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order. Further, the bald eagle is a protected species and the habitat for the bald eagle is an essential habitat. The bald eagle's nest on-the Nocatee site is being protected by means of a 1,500-foot management zone (360 degrees). (The United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines indicate that a 1,500-foot buffer should be utilized.) Petitioners also offered evidence, by and through the testimony of Mr. Hoctor, that "only about 60 acres of both sand hill and scrub are proposed for protection out of at least 180 acres of zeric communities on site. Most of it long leaf pine sand hill and xeric oak sand hill." According to Mr. Hoctor, these areas include a 70-acre sandy hill parcel in the proposed Sandy Ridge Village, which is not expected to be preserved, and a 25-acre parcel, which will be preserved. (A 17-acre parcel of scrub-type habitat will also be preserved in the southwest corner of the site.) The experts agree that gopher tortoises live in and need sandy soils to construct their burrows. Gopher tortoises will be impacted by the Nocatee development. One of the guidelines set by the FFWCC states that a minimum size patch of 25 acres is necessary for on-site protection of gopher tortoises. The experts disagree as to whether preservation of a proposed 25-acre site (to be incorporated into a 20-mile greenway on-site) is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the gopher tortoises (and gopher frogs, indigo snakes, and other species) on the Nocatee site. The County and Intervenors provided reasonable explanations for requiring the preservation of the 25-acre site (as a significant natural communities habitat) in lieu of the 70-acre site. At the very least, reasonable minds have differed on this issue. It is also subject to reasonable debate whether gopher tortoises will remain on-site given the preserved 25-acre site. On the other hand, the 25-acre site has canopy and good ground cover vegetation for the gopher tortoise community. Also, pursuant to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, "as mitigation for impacts to gopher tortoises and their commensals, the Developer will be responsible for off-site mitigation of the equivalent of approximately 66 acres of habitat, in conjunction with the permit requirements of the [FFWCC]." "This off-site mitigation will be accomplished by the Developer by issuance of an incidental take permit or by purchase of habitat at an off-site location within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council." Total preservation on-site is expected to be approximately 33 percent which exceeds the ten percent Plan requirement. Sherman Fox Squirrels are a species of special concern. It appears that two fox squirrels have been sighted on the Nocatee site in the general vicinity of the St. Johns County/Duval County lines. This species is "highly mobile" and "will very likely migrate to other suitable habitat when the [Nocatee site is developed]." "[F]ox squirrel habitat will be included in the incidental take permit." The preservation of the fox squirrels has been addressed in a general way, i.e., through preservation of significant natural communities and the 8,000 acres of land which is being preserved on-site. Petitioners also presented expert testimony that the Nocatee site is an essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear, which should be protected by preserving a "large swath" of most or all of the southern portion of the Nocatee site which "would serve as a potentially functional wildlife corridor." (The Florida Black Bear is a threatened species. The minimum acreage required to sustain a viable population for the Florida Black Bear is between 500,000 and 1 million acres.) The experts disagreed whether portions of the Nocatee site are essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear population and the extent of the impacts on the Florida Black Bear if the Nocatee site is developed as proposed. (Mr. Hoctor suggested during cross-examination that the Florida Black Bear population, east of U.S. Highway 1 in the County, stood "only a fair to poor chance of being viable.")10 Part of the habitat data discussed by Mr. Hoctor indicates that bear road kills were more than 15 years ago. More recent bear kills have occurred in other parts of the County (west of the river or adjacent to the Twelve Mile Swamp property), but not east of Interstate 95 in the Nocatee area. Even if Florida Black Bears use the Nocatee site, more than one-half of the site (approximately 8,000 acres), which will be preserved for wildlife corridors, potentially may be used by Florida Black Bears for migration and foraging. It is at least fairly debatable whether the environmental components of the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." Land Use Suitability The Nocatee site plan was based upon a land use suitability analysis, considering soils, wetlands, vegetation, archeological sites, and topography. The Nocatee DRI ADA contains appropriate data and analysis, including testimony during the final hearing, related to such topics as "vegetations and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The Nocatee scientists spent approximately 8,000 man hours in the field (on the Nocatee site) over a course of two and one-half years collecting detailed data related to these issues. The data was collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Economic Feasibility In General The Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of a Comprehensive Plan identifies facilities for which local government has financial responsibility, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. (As noted herein, this does not include schools for which the School Board has financial responsibility.) Petitioners raise numerous issues relating to the "financial feasibility" of the Plan Amendments. The record contains detailed data and analysis of existing and future public facility needs. The data and analysis were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. Further, the County conducted a cost benefit analysis of the Nocatee development and determined that the development can be expected to produce a positive revenue stream for capital expenditures in each year. (For example, the County's Budget Director calculated that as of build-out (twenty-five year period), Nocatee will result in a net financial gain to the County of approximately $114 million.) This study was bolstered by Intervenors' cost benefit analysis documenting a net positive cash flow. Public Schools Sierra contends that the Map Amendment runs afoul of the State's growth management laws by not providing a financially feasible development that adequately addresses its impacts on the public school system. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, existing laws do not require local governments to address public schools as part of comprehensive planning. This link between land use and public schools is currently optional and the County has not elected to pursue the option; this election is supported by extant law. There is persuasive evidence that the County is not responsible for funding public school facilities. Rather, the St. Johns County School Board is responsible for such funding. For example, the only portion of the school facilities construction paid by the County occurs when the School Board requests the County to pay for the upgrading of a facility to provide for use as a hurricane shelter. The Nocatee developers agreed to construct at least two such shelters in accordance with the Department of Education's standards. However, the placement of hurricane shelters is a decision made by the County, not the School Board. Furthermore, the County has not adopted a Public School Facilities Element or a school concurrency funding program. (Examples of concurrency requirements for the State of Florida include transportation, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, drainage, and solid waste.) The St. Johns County School Board is an independent taxing authority with an established budget for school construction and operation. Nevertheless, with respect to the New Town Category, elementary schools are allowed within or adjacent to village centers and the Town Center Village. The Nocatee development will require an additional eight schools in the County in order to meet the projected need. (Mr. Toner projected that over a period of 25 years, eight new schools would be needed and that during the five-year planning horizon after construction begins at Nocatee, one middle school would be needed for the projected number of students, i.e., 450 would start to materialize. Mr. Toner desires that schools be built concurrently with development, which does