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 Whether an amendment to the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted by ordinance number 92-029 has rendered the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan not "in compliance", within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is a state agency charged pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), with responsibility for, among other things, the review of comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. The Respondent, St. Lucie County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the local government charged with the responsibility pursuant to the Act for developing a comprehensive plan for future development in the unincorporated areas of the County and the approval of amendments to the County's comprehensive plan. The Intervenors, Brian Charboneau and Kathy Charboneau, are the owners of a parcel of real property located in the County, which is the subject of the comprehensive plan amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. The parties stipulated that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. General Description of the County. The County is a generally rectangular-shaped area located on the southeastern coast of Florida. The County is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Okeechobee County, on the north by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County. Geographically, the County consists of approximately 600 square miles, or approximately 384,000 acres. Approximately 513 square miles, or approximately 328,320 acres, of the County are unincorporated and subject to land use planning by the County. The significant man-made features of the County include Interstate 95, the Florida Turnpike, State Highway 70 and the Fort Pierce International Airport. The airport is operated by the County. There are two incorporated areas within the County: Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The majority of urban development within the County is located within these municipalities and consists mainly of detached, single-family residential dwellings and multifamily units. The estimated permanent population projected in the Plan for the County in 1990 was approximately 151,700. Including seasonal population, the estimated population for the County for 1990 was approximately 182,400. The majority of the County's land area is used for citrus production. The majority of the agricultural land use in the County is located within the County's unincorporated area, to the west of Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, which both run generally north and south through the County. As a result of recent cold weather in areas of Florida north of the County, citrus production in the County has increased in recent years by approximately 35,500 acres between 1978 and 1992. Major natural divisions of the County are the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (including barrier islands), the Eastern Valley and the Osceola Plain. Adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan. On January 9, 1990, the County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"). The Plan applies to, and governs growth within, the unincorporated area of the County. The Plan excludes areas within the municipalities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. (Unless otherwise specified, any further reference to the County constitutes a reference to only the unincorporated areas of the County subject to the Plan.) The Plan was based, in part, on an earlier comprehensive plan adopted by the County in 1975 pursuant to the former Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. The goals, objectives and policies of the Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan were adopted by the County by ordinance. Data and analysis submitted by the County to the Department with the Plan was not adopted by the County by ordinance. The Department reviewed the Plan and on March 21, 1990, filed a Statement of Intent to find the Plan not "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. A notice of the Department's determination was published in a local newspaper. The Department determined that the Plan was not "in compliance", in part, because of a conclusion that the Plan allocated twice as much land area to residential land use categories as data concerning the expected population of the County for the year 2015 justified. The Department, therefore, concluded that the Plan was not based on data and analysis, and did not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The County and the Department entered into settlement negotiations which resulted in the execution of a Stipulated Settlement Agreement in October of 1990 disposing of the Department's objections to the Plan. Pursuant to the agreement, the Department agreed that it would find the Plan "in compliance" if the County adopted certain remedial amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The terms of the agreement were subsequently carried out. See DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments were adopted in part due to the Department's concern about the the proliferation of urban sprawl. This concern was addressed through the remedial amendments by adding certain development controls and requiring clustering of residential development on lands classified agricultural. The remedial amendments also included Policy 1.1.2.4 and Policy 1.1.2.5. Policy 1.1.2.4 is quoted, infra, in finding of fact 123. Policy 1.1.2.5 provides: Provide adequate buffering and/or setbacks between agriculture and non-agricultural uses to protect such agricultural uses from adverse impacts associated with enforcement of nonagricultural development or creation of nuisances by agricultural operations. DCA exhibit 4. The remedial amendments also include Objective 1.1.5 and related policies governing development within the Urban Service Area. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflect a long-term planning period of twenty-five years, ending with the year 2015. In the Introduction of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan (DCA exhibit 1 and St. Lucie County exhibit 1), there is a general description of the Future Land Use Element: The Future Land Use Element has been divided into a series of sections which analyze the existing patterns of development within the community, portray future patterns of develop- ment and recognize unique or special areas within the community that should be considered in future land use determinations. Integral to the success of the Comprehensive Plan are the Goals, Objectives, and Policies which will be used to direct the location and intensity of development for the variety of uses necessary for a healthy and diversified community. Page 1-1, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes the following "major development philosophy": Over the years, the County has been requested to approve development proposals that would permit the encroachment of urban uses in areas previously used for agricultural purposes. Many of these areas are outside of what may be considered the communities existing urban form or pattern. As discussed later in this element, the cost of providing the necessary community services to these development sites is becoming an increasing community concern. . . . Page 1-6, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Future Land Use Element of the Plan goes on to recognize the importance of citrus production: The major use of land within the unincorporated areas of the County is agriculture. Well over 60 percent of the County is presently used for the production of citrus, cash crops or ranching activities. These agricultural activities account for St. Lucie County being ranked among the top citrus producers in the State of Florida, contributing substantially to the local and regional economy. Page 1-11, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Sixteen general categories of future land use are identified and defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan: Agriculture: 5 and 2.5. Residential: Estate, Suburban, Urban, Medium, High. Residential/Conservation. Conservation-Public. Commercial. Industrial. Public Facilities. Transportation/Utilities. Historic. Mixed Use. Special District. The density of development for the residential categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per acre for Estate, 2 units per acre for Suburban, 5 units per acre for Urban, 9 units per acre for Medium and 15 units per acre for High. The density for residential use of the agriculture categories established in the Plan are 1 unit per 2.5 acres for Agriculture-2.5 and 1 unit per 5 acres for Agriculture-5. Population estimates contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan are based upon estimates of population of the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The Plan indicates that the County has determined that the University's "high" projections appear to reflect more accurate population projections for the County. The projections concerning population contained in the Future Land Use Element and in this Recommended Order are based upon those "high" projections. Based upon the Plan's data and analysis projections, it is estimated that the permanent population of the entire County was 135,715 in 1988 and 318,650 in 2015. With the seasonal population added, based largely on agriculture related increases in population, the population was estimated at 154,141 in 1988 and 382,380 in 2015. Thus, the estimated increase in the population for the entire County from 1988 to 2015 is 182,935 permanent residents and 219,522 permanent and seasonal residents. In the County alone, the permanent population is estimated to be 54,226 in 1988. For the year 2015, the estimated permanent population is 93,045. With the seasonal population added, the population for 1988 is estimated at 65,119 and 111,654 for the year 2015. Therefore, the estimated total increase in population for the year 2015 is 38,779 permanent residents and 46,535 permanent and seasonal residents. For the year 1988, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan includes an estimate that the existing acreage being used for residential purposes was 16,900 acres. The Plan's Housing Element includes an estimate of only 12,369 acres of residential land use in 1988. To determine projected residential land use needs for the year 2015, the Future Land Use Element provides the following: For the purpose of determining the future land use needs in the community, a ratio has been established which is based upon current (1988) development conditions. This ratio was determined by dividing the seasonal population of the County in 1988 by the estimated amount of land consumed by broad land use category type. . . . Page 1-22, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Actually, the ratio was determined by dividing the permanent population of the County in 1988, and not the seasonal population, by the estimated amount of land being used for residential purposes. The ratio of population in 1988 to residential acreage use in 1988 results in an estimate of the historical, minimum amount of residential acreage used in the County per 1,000 residents. Thus, it is concluded in the Plan that 312 acres (16,900 acres in residential use in 1988 divided by 54,226 permanent residents in 1988), or .312 acres per person have