not appear to be required.) The Nocatee developers have agreed to donate, at no charge to the County (or the citizens of the County), land for the eight public schools and to waive a credit against the school impact fees to which the developers would otherwise be entitled. The value of the land donation credit is approximately $12 million. Additionally, by build-out (in the twenty-fifth year), according to Intervenors' data and analysis, the School Board can expect to receive annual net revenue or gain of approximately $9.6 million. It is also expected that over the life of the Nocatee development and, in particular, during the later phases of the development, revenues will "significantly exceed the costs," in light of expected commercial, industrial, and additional residential development "that's generating the student load on the system." Transportation The Plan Amendments add Policy H.1.6.6. to the County's Comprehensive Plan stating: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition No. 25 entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. (See Ordinance No. 2001-18) The "pipelining" method of mitigating transportation impacts has been selected in the Plan Amendments. This method allows the transportation mitigation funds to be used to increase the transportation capacity of some links of a regional roadway network beyond that necessary to offset projected impacts. It allows impacts on the regional roadway network to be handled on a proportionate share basis. Pipelining contemplates that various proportionate share impacts along the regional roadway network are assessed and all of the calculated dollars under the pipelining method are aggregated to create "a pot of money" which is used "to build one or more whole transportation improvements." The pipelining statute takes precedence over the conflicting concurrency requirements of the County. Here, the mitigation package is based upon a "proportionate fair share" calculation, under which Nocatee will pay $99.7 million. This amount is supported by appropriate data and analysis based upon the application of professionally accepted methods. In addition to the payment, the mitigation will include right-of-way donation and roadway construction. Petitioners do not challenge the concept of "pipelining." Rather, Petitioners question whether the transportation components of the Plan Amendments are "economically feasible." Overall, there is persuasive evidence, presented in the form of data and analysis, that with the Nocatee approval and the Plan Amendments, the County's transportation capital funds are likely to be improved both at the 25-year build-out and within the first five years. (State law requires that land use decisions and transportation facility planning be coordinated over the five- year planning time frame in order to maintain and achieve adopted levels of service. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The persuasive evidence indicates that the Nocatee development will not cause any roadway segment to fall below its adopted level of service (LOS) standard during the five-year planning time frame.) Petitioners, largely through the testimony and exhibits offered by Mr. Feldt (a former employee with the County whose area of expertise is transportation), contend that the proportionate fair share calculation was incorrectly calculated and that the Nocatee DRI development data and analysis understates transportation impacts which are likely to arise as a result of the Nocatee development. However, while Mr. Feldt maintained that the $99.7 million allocation would not be sufficient to cover some of the improvements he deemed necessary, such as right-of way, most of his concerns regarding the transportation component of the Nocatee DRI had been satisfied during the DRI review process leading up to the County's approval of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. It is at least fairly debatable that the pipelining transportation component of the Plan Amendments is supported by appropriate data and analysis, which is professionally acceptable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 20th day of May, 2002.
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. 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 30th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
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 concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD 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 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The main issue in this case is whether the Town of Marineland's Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinance 2005-1 on August 18, 2005,1 are "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3194(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005).2 Another issue is whether Petitioners have standing.3
Findings Of Fact Background The Town of Marineland is unique. Its history is not only interesting but helpful to an understanding of why the Plan Amendments may or may not be "in compliance," and also why Petitioners may or may not have standing. Marineland originated as the Marine Studios, which was created so that oceanic life would exhibit natural behavior that could be filmed for feature Hollywood films. The Marineland Attraction (Attraction) followed, and the new word "Oceanarium" was coined. The Attraction was the first marine theme park and served as the model for those that followed. The Town of Marineland was created in 1940 essentially to provide support services for the Attraction. Eventually, the Attraction's founding members died, and the property was sold to a group of St. Augustine investors, with the new entity being called Marineland, Inc. The investors looked at the property as a real estate investment, and the 1992/2005 Plan reflects this vision, calling for a community of 1500 persons and 600 dwelling units. The Town and the Attraction remained interdependent, with the Attraction being the entity that generated revenue and provided for most of the financial needs of the Town. As the face of Florida tourism changed during the 1970's and 1980's, fewer and fewer people came to Marineland, opting instead for the high profile attractions in the Orlando area. Rather than being a profit center for the investors that allowed them leisure to develop the rest of the land at their convenience, the Attraction became a money sink and required the investors to put money in each year to keep the facility going. This was an untenable situation in the long run and ultimately Marineland, Inc., sold its holdings to Marineland Ocean Resort (MOR), which split off another entity, the Marineland Foundation, to manage the Attraction. The Marineland Foundation operated under the umbrella of the Town of Marineland and not specifically as part of MOR. As this was happening, the Town of Marineland found itself having to be self-sufficient for the first time in 55 years. It needed to assume all the trappings of a municipal government and deal with matters that had previously been handled in whole or part by Marineland, Inc. During all these changes various attorneys examined different aspects of the Town's operation and found certain deficiencies. The most serious for land use planning was that the Town had not followed through after adoption of the 1992/2005 Plan and adopted any sort of land development regulations (LDRs). Simultaneously, MOR was considering how to develop the land it had bought. Its model was timeshares, and it considered turning the two oceanfront hotels into timeshare units, building an additional oceanfront timeshare hotel, selling timeshare campground slots, selling timeshare marine slips, and building timeshare units along the riverfront in the maritime hammock. Since the town had no LDRs, MOR would have had a free hand to build anything it pleased. To remedy this deficiency as quickly as possible the Town passed: Ordinance 97-1, which adopted the Flagler County development code provisions for signage, storm water and drainage, wetlands, tree protection, road construction and coastal construction; Ordinance 97-2 to adopt various standard codes relating to amusement devices, buildings, fire prevention, gas, grading, housing, mechanical, plumbing and swimming pools; and Ordinance 97-3 establishing zoning districts and providing for zoning regulations. Ordinance 97- 3 allowed for medium-density housing at four units per acre in the disturbed and cleared areas and at two units per acre in the the partially-disturbed maritime hammock. The intention was to prevent the rest of the maritime hammock, a rapidly disappearing environment throughout Florida and an environment of special concern, from being cleared for river-view timeshare units along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The Town wished to balance the need to preserve important lands with the need to rebuild the town and regain lost population. It was not clear from the evidence how many units of residential development would be allowed under Ordinance 97-3, but it would be less that under the 1992/2005 Plan or under the Plan Amendments. Shortly after these ordinances were passed, MOR, which had been struggling financially and unable to realize any of its development plans, filed for bankruptcy and sale of their holdings. Its attorneys expressed great concern about the effect of the town ordinances on the pending bankruptcy and sale, and pointed out that when MOR filed, the court froze the status quo, preventing the Town from amending the 1992/2005 Plan's future land use map (FLUM) to reflect Ordinance 97-3. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) was successful in purchasing the MOR holdings from the bankruptcy proceedings. The result was a substantial reshaping of the land ownership within the Town. Approximately 90 acres of the most vulnerable lands were purchased from TPL with grant money from Florida Communities Trust (FCT)and set aside for conservation. The University of Florida's Whitney Marine Lab purchased additional land to double its holdings, and Jacoby Development, Inc. purchased about 40 acres of the disturbed lands for development. Concurrent with these activities, DCA awarded two planning grants to the Town under the Remarkable Coastal Place Program. The purpose of the grants was to enable the Town to take advantage of state experts in various aspects of community planning who could help the Town reorganize itself, recover its lost population, and rebuild itself from the ground up. It became apparent during this work that the Town would need a new comprehensive plan, not simply an update to the existing plan, in order to reflect the different structure of land ownership and to support the vision that the stakeholders had created during the planning process of a sustainable community that would be a center of science, education, recreation, and ecotourism. This was begun while state expertise was still available to the town, and once again incorporation of Ordinances 97-1, 97-2, and 97-3 into the existing comprehensive plan and FLUM was put on the back burner, since a new set of LDRs would have to be written to support the new comprehensive plan work in progress. Existing Uses The Town's existing land uses are distributed into two major categories: those found within and those found outside the River-to-Sea Preserve. The Preserve Approximately 89 acres of the total 151+ acres of the Town is off-limits to development through protection in the River-to-Sea Preserve. The River-to-Sea Preserve is undeveloped and vegetated with maritime hammock, coastal strand, beaches, dunes, and approximately eight acres of salt marsh within the Town's boundaries. The land has experienced significant disturbance in some areas. However, the majority of the site consists of native forested and non-forested vegetative communities. Lands covered with coastal scrub growth dominated by saw palmetto are located along the barrier dunes and to some extent to the west along the southern border of the Town but mostly seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line regulated by Florida Department of Environmental Protection. This is a rapidly-disappearing community, and some sites harbor numerous endangered species. For that reason, it is one of three which has been designated by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" within Florida. Development to the south of the Town has left these scrublands as an isolated remnant of the former community. The Preserve protects approximately seven acres of the coastal scrub community located in the Town. The Preserve protects three-fourths (32.6 acres) of the coastal hammock community located in the Town. The coastal hammock community also has been designated as a "Rare and Unique Upland Community" by the FFWCC. This community provides valuable cover and feeding areas for migratory songbirds in fall and spring as they migrate down the Atlantic Coast. Running the length of the Town along the Atlantic Ocean are 8.9 acres of beach area, an area of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the mean low water line to the primary dune system. The north and south ends of the beach are in the Preserve. Outside the Preserve Development in the Town, outside the Preserve, includes the existing Oceanarium facilities, the Whitney Lab, and the presently closed marina facility. Approximately 2.2 acres in the northeastern portion of the Town between A1A and the Atlantic Ocean contain the two original Oceanarium tanks of Marineland and has been included in The National Register of Historic Places. The Marine Park of Flagler has purchased the MOR property and intends to revitalize these areas. The Whitney Lab consists of the Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and the Marine Education Building, all operated by the University of Florida. These facilities occupy approximately 10 acres and are used for educational and research purposes. The Whitney Lab has broken ground on a new Center for Marine Studies and has plans for a Center for Marine Animal Health. The marina facility is located in the northwestern part of the Town adjacent to the ICW. It is 3.4 acres in size. The marina has been closed due to the deteriorating facilities. There is a plan to redevelop the Marina as a "Clean Marina." A smaller (0.74 acre) parcel is located adjacent to the Preserve on the west side of A1A and is the location of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTMNERR) Administrative Offices, classroom, lab, and research facilities. Besides the beach, undeveloped urban lands outside the Preserve consist primarily of an approximately 47-acre, privately-owned parcel located in the center of the Town west of A1A. It is surrounded on three sides by already-developed areas within the Town. It includes approximately 10.3 acres of the Temperate Hardwood Hammock. Adjacent Lands The Flagler County/St. Johns County line passes through the northern tip of the Town so that the Town is primarily located in Flagler County. Flagler County is a fast-growing county having five incorporated municipalities. Land to the north of the Town, located in St. Johns County, consists of undeveloped coastal scrub and dune, saltwater marshes, and single-family houses along the barrier dune and in the vicinity of Summer Haven, a small unincorporated community located on the south side of the Matanzas Inlet. To the south, in Flagler County, there are large areas of coastal scrub and temperate hammock. A residential development called Matanzas Shores is being constructed. This development was permitted by Flagler County after Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review by the RPC. Immediately to the south of this development is the Washington Oaks Gardens State Park. To the west of the Town are saltwater marshes associated with Pellicer Creek, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and the Matanzas River, which is part of the ICW. Pine flatwoods and temperate hammock are on the mainland shore. The Princes Place Preserve, Faver Dykes State Park, and St. Johns River Water Management District lands along Pellicer Creek serve as a 19,000-acre buffer between the ICW and the U.S. 1/I-95 corridor to the west. Two islands located in the Matanzas River estuary have been purchased through the FCT program and are owned by the Town. The southern island is located directly across from the Marineland marina on the west bank of the ICW and on the Flagler/St. Johns County boundary. The north island is on the west side of the ICW just south of the Matanzas Inlet in St. Johns County. The Florida Park Service will manage the islands. Although owned by the Town, these islands have not been annexed into the Town boundaries. It is the intent of the Town to annex these islands and incorporate them into long-term research, education and protection. Density8 On several fronts, Petitioners take issue with the density of development allowed by the Plan Amendments. They point to the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as well as data and analysis concerning erosion, topography (ground elevations), hurricane frequency and severity (or intensity), hurricane evacuation and shelter concerns, and effects on the sensitive environment of the Town and vicinity. CHHA In accordance with the law at the time, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan designated the CHHA to be seaward of the Town's coastal dune. In compliance with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., which required (and