been used historically for residential purposes. Based upon the estimate of land in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element of the Plan, the ratio is .228 (12,369 acres in 1988/54,226 1988 population). Applying the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 to the projected seasonal population in the year 2015 of 111,654, the Future Land Use Element of the Plan estimates that the total residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will be 34,836 acres: 111,654 x .312 = 34,836. The estimated total residential acreage needed in the year 2015 based upon the estimated residential acreage in 1988 contained in the Plan's Housing Element is 25,457 acres: 111,654 x .228 = 25,457. If the historical ratio of permanent residents per acre of residential acreage of .312 is applied to the projected increase in permanent population by the year 2015 of 38,779, the additional residential acreage needed by the year 2015 will only be 12,099 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 28,999 acres of residential land for permanent residents by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 12,099 projected need). Using the Plan's Housing Element ratio of .228 and the projected increase in permanent population results in a conclusion that there will be a need for an additional 8,841 acres of residential land. Based upon the projected population growth in permanent and seasonal residents for the year 2015 (46,535 increase in seasonal population) and applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people (.312), the projected additional acreage needed for residential use by the year 2015 is 14,518 acres. Based upon this analysis, there will be a need for a total of 31,418 acres of residential land for the seasonal population by the year 2015 (16,900 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). Applying the Plan's historical ratio of residential acres per 1,000 people to determine projected additional residential acreage need and using the projection of acreage in residential use in 1988 contained in the Housing Element, there is a need for only 26,887 total acres of residential land (12,369 1988 acres + 14,518 projected need). In the Plan, the County applied the historical residential ratio of .312, which is based upon 1988 permanent population, to the total projected 2015 permanent and seasonal population of 111,535 and concluded that there is a need for a total of 34,836 acres for residential use in 2015. This amounts to a total of 17,936 additional acres (34,836 - 16,900). Based upon the calculations contained in findings of fact 33 through 37, the Plan's projection of additional residential acreage is incorrectly high. Whether the Plan's higher estimate of need is used does not, however, appreciably affect the following determinations. Therefore, for purposes of this Recommended Order, the Plan's incorrect estimate of additional residential acreage needed will be used. The Future Land Use Map of the Plan reflects the County's conclusion that there are approximately 70,989 acres of land in the County available for residential use, not including potential residential development of land designated for agricultural use of one dwelling per 2.5 acres or per 5 acres, and excluding land involved in three amendments to the Plan, including the subject amendment. The 70,989 acres includes acreage already in residential use in 1988 (16,900 acres) and vacant acreage available for residential use through the year 2015. It is estimated in the Plan that there are 2.34 people per dwelling unit in the County. The remedial amendments to the Plan the County agreed to adopt did not remove any of the 70,989 acres of land allocated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use, modify densities, or modify the agricultural classifications of the Future Land Use Map. The Plan designates a portion of the County as an Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The Urban Service Area is generally described, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . . This area represents the preferred regions for development at urban intensities. The area indicated is the most likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided by either a municipal utility or a privately operated regional enterprise. The intent of the urban service area designation is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low density development pattern and the fiscal burden that pattern of development has on the ability of the community to meet its service needs. The Urban Service Area is not designed to be a permanent or static limitation on growth. Rather, it is intended to indicate the areas of the County that can reasonably be expected to be provided with necessary community services during the fiscal planning periods of this plan [to 2015]. . . . . Page 1-40, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The western boundary of the Urban Service Area runs generally north and south along the western boundary of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. Future Land Use Objective 1.1.4 and Policies 1.1.4.1 through 1.1.5.9 deal with the Urban Service Area. Objective 1.1.4 of the Future Land Use Objective provides: In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development shall be directed to areas where the provision of urban and community services/facilities can be ensured. Page 1-59, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. In pertinent part, the Policies related to Objective 1.1.4 provide the following: Policy 1.1.4.1 Encourage the location of urban land use intensities, through the development of density bonus and incentive programs in the Land Development Regulations, to those areas that lie within the defined urban service boundary before encouraging/supporting the conversion of property in the agricultural and suburban areas to higher intensity urban uses, but still keeping all development authorizations in line with the adopted levels of service within this plan. Policy 1.1.4.2 Require that new development be designed and planned in a manner which does not place an unanticipated economic burden upon the ser- vices and facilities of St. Lucie County. Policy 1.1.4.3 Encourage the use of cluster housing and planned unit development techniques to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas, through the incorporation of the following into the County's Land Development Regulations: The establishment of minimum acreage requirements necessary to support a viable mixed use community providing sufficient design flexibility to allow innovation and creativity in all forms of planned unit developments; The establishment of minimum open space ratios of 30 percent or greater in all planned unit developments including within the PUD documents assurances on the part of the developer that such areas will remain as open space to protect existing native habitat, to provide for minimum setback needs from adjacent uses, and to provide active and passive recreational as well as visual amenities. The establishment of minimum open space standards; The establishment of provisions ensuring the long term preservation of remaining open spaces; The establishment of a mixed use district combining residential, commercial, recreational, educational, and other income producing uses providing significant functional and physical integration among uses; The establishment of minimum standards for the provision of on-site shopping, job opportunities and internal trip capture; and, The establishment of specific requirements to provide efficient, centralized infrastructure (potable water and sanitary sewer). Include specific restrictions on the use of septic tanks, individual wells, and package plants in planned unit developments. Policy 1.1.4.4 Provide for the calculation of gross residential density on lands that lie above the mean high water elevation. Provide for the ability to transfer/cluster of residential density from wetland and other sensitive or unique environmental habitats to upland areas on contiguous property. Pages, 1-59 through 1-62, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. The Plan indicates that the Urban Service Area is likely to have centralized water and wastewater services provided. There is no firm commitment in the Plan, however, to provide central water and sewer services for development within the Urban Service Area. Policy 1.1.5.1 of the Plan provides that urban development activities are restricted to the Urban Service Area. The Policy also provides that "urban development activities" include "any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre . . ." for purposes of the Policy. The densities of Policy 1.1.5.1 for residential development are more dense than what is generally considered as an "urban density". The land located outside of the Urban Service Area is classified almost exclusively as Agriculture-2.5 or Agriculture-5. There are a few areas which abut the Urban Service Area boundary line which are classified for residential use, including a few small parcels which were in existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The Plan does not indicate the current or future existence of urban development within the Urban Service Area. A wide range of development densities and intensities are provided for in the Plan for the Urban Service Area. With regard to development in the Urban Service Area, the Plan provides, in part, the following: It is the position of St. Lucie County that in order to permit the mechanics of the free market system to operate openly, there must be a choice in where to locate future development. Offering the possibility of various development areas, when located within the defined urban service area, is not supportive of a pattern of urban sprawl. Page 1-24, St. Lucie County exhibit 1. Amendments to the Plan. Since the determination that the Plan was "in compliance", the Plan has been amended three times, including the subject amendment. One amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 2.1 acres of land from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Furlong Amendment"). Another amendment amended the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 9.57 acres of land from Residential Urban to Commercial (hereinafter referred to as the "Hayes Amendment"). Finally, the subject amendment amends the Future Land Use Map to redesignate the future land use of approximately 164 acres of land owned by the Intervenors from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Amendment"). The Charboneau Amendment. On September 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of the County adopted Ordinance No. 92-029 approving the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, as adopted by the County, is effective only if it is ultimately determined that the amendment is "in compliance". After review of the Charboneau Amendment, the Department determined that it was not "in compliance". This determination was reflected in a notice which the Department caused to be published and in the Department's Statement of Intent of November 11, 1992. The Charboneau Amendment modifies the future land use classification of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate. Agriculture-2.5 allows residential use of the property of no more than one unit per 2.5 acres. Residential Estate would allow residential development of the property of one unit per acre. The