still requires) coastal management elements of plans to contain one or more specific objectives which "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas," the Town's 1992/2005 Plan included Coastal/Conservation Element (C/CE) Objective E.1.6, which provided: Marineland shall direct population concentrations away from known or predicted high-hazard areas and shall ensure that building and development activities outside high-hazard areas are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property from hurricanes. Development within Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be restricted and public funding for facilities with[in] Coastal High-Hazard Areas shall be curtailed. Marineland shall provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding. In addition, the Town's 1992/2005 Plan did not allow residential (or any other) development in the designated CHHA. In 1993 the Florida Legislature amended the definition of the CHHA mean the Category 1 hurricane evacuation zone. See Section 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. See also Rule 9J-5.003(17) (defining the CHHA to mean the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study). Rule 9J-5.002(8) requires a local government to "address" rule changes in the next cycle of amendments. Since the entire Town is in the evacuation zone for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the applicable regional hurricane study, the Plan Amendments designate the entire Town as the CHHA. The Plan Amendments allow residential development west of the ocean dune in what is now the CHHA. The Plan Amendments also replace Objective E.1.6 with a new C/CE Objective E.1.6, Hazard Mitigation, which requires the Town to "ensure that building and development activities areas [sic] are carried out in a manner which minimizes the danger to life and property" and "provide a timely review of the hazard mitigation and evacuation implications of applications for rezoning, zoning variances or subdivision approvals for all new development in areas subject to coastal flooding." A series of policies follow the new objective. The question under these circumstances is whether the Plan Amendments adequately address the change in CHHA definition and comply with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. As the following findings explain, it is found that they do. Petitioners contend that they do not and that the Town was required to keep the 1992/2005 C/CE Objective E.1.6, which arguably would prohibit any residential development in the Town. This also would be the result if Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)6. were construed to require the Town to direct all population away from the CHHA. At least some Petitioners candidly would prefer that result, and Petitioners make a seemingly half-hearted initial argument that allowing any residential development in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) would be inappropriate and not "in compliance." But it is clear that such a result is not mandated by the statute or rules. To the contrary, DCA interprets the statutes and rules as not even requiring a re-evaluation or "down-planning" of land uses (in particular, a reduction in residential densities) allowed under an existing comprehensive plan when a local government "addresses" the change in definition of the CHHA by increasing its size. DCA has not required such a re- evaluation anywhere in the State. Rather, DCA interprets the statutes and rules to prohibit the local government from increasing density in the CHHA above the density authorized by its existing comprehensive plan. In this case, the Town not only has designated the new CHHA but also has conducted a re-evaluation and revised its comprehensive plan. Under the rather unusual circumstances here, where the CHHA covers the entire Town, changing residential densities in various parts of the Town is not significant in determining whether population concentrations are directed away from the CHHA. Rather, what is important is the total residential development allowed in the Town as a whole. The Town contends, along with DCA and Centex, that the Plan Amendments reduce residential density in the Town. Petitioners, on the other hand, contend first of all that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments cannot be compared to the 1992/2005 Plan because the existing plan did not establish residential density standards, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes ("[e]ach future land use category must be defined in terms of uses included, and must include standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities"). Instead, Petitioners contend that the 1992/2005 Plan was written in terms of "vague and standardless" design criteria and a policy direction for the Town to adopt LDRs consistent with the design criteria. Primarily for that reason, Petitioners contended that the density allowed by the Plan Amendments had to be compared to the residential density established by Ordinance 97-3 to determine whether the Plan Amendments increased residential density. Regardless of the way it was written, the 1992/2005 Plan was found to be "in compliance." In addition, while the policies in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the 1992/2005 Plan were written in terms of average gross acre lot sizes, maximum lot coverage, and maximum floor area ratios characteristic of design criteria, it is nonetheless possible to calculate (albeit not without difficulty and with room for minor differences in results depending on the approach taken and assumptions made) the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. The adopted FLUM depicted the various residential land use categories, as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a)("[t]he proposed distribution, location, and extent of the various categories of land use shall be shown on a land use map or map series"), and a summary of the total allowable residential land uses was included in data and analysis that accompanied the 1992/2005 Plan,9 making it possible to calculate residential density. Contrary to Petitioners' argument, it is not necessary to use Ordinance 97-3 to determine the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, and there is no other plausible reason, or any precedent, for using land development regulations in that manner. As represented in the data and analysis summary for purposes of calculating the land requirements for housing, the 1992/2005 Plan allowed a maximum of 427 residential dwelling units on 37.7 acres, including apartments above retail uses, which are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed under Housing Element (HE) Policy C.1.1.2 to provide affordable housing. This maximum of 427 assumed 98 apartments above retail uses although more arguably would be allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. In addition, the 1992/2005 Plan's HE Policy C.1.1.1 allowed "out-buildings" as "ancillary structures to the rear of lots containing single family dwellings." Like the apartments over retail, these dwelling units are not depicted on the FLUM but are allowed as of right and theoretically could result in 176 additional dwelling units on a total of 37.6 acres. To arrive at the residential density allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan, DCA's expert added 12 of the approximately 12-20 dwelling units not shown in the summary but mentioned in the data and analysis of the 1992/2005 Plan as being either existing or allowed on the Whitney Lab's 5.4 acres, bringing the total theoretical maximum under the 1992/2005 Plan to 615 residential units on 43 of the Town's 151 acres, at various densities ranging from 2.2 units per acre at the Whitney Lab to 28.8 units per acre for apartments above retail uses, for an average residential density of 14.3 units per acre.10 Centex's expert took a different tack. First, for the apartments over retail uses, he assumed two units per retail use, for a total of 198 units (while also pointing out that there was no cap on these units in the 1992/2005 Plan). Second, he did not include any units for the Whitney Lab because they were not grounded in Plan policies. Using this approach, he arrived at a total of 704 residential units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. While he maintained the validity of that calculation, he pointed out that eliminating the units (both residential units and associated "out- buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve would lower the total to 611 units. The Town's expert did not count apartments above retail uses or the units at the Whitney Lab and arrived at a total of approximately 421-425 dwelling units allowed under the 1992/2005 Plan. When he eliminated the units (residential units with associated "out-buildings") allowed on land now included in the River-to-Sea Preserve, he decreased his total to 275 units. The reason for the differences in his calculation was not clear from the record. Turning to the Plan Amendments, although more typical residential density standards are used, the experts still disagree on exactly what residential density the Plan Amendments allow and achieve. Most development under the Plan Amendments will occur in the Sustainable Mixed Use (SMU) future land use category, which allows a maximum of 241 residential units, a maximum of 50,000 square feet of commercial uses, and accessory residential units for affordable housing. Centex's expert determined that, under the Plan Amendments, the maximum theoretical number of dwelling units that could be developed in the Town, including the SMU category, is 565 units. It is not reasonable to conclude that 565 dwelling units would actually be developed, because this number includes 241 affordable accessory units, one for each residential unit. However, the Town concluded there is only a need for 39 such units. Centex's expert found that 13 of the 39 affordable housing units needed in the Town will be provided in FLUM categories other than SMU--namely, Institution Research (the Whitney Lab) and Conservation. It is more reasonable to expect that only the remaining 26 accessory units needed to address affordable housing will be developed in the SMU category to meet the 39-unit affordable housing need, instead of 241, and that 350 units actually will be built under the Plan Amendments. In his analysis, DCA's expert did not count any affordable housing units in the SMU category in reaching the conclusion that a 315 residential units are allowed under the Plan Amendments. Adding the theoretical maximum of 241, his total maximum theoretical number of residential units would be 553. The record is not clear as to why his numbers differ somewhat from the Centex expert's. The Town's expert somehow arrived at the conclusion that the Plan Amendments allow a total of 279 residential units. Like the DCA expert, he apparently did not count affordable housing units in the SMU category. The reason for other differences in his calculation are not clear from the record. It may be that he did not count residential units in the Tourist/Commercial category, while the others counted 35 units because there is a possibility that 35 condominium units could be developed there instead of 70 hotel rooms. Differences may also involve how he assessed and counted the possibility for residential units in the Institutional Research and Conservation categories. Despite these computational differences, it is clear that the Plan Amendments allow fewer residential units in the Town than the 1992/2005 Plan did, even assuming no residential development under the 1992/2005 Plan in what became the River- to-Sea Preserve. The density allowed under the Plan Amendments is comparable to densities authorized by comprehensive plans north and south of the Town, as well as the actual development that has occurred and is occurring in those areas. Since the entire Town is within the new CHHA, the Plan Amendments can be said to result in a reduction in population concentration within the CHHA by comparison to the 1992/2005 Plan. This also is reflected in the population projections on which the two plans were based. The 1992/2005 Plan was based on a projected total 2005 population of 1,551 people, including 900 permanent and 651 seasonal. The Plan Amendments are based on a projected 2015 population of 630, including 386 permanent residents and 244 seasonal residents and university students living in dormitories at the Whitney Lab. While reluctantly conceding that some residential growth in the Town (i.e., in the CHHA) is appropriate, Petitioners contend that growth must be limited to what is allowed under Ordinance 97-3 because any more growth than that would increase residential density in the CHHA. They argue that Ordinance 97-3 should be the benchmark because the 1992/2005 Plan did not establish residential density but instead relied on Ordinance 97-3 to do so. However, as reflected above, this argument was not supported by the evidence. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, while the Plan Amendments do not include an objective that parrots the words in Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6.--"[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high- hazard areas"--they do have goals, objectives, and policies which do so, as well adequately address the new CHHA definition. Data and Analysis Under the proposed findings in the section of their PRO entitled "Data and Analysis," Petitioners argue that there was a: "Failure to prove need for proposed density." The basis for the argument appears to be that: "[n]o professional methodology was utilized"; that the Town's population estimate was based on the "desires of the stakeholders," i.e., the "property owner investors"; and that the "desire of the stakeholders was for 'approximately 241 dwelling units,' not the at least 565 dwelling units authorized by the Amendments." Petitioners' PRO, at ¶61. But Petitioners did not prove that no professional methodology was used or that the population estimate was based solely on the "desires of the stakeholders." In addition, while the Plan Amendments state that the visioning effort undertaken by the Town for developing the Town's Master Plan under Florida's Remarkable Coastal Place program identified "approximately 241 dwelling units . . . as a target for meeting the permanent residential population of the Town," it also stated that "approximately 315 dwelling units were identified as a target for meeting the sustainability goal of the Town." Joint Exhibit 2, pp. A-14, C-11. Finally, there is no requirement that data and analysis "prove need for proposed density," but only that they support allocations of land for various uses. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth"). Accommodating need for affordable housing on the same land allocated for other residential and commercial development does not run afoul of this data and analysis requirement. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2)(c). No witness for Petitioners opined that the population projection for the Plan Amendments was not supported by data and analysis. To the contrary, several witnesses for the other parties opined that the data and analyses supporting the Plan Amendments were surprisingly comprehensive for a local government the size of the Town and were more than adequate. Land Use Suitability Petitioners' PRO contends: "The data and analysis concerning Town erosion, the low elevation of the Town, increased hurricane frequency and severity, inadequacy of hurricane evacuation time and shelter capacity, the adverse impacts of the land use designations on shellfish beds, estuarine nursery areas, the Tropical Hardwood Hammock, the designation of domestic waste water treatment and discharge facilities in the River to Sea Preserve, and water pollution resulting from foreseeable flooding establishes that the density of the Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land." Petitioners' PRO, ¶63. Erosion and Elevation It is clear that the Town of Marineland, due to its location and low elevation (generally 5-6 feet NGVD west of A1A), has been, is, and will continue to be vulnerable to beach erosion and flood damage from a major hurricane. Several hundred years ago, there was a navigable tidal pass north of the Town. The pass closed naturally through sand and sediment accretion but in recent years the area has been suffering significant erosion, resulting in State Road A1A having to be rerouted and access to homes along the old A1A being severely limited. In 1999, when Hurricane Floyd was 100-150 miles east of the Town in the Atlantic Ocean, significant erosion occurred within the Town, including the waters and sand of the Atlantic Ocean overtopping A1A in the north end of the Town, along with flooding the Town. As a result, the Town was a declared a disaster zone, and FEMA awarded two separate redevelopment grants. The Town's shoreline has been critically eroded, but is stable at this time. Notwithstanding these characteristics of the Town, which contribute to its designation as a CHHA, and as previously discussed, the evidence is clear that the Town is not considered unsuitable for development. To the contrary, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments is considered acceptable. Petitioners also cite evidence that sea level is expected by some to rise approximately 20 inches in the next 100 years. But no qualified witness opined that, for planning purposes, the Town should be considered unsuitable