Charboneau Property and the Surrounding Area. The subject parcel consists of approximately 164 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the "Charboneau Property"). The Charboneau Property is generally rectangular shaped with several parcels of land in the southern portion of the parcel which are not included in the Charboneau Amendment. Those "out parcels" retain their future land use designation of Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. The Charboneau Property represents approximately five one-hundredths of one percent of the 328,230 acres of unincorporated land in the County. The northeastern portion of the Charboneau Property consists of cleared land used for grazing a small number of cattle. The remainder of the property is not being actively used for agriculture or other purposes and is covered by pine flatwood and palmettos. The Charboneau Property is located in approximately the geographic center of the County. It is outside, but on the fringe, of the major development areas of the County. The Charboneau Property is bounded generally on the east by Gentile Road, a two-lane dirt road running north from State Road 70. State Road 70, also known as Okeechobee Boulevard, is located to the south of the Charboneau Property. State Road 70 is a major east-west arterial road. It connects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 area, which are located within the Urban Service Area to the east of the Charboneau Property, with Fort Pierce. Access to the Charboneau Property is off Gentile Road. The Charboneau Property is located to the west and outside of the Urban Service Area designated by the Plan. Prior to the adoption of the Charboneau Amendment, the parcel of property generally contiguous to the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property was also located outside the Urban Service Area. The boundary of the Urban Service Area had been located contiguous to the eastern boundary of the adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel and the Charboneau Property are separated by Gentile Road. In conjunction with the adoption and transmittal to the Department of the Charboneau Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners of the County initiated, directed and ratified a relocation of the Urban Service Area boundary approximately 1,000 feet to the west. This placed the Urban Service Area boundary at Gentile Road. This modification in the Urban Service Area was consistent with the Plan, which allows a modification of the boundary of the Urban Service Area of up to 1,500 feet without plan amendment. As a consequence of the modification of the Urban Service Area, most of the eastern boundary of the Charboneau Property is contiguous to, but still outside, the Urban Service Area. On the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a canal. The canal is approximately thirty feet wide, although the width of the water in the canal is less. The canal is approximately six feet deep. To the north and northeast of the canal are citrus groves in active agricultural production. The property (hereinafter referred to as the "Coca- Cola Property"), is owned by Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola Property is classified as Agriculture-2.5 in the Plan. Except for certain small pockets of property which border on the Charboneau Property which are described, infra, the property to the north, northwest and west of the Charboneau Property are used predominantly for citrus. Most of this property consists of large tracts of corporate-owned land. To the north of the Coca-Cola Property are also large tracts of property owned by government agencies. To the northeast of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the University of Florida which is used for citrus research. To the northwest of the Coca-Cola Property is a tract owned by the United States Department of Agriculture. The County also operates a livestock farm in the area. To the northwest of the Charboneau Property and to the west of the portion of the Coca-Cola Property abutting the northern boundary of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property known as Fort Pierce Gardens. Fort Pierce Gardens is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. The future land use classification of Fort Pierce Gardens is Agriculture- 2.5. The lots in Fort Pierce Gardens range in size from one acre to five acres. There are a few houses already constructed and a few more houses under construction in Fort Pierce Gardens. Development of Fort Pierce Gardens is less than half complete. Adjacent to the western boundary of the Charboneau Property is a tract known as Pine Hollow Subdivision. Pine Hollow Subdivision is a residential subdivision which apparently was not subject to the requirements of the Plan because of its existence prior to adoption of the Plan. It is approximately the same size as the Charboneau Property. The future land use classification of the parcel is Agriculture-2.5. Pine Hollow Subdivision consists of 110 platted lots that are being developed in phases. The first phase consists of thirty lots which are still under development. A County maintained road has been constructed in phase one. Development of the other phases has not begun. The remaining portion of the tract has three rough-cut dirt roads. The subdivision is less complete than Fort Pierce Gardens. Lots in Pine Hollow Subdivision are slightly larger than one acre. Homes in the subdivision will use wells and septic tanks. To the west of Pine Hollow Subdivision and Fort Pierce Gardens is a large area of land used for citrus. These lands are designated Agriculture-2.5 and Agriculture-5. To the south and southwest of the Charboneau Property is a parcel of property with an airstrip which has been used by crop-dusting airplanes. The airstrip is oriented in a southeast-to-northwest direction. The airstrip and the parcel of land to the south of the Charboneau Property and north of State Road 70 is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the future land use map. The airstrip is not currently being used for crop-dusting aircraft. Improvements have recently been made to the airstrip, however, which evidence an intent to use the airstrip in the future for crop dusting activities. Hearsay evidence corroborates this finding. The land to the south of the Charboneau Property and south of State Road 70 is in use for citrus production. The parcel between the Charboneau Property and State Road 70 is named Walsh Farms. The property to the south and southeast of State Road 70, while currently used for citrus production, is designated Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map, allowing development of two dwelling units per acre. This property is, however, located inside the Urban Service Area. To the east of Gentile Road is a parcel of property approximately the same size, north to south, and about half the size, east to west, as the Charboneau Property. This parcel has been developed as what was characterized as rural ranchette. There are approximately eighteen large lots of four to five acres up to ten to twenty acres. The lots in the parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Ranchette Property"), have single-family homes constructed on them and the lots also have some citrus and horses. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the Ranchette Property was being used for commercial agricultural purposes. The parcel is designated Agriculture-2.5 on the Future Land Use Map. One parcel of approximately 2.5 acres located within the Ranchette Property was the subject of the Furlong Amendment. To the immediate east of the Ranchette Property, bounded on the south by State Road 70 and on the east, in part, by the Florida Turnpike, is an area designated as Residential Suburban on the Future Land Use Map. The area, which lies within the Urban Service Area, is largely undeveloped at this time except for a development known as Hidden Pines. Hidden Pines is a vested subdivision. Hidden Pines consists of lots of approximately one acre. The homes on these lots are served by wells and septic tanks. The subdivision is nearly completely built-out. Approximately 1.3 miles to the east of the Charboneau Property is the center of an area immediately to the north of where the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 cross. From this point, the Florida Turnpike travels to the northwest, and closest to the Charboneau Property, from the crossing with Interstate 95. Interstate 95 travels to the northeast, and furthermost from the Charboneau Property, from the crossing. Immediately to the north of the crossing State Road 70 intersects the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95 in a generally east-west direction. The western boundary of this area is approximately two-thirds of a mile from the southeast corner of the Charboneau Property. There is an interchange of the Florida Turnpike immediately to the north of the crossing and just to the south of State Road 70. There is also an interchange of Interstate 95 to the north of the crossing at State Road 70. State Road 70 becomes a six-lane arterial road to the east of the Florida Turnpike. There are no level of service deficiencies on this portion of State Road 70. The area within and immediately outside the area north of the crossing, west of Interstate 95 and east of the Florida Turnpike, is designated as the Okeechobee Road/I-95 Mixed Use Activity Area. The area may be used for varied, compatible commercial uses and residential use up to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The Mixed Use Activity Area is currently being developed. There are hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants and an outlet mall already in existence in the area. Another outlet mall is being constructed. Reynolds Industrial Park, consisting of approximately 200 acres, is being developed. To the northeast of the Charboneau Property and the Coca-Cola Property to the east of Gentile Road is an area designated Residential Estate. This area is within the Urban Service Area and currently is undeveloped. Part of the property is used for citrus production. In summary, the area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property, is designated for agricultural uses except for Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision. Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow Subdivision are isolated islands of development within an area actively used for agriculture purposes. Insufficient Data and Analysis to Justify an Increase in Residential Acreage by the Designation of the Charboneau Property As Residential Estate. In the Department's Statement of Intent, it was concluded that the Charboneau Amendment is not "in compliance" based upon the lack of data and analysis to support the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture- 2.5 to Residential Estate with a designated density of one dwelling per acre. Currently, the Agriculture-2.5 classification of the Plan allows one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres, or a total of approximately 65 residential units on the Charboneau Property. The Plan, however, requires that any non-agricultural development of over twenty units within an Agriculture-2.5 classification must maintain open space of at least 80 percent of the project site in order to retain some viable agricultural use of the property. Residential Estate does not