for development for that reason. Hurricane Frequency and Intensity Petitioners also contend that the Town is unsuitable for development in light of data and analysis concerning hurricane frequency and intensity. Indeed, there is persuasive evidence that hurricane frequency and intensity is cyclical and that in about 1995 a period of heightened hurricane frequency and intensity that usually lasts 10-20 years probably began. The evidence was clear that DCA does not consider the frequency and intensity of hurricanes to be relevant data and analysis in evaluating whether comprehensive plan development density and intensity are "in compliance." Rather, this is considered to be a matter to be addressed by the Legislature. So far, there has been no legislation to either further enlarge the CHHA or further restrict development in the CHHA.11 Hurricane Evacuation and Shelter Study Petitioners allege that the Town did not undertake adequate hurricane evacuation planning in connection with the Plan Amendments. Specifically, their PRO cites Section 163.3178(2)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires a comprehensive plan's coastal management element to include: "A component which outlines principles for hazard mitigation and protection of human life against the effects of natural disaster, including population evacuation, which take into consideration the capability to safely evacuate the density of coastal population proposed in the future land use plan element in the event of an impending natural disaster." They also cite Rule 9J-5.012(2), which addresses the requirement that the coastal element be based on the following data and analysis, among others: (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. They point out that Rule 9J-5.003(57) defines Hurricane Vulnerability Zone (HVZ) as "the areas delineated by the regional or local hurricane evacuation plan as requiring evacuation" and that it also requires the HVZ to "include areas requiring evacuation in the event of a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm event." Finally, they cite Rule 9J- 5.012(3)(b)7., which requires one or more specific Coastal Element objectives which: “Maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times.” The evidence was that these planning requirements were met. There are no mandatory state, regional, or local evacuation clearance times. The 1992/2005 Plan included C/CE Objective E.1.5., which provided: "The time period required to complete the evacuation of people from flooding of vulnerable coastal areas prior to the arrival of sustained gale force winds shall be maintained at less than 12 hours." The Plan Amendments replaced that objective with C/CE E.1.5., which now provides: "Evacuation clearance time should be maintained or reduced to less than 12 hours." This complies with Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. The Plan Amendments were based on appropriate data and analysis. Because the entire Town is in the CHHA, the Town population must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories. Evacuation routes for the Town are S.R. A1A north to S.R. 206 in St. Johns County, and S.R. A1A south to Palm Coast Parkway in Flagler County. The best and most current evidence, based on a 2005 update to the RPC's 1998 Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study, indicates that evacuation clearance times for St. Johns County are estimated to be 11 hours for Category 1 hurricanes, 14 for Category 2 hurricanes, 16 hours for Category 3 hurricanes, and 16.75 hours for Category 4 through 5 hurricanes; evacuation clearance times for Flagler County are estimated to be 7.75 hours for Category 1 and 2 hurricanes and 12 hours for Category 3 through 5 hurricanes. The Flagler clearance times are lower than those estimated in a 1998 version of the study, even though based on a higher population, primarily because the widening of the Palm Coast Parkway to four-lanes has been completed. The evidence does not demonstrate that the evacuation clearance times in St. Johns County increased under the 2005 Study. Clearance times are based on the worst bottleneck in a county, where traffic is metered to derive the actual clearance times. Evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will not impact the bottlenecks in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. For that reason, evacuation of Town population would be expected to be take less time than the clearance times calculated for those counties in the RPC's 2005 study; conversely, evacuation of Town residents under the Plan Amendments will have no effect on the overall clearance times in either St. Johns County or Flagler County. Assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 829 dwelling units) under the Plan Amendments, 652 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season (which includes the summer tourist season, which generally corresponds to hurricane season). This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation (i.e., during which 30 percent of the Town's traffic would try to enter the evacuation road network) by 8.7 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 13 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Based on a comparison of maximum theoretical densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and under the Plan Amendments, the number of evacuating vehicles added to the road network is reduced under the Plan Amendments. By comparison, assuming a maximum additional population (resulting from the addition of 565 dwelling units) under the 1992/2005 Plan, 922 cars would be added to an evacuation during high tourist occupancy season. This would increase traffic during the worst theoretical hour of the Town's evacuation by 12.3 percent heading north from the Town on A1A and by 18.4 percent heading south of the Town on A1A. Likewise, based on a comparison of maximum densities under the 1992/2005 Plan and the Plan Amendments, the Plan Amendments result in a reduced demand for shelter space. Obviously, since the entire Town is in the CHHA and must evacuate in a Category 1 and all higher storm categories, there is no requirement for the Town itself to provide hurricane shelter. Similar to most Florida counties, St. Johns and Flagler Counties have deficits in shelter space that are expected to increase as the population increases. According to DCA's Division of Emergency Management (DEM), in 2004 Flagler County had hurricane shelter spaces for 4,267 persons and a deficiency of 2,401 shelter spaces. This deficiency is expected to almost double (be 4,020) by 2008. According to DCA's DEM, in 2004 St. Johns County had hurricane shelter capacity for 7,320 persons, and a hurricane shelter demand of 9,829 people, resulting in a deficiency of 2,509 spaces. In 2009, the St. Johns County shelter demand is projected to be 11,564, “leaving an anticipated shelter deficit of 4,244.” However, the evidence was not clear that the shelters to which Town residents would be assigned are either over capacity or under capacity. In addition, it was not clear that future development would not include the construction of facilities that may serve as shelters. Finally, there was no clear evidence why these anticipated shelter deficits should restrict development in either county, or in the Town, so as to make the Plan Amendments not "in compliance." Natural Resources Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" because of effects on various natural resources in the Town and vicinity, including shellfish harvesting areas, important estuarine nursery for juvenile fish and invertebrates, and the Town's high-quality oak hammock area (also referred to as a maritime hammock, a coastal temperate hammock, or a tropical hardwood hammock.) Petitioners' main argument regarding adverse effects on shellfish harvesting and nursery areas was that flooding during hurricane events will cause household chemicals and other pollutants stored inappropriately at ground level to be released into the environment, probably at a time when juvenile fish are present in the estuarine nursery areas. But there also was persuasive evidence that chemicals released during these kinds of flood events would be substantially diluted by the massive volume of water associated with them, which would greatly reduces any deleterious effects on nursery and shellfish areas. Through C/CE Policies E.1.3.4 and E.1.3.5 in the Plan Amendments, the Town has chosen to impose OFW standards that substantially exceed those that would otherwise be imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District. OFW standards prohibit degradation of water below ambient conditions and typically require the design of stormwater systems that provide 1.5 times the level of treatment that otherwise would be provided for stormwater. There was evidence that shellfish harvesting has declined in the waters of the GTMNEER to the north of the Town over the recent past as the land near these waters has been developed. The evidence was not comprehensive as to the reason(s) for the decline, but poorer water quality generally is thought to be the primary cause. Some shellfish harvesting areas still are productive, including some near the Town where Mr. Cubbedge has an oyster and clam lease. Petitioners presented no testimony related to the temperate hardwood hammock. Centex's expert in environmental analysis observed that portions of the hammock areas have been altered or disturbed and that the higher-quality areas have been placed in the River-to-Sea Preserve where they are protected from development. Much of the natural vegetative communities in the Town are within the Conservation future land use category and not subject to development. To protect 10.3 acres of oak hammock located on land that is subject to development, the Plan Amendments impose a Maritime Hammock Overlay. In addition to otherwise applicable density and intensity standards, development within the Overlay is subject to numerous restrictions on adverse impacts on natural vegetation. Amendment FLUE Policies A.1.8.3. and A.1.8.4. allow only 50 percent of single-family and multi- family parcels to be cleared of trees, understory, and groundcover, and only 25 percent of the tree canopy to be removed. Petitioners also argue that the designation of the "Public Facilities" future land use category in the River-to- Sea Preserve in Amendment Policy A.1.4.2 is unsupported by data and analysis and "fairs [sic] to show the extend [sic] of the category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat., and it does not estimate the gross acreage of the category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." Actually, the statute cited requires the FLUE to designate the "extent of the uses of land," and the rule requires an "analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: . . . 2. The estimated gross acreage needed by category . . . ." There was no testimony or other adequate evidence to support these arguments, and it was not proven that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" for any of these reasons. Conclusion It was not proven that data and analysis concerning the above matters establish that the density of the Plan Amendments is unsuitable for the Town land. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Similar to the Amended Petition and Petitioners' Statement of Position in the Prehearing Stipulation, Petitioners' PRO lists numerous objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments and contends that they are not "in compliance" because they do not provide meaningful and predictable standards. One expert called by Petitioners (Ms. Owen) testified in general that the Plan Amendments contain objectives and policies "which do not contain meaningful and predictable standards" or "that are not measurable or provide any standards or specificity." (T. 359). She also initially testified that the Plan Amendments (at her request) incorporated into data and analysis OFW water quality standards for discharges into the ICW but that "their goals, objectives and policies, as drafted, do not provide specific enough standards to be able to measure that"; later, she conceded that C/CE Policy E.3.5 incorporated OFW water quality standards. Another expert for Petitioners (Mr. Johnson) testified, "I think there's not enough detail in these policies and standards by which somebody could measurably allow growth to occur and measurably predict that it's not going to have an effect, a negative effect, on the environment." Otherwise, Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objectives and policies in the Plan Amendments do not provide meaningful or predictable standards, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." Another expert for Centex (Dr. Dennis) testified specifically that incorporation of the OFW standards in the C/CE and other goals, objectives, and policies were adequate to protect the waters of the ICW and its natural resources and the River-to- Sea Preserve even with the development allowed by the Plan Amendments. Rule 9J-5.005(6) provides in pertinent part: "Goals, objectives and policies shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. This chapter does not mandate the creation, limitation, or elimination of regulatory authority for other agencies nor does it authorize the adoption or require the repeal of any rules, criteria, or standards of any local, regional, or state agency." Rule 9J-5.003 sets out definitions, including: (52) "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. (82) "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. (90) "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Properly understood, these Rules require that an objective's "intermediate end" be specific and measurable in the sense that it can be determined when the "intermediate end" is reached. They do not mean that objectives must eliminate all possibility ambiguity or be amenable to quantitative measurement. They only require that objectives provide "meaningful guidance" and be enforceable in that sense. All of the objectives and policies listed by Petitioners have been reviewed. The evidence does not prove beyond fair debate that any of the listed objectives and policies are inconsistent with the cited Rule provisions, properly understood. Petitioners complain that several of the listed objectives and policies require the adoption of LDRs without including meaningful and predictable standards. In some cases, the objectives and policies themselves provide meaningful and predictable standards. But it is not necessary for comprehensive standards to be included in each such objective or policy. Rather, when required, meaningful and predictable standards to guide the LDR adoption process can be placed elsewhere in the comprehensive plan, as is often the case with the Plan Amendments. (In addition, not all plan directions to adopt LDRs are required by statutory and rule mandatory criteria, and it is possible that all of them may not be required to include meaningful and predictable standards if superfluous.) As they did elsewhere in their PRO, Petitioners contend that FLUE Policy A.1.4.2 does not "state what is the areal extent of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Section 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. or estimate the gross acreage of the 'Public Facilities' land use category as required by Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c)." They also characterize the alleged failing as a lack of meaningful and predictable standards. But as previously mentioned, the Plan Amendments are not inconsistent with that statute and rule. See Finding 73, supra. Petitioners also argue that a listed objective and several listed policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards because they do not contain a percentage distribution of mixed uses.12 Actually, these are two different issues. As already indicated, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the objectives and policies fail to provide meaningful and predictable standards. As for the separate issue of percentage distribution of mixed uses, Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) provides: Mixed use categories of land use are encouraged. If used, policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density or intensity of each use. (Emphasis added.) Petitioners put on no expert testimony to explain why the objective and policies in the Plan Amendments do not meet the requirements of this Rule, and they put on no expert testimony that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance" for that reason. Meanwhile, as already mentioned, experts for the Town (Mr. Brown), Centex (Dr. Pennock), and DCA (Dr. Addai-Mensa) testified in general terms that the Plan Amendments were "in compliance." On the evidence presented, it was not proven beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments do not contain policies with "[an]other objective measurement" of the distribution among the mix of uses in the SMU, General Commercial, and Tourist Commercial land use categories established in FLUE Policy A.1.4.2. H. Petitioners' Other Issues The Amended Petition and Prehearing Stipulation raised other issues that were not included in Petitioners' PRO. Some of these were addressed in the parts of Centex's PRO, which the Town and DCA joined, including financial feasibility, planning timeframes, and deletion of a policy requiring habitats of listed species to be designated Conservation. To the extent that these other issues have not been abandoned by Petitioners, it is found that they were not proven. Petitioners' Standing All of the Petitioners submitted oral or written comments, recommendations, or objections to the Town during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendments on March 31, 2005, and ending with their adoption on August 18, 2006. None of the Petitioners own property or reside in the Town or own real property abutting real property in the Town. The Hamilton Brothers Brothers George William (Bill) Hamilton, III, and Patrick S. Hamilton live in Crescent Beach, which is four to five miles north of the Town in St. Johns County. Together (along with their wives), they own and operate Homecomers, Inc., which does business as Southern Realty of St. Augustine and Crescent Beach (Southern Realty), and as Southern Horticulture, which is located in Crescent Beach or St. Augustine (the evidence was not clear which). Patrick operates the real estate brokerage, which has offices in St. Augustine and in Crescent Beach, and Bill operates the retail garden and landscaping business. The brothers also own part of Coastal Outdoor Center, which is located in Crescent Beach at S.R. 206 and features kayak tours of the Matanzas River, mostly south to Pellicer Creek. The Hamilton family also has oyster and clam leases in St. Johns County. It appears that the vast majority of the brothers' business activities are conducted in St. Johns County north of the Town. However, over the years, some limited business has been conducted in the Town. In 1993 Patrick Hamilton twice brokered the sale of land from Marineland, Inc., one parcel to an private individual and the other to the Whitney Lab. In 1995 he procured a contract for the sale of Marineland, Inc. (and, with it, essentially the entire Town) for a fish farm operation for approximately $10 million; when the contract was breached, Southern Realty got part of the forfeited $100,000 binder. In 1998 Hamilton was authorized by MOR to sell its holdings in the Town for a ten percent commission. Hamilton was successful in efforts to arrange for it to be purchased by FCT and the Trust for Public Lands (TPL) through the bankruptcy court in Jacksonville, and some of the land was immediately resold at a profit to Mr. Jacoby. When Hamilton pursued payment of Southern Realty's brokerage commission through the bankruptcy court, he learned that TPL had indemnified MOR for the brokerage commission. At that point, Southern agreed to accept an $18,000 fee from TPL and drop its bankruptcy claim for ten percent on the overall purchase. In 2002, Hamilton paid for and prepared grant applications for the Town's purchase of two islands that were outside the Town's municipal boundaries but which the Town intends to annex. In September 2004 he wrote an offer on behalf of a trustee of the Whitney Lab to purchase a small parcel of land TPL still owned in the Town and donate it to the Lab. However, no contract was reached, and Southern Realty received no commission. In 2005 Phil Cubbedge asked Hamilton to represent him in the sale of his oyster and clam lease to Centex but then backed out when Centex proposed to deal directly with Cubbedge without Southern Realty's involvement. Southern Horticulture used to do business with the Marineland Attraction but has not done any business in the Town in nine years, since the Attraction went into receivership and did not pay a Southern Horticulture bill in full. The Town never has required the Hamiltons or their businesses to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 Southern Realty applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license to "engage in the business of real estate." This was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. On several occasions over the years, the Hamilton brothers have engaged in various civic activities pertaining to the Town. Most of these activities have been Patrick's. These have included: participation on the management advisory group for the GTMNERR and efforts in the early to mid-1990s to have its Administrative Office established in the Town; efforts in 2000 or 2001 related to the designation of A1A as a scenic highway in St. Johns County, with a segment being in the Town; subsequent work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County; advocacy related to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan; service on the Board of Trustees of the Whitney Lab; and financial contributions to and fund-raising for the Whitney Lab. The brothers do these things out of a sense of civic duty and for the good of the community and their vision for it. However, they also believe these activities provide a benefit for their business, particularly the real estate and outfitting businesses. It is found, based primarily on the activities of Southern Realty, that the Hamilton brothers own or operate a business within the Town. Florida Wildlife Federation FWF is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with approximately 50,000 members and supporters. No FWF members reside or own property in the Town, and FWF does not have an office in the Town. One member (Mr. Cubbedge) has an oyster and clam lease in the Town. Cubbedge, the Hamilton brothers, and Dr. Michael Greenberg, who works and has his office at the Whitney Lab in the Town, are the only members who have a connection to the Town, according to the evidence. In April 2004, FWF established a regional office in St. Johns County outside the Town for the primary purpose of reviewing comprehensive plan amendments, focusing on natural resource protection. FWF monitors growth management and habitat protection during the development stages of the Town, focusing on the draft of the goals, objectives and policies for the comprehensive plan. In furtherance of this effort, FWF’s planning advocate (Ms. Owen) has attended and participated in meetings of the Remarkable Coastal Place work group stakeholder meetings, where they reviewed drafts of comprehensive plan amendments; has talked with elected officials to educate them on FWF (and FOM) concerns; and has attended meetings of and made presentations to the South Anastasia Community Association, a civic organization that holds its meetings in the Town. Through the Post Office and its website, FWF publishes a newsletter with information about FWF’s activities in the state, including fundraising. No evidence was presented that the newsletter is distributed in the Town. FWF’s regional office held a fundraiser in St. Augustine in February 2006 to raise money to pay attorney’s fees and expert witness fees for this proceeding. The Town never has required FWF to obtain and maintain an occupational license, and none was obtained prior to 2004. In 2004 and 2005 FWF applied and paid for and obtained an occupational license "to engage in the business of monitoring growth management and habitat protection." As with Southern Realty, this was done in response to a finding in the Recommended Order in a previous administrative challenge to St. Johns County plan amendments by FWF and FOM that neither had an occupational license in the County. Based on the evidence, it is found that FWF owns or operates a business within the Town. Friends of Matanzas FOM is a not-for-profit Florida corporation established in 2001 to preserve and protect the estuary and its watershed, and to maintain the rural beach community, particularly on South Anastasia Island and in southern St. Johns County to Marineland. FOM has 34-44 members. No FOM members reside in the Town, but at least two of them--its current president, Dr. Greenberg, and Maureen Welsh--work at the Whitney Lab. The Hamilton brothers also are members. FOM itself does not have an office in the Town. However, Dr. Greenberg is its president, and he may keep some FOM records and documents in his office at the Whitney Lab. There was no evidence that FOM ever has had a Town occupational license, or that the Town ever has required it to have one. In part (if not primarily) through the activities of the Hamilton brothers, FOM has been involved in: efforts in the mid-1990s to have the Administrative Office of GTMNERR established in the Town; efforts, including production of a video in 2000 or 2001, related to the designation of A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town, as a scenic highway; and work to persuade the Florida Department of Transportation to construct a bike path along A1A in St. Johns County, including within the Town. There also was evidence that FOM holds annual meetings in the Town. Based on the evidence, it is found that FOM does not own or operate a business within the Town.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 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 28th day of April, 2006.