require clustering of units or open space. A total of approximately 163 residential units, one per acre with no open space, or a maximum of an additional 98 residential units can be constructed on the Charboneau Property if the Charboneau Amendment is approved. When the Charboneau Amendment was submitted to the Department for review, the County failed to provide any data or analysis in support of a potential increase in residential units of 98 units or the change in classification of the appropriate use of the Charboneau Property from agricultural to residential. For example, no analysis of the number of acres in the County which are available for development at one unit per acre was performed by the County. The data and analysis of the Plan and, in particular, the Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map, allocate a total of 54,089 acres for new residential development in the County through the year 2015 to accommodate the need for residential property for projected increases in population (70,989 total acres available - 16,900 acres in use in 1988). If the acreage used for residential purposes in 1988 evidenced by the Housing Element is used, the Plan allocates a total of 58,620 acres for new residential development (70,989 total acres available - 12,369 acres in use in 1988). Based upon the Plan, there is a need for only 17,936 additional acres of residential property to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. See finding of fact 38. With 54,089 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 17,936 additional acres, there are 3.01 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. If the Housing Element historical ratio of use is used, there are only 13,088 acres of residential property needed to accommodate projected population increases through the year 2015. With 58,620 acres available for residential development through the year 2015 pursuant to the Plan and a need for only 13,088 additional acres, there are 4.47 times the number of acres of land designated pursuant to the Plan to accommodate need projected under the Plan. Applying the historical ratio of residential use to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 12,099 acres for residential use by the year 2015. Finding of fact 35. This projection represents 4.47 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (54,089 projected acres/12,099 projected need). Applying the historical ratio of residential use based upon the Housing Element of the Plan to only the projected additional permanent population indicates a need for an additional 8,841 acres for residential uses by the year 2015. Finding of Fact 35. This projection represents 6.63 times the number of acres needed for projected new residential growth based upon existing ratios of residential land use (58,620 projected acres/8,841 projected need). Although approved by the Department, the evidence in this case proved that the Plan contains a designation of sufficient land in the County through the year 2015 to more than adequately meet the reasonably anticipated need for residential property. In fact, the Plan over-allocates land well in excess of any reasonable expectation of the amount of property needed to meet such needs. Even based upon the Plan's projections, the County has allocated more than 3 times the land needed to meet the County's own projections for the need for residential land for the year 2015. While the existing provisions of the Plan are not subject to review, when asked to consider an amendment providing for an increase in residential property, the existence of excessive residential property should not be ignored. In this case, to ignore the realities of the excessive allocation of land for residential purposes in the County contained in the Plan and approve the classification of additional property as residential, would simply exacerbate an already existing excessive allocation. The conclusion that there is excessive land available for residential purposes already contained in the Plan is supported by the population per unit in the County of 2.34. If it is assumed that the 54,089 acres of land available for residential development in the County are developed at a low density of one unit per acre, there will be adequate residential land available for an additional 126,568 people: 54,089 acres, or 54,089 units, x 2.34 people per unit = 126,568 people. Based upon a projected permanent and seasonal population increase by the year 2015 of 46,535 people, there is available for residential use 2.71 times the acreage available to meet future residential needs. In light of the fact that residential property may be developed at much higher densities pursuant to the Plan, assuming development of one unit per acre is conservative, and the number of people that may be accommodated is much higher than 126,568 people. Although not reflected in the Plan, there has been a removal of some property classified as residential property from residential use since the adoption of the Plan. The County has acquired 94 single-family homes on 100 acres designated for Residential Estate use. The 100 acres are located to the east of the Ft. Pierce International Airport and were acquired for noise abatement purposes. The homes on the property have been demolished. An additional 90 homes on land classified Residential Urban will also be acquired and demolished. The State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program, Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, has also acquired property known as the Avalon tract. The property is located on Hutchinson Island, in the northeast corner of the County. This property had been designated Residential Urban and could have contained approximately 450 units. Even with the removal of the property near the airport and the Avalon tract from the residential property inventory, the Plan contains an excessive allocation of property for residential needs through the year 2015. Based upon the foregoing, data and analysis has not been submitted by the County to justify an increase in residential property or property which may be developed at an increased density. There is already an over-allocation of property for residential land use and, even with the reductions of property near the airport and the Avalon tract, the addition of the Charboneau Property will only result in a Plan with greater over-allocation of land for residential purposes or increased densities. Proliferation of Urban Sprawl. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(b)7, Florida Administrative Code, comprehensive plans are required to discourage the proliferation of "urban sprawl". The ill effects of urban sprawl include inequitable distribution of the costs of development and of providing services, inefficient use of land, unnecessary destruction of natural resources, loss of agricultural lands and increased commuting costs and the resulting pollution. In November 1989, the Department published a Technical Memorandum which describes the Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl". The Department's policy has been further refined and is reflected in proposed amendments to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, proposed Rule 9J-5.003(140) and 9J-5.006(6), Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with, and represent, the Department's policy concerning urban sprawl. The Department's policy concerning the definition of "urban sprawl", as set out in the proposed rules and as contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, is consistent with the definition of "urban sprawl" most commonly employed by professional planners. The Department's proposed rules concerning urban sprawl do not have the effect of law. They have not yet been finally adopted. The proposed rules have not been relied upon, however, by the Department or the undersigned as "law" in this case. The proposed rules concerning urban sprawl have only been relied on as an expression of the Department's policy. The Department's policy concerning urban sprawl, as evidenced in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum, and as modified by the Department's proposed rules, is reasonable. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" contained in the November 1989 Technical Memorandum is: . . . scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades lands important for environmental and natural resource protection. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patterns: (1) leapfrog development; (2) ribbon or strip development; and (3) large expanses of low-density single- dimensional development. The Department's definition of "urban sprawl" as evidenced by the proposed rules is as follows: (140) "Urban sprawl" means urban development or uses which are located in rural areas or areas of interspersed rural and generally low- intensity urban uses, and which are characterized by: The premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which are not functionally related to adjacent land uses; or The creation of areas of urban develop- ment or uses which fail to maximize the use of existing public facilities and the use of areas within which public services are being provided. Urban sprawl typically manifests itself in one or more of the following patters: (1) leapfrog or scattered development; (2) ribbon or strip commercial or other development; and (3) large expanses of predominantly low intensity and single-use development. Page 21, DCA exhibit 18. There are several indicators as to when a plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The indicators, which are memorialized in the Department's proposed amendment to Rule 9J-5.006(6)(g), Florida Administrative Code, are whether a plan amendment: Promotes or allows substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low intensity or single use developments in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes or allows significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are suitable for development but can be expected to remain undeveloped for the balance of the planing period. Promotes or allows urban development to occur in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments but which are bordered on either side by rural land uses, typically following highways or surface water shorelines such as rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Fails to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, endangered or threatened species habitat or habitat of species of special concern, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails to protect agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture. This includes active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant unique and prime farm- lands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Increases disproportionately the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, storm- water management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation bet- ween rural and urban uses. Fails to promote and support infill development and the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Pages 38-40, DCA exhibit 18 Pursuant to the settlement agreement between the County and the Department which led to the determination that the Plan was in compliance, objectives and polices were added by the County to the Plan to insure that the Plan discouraged the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Plan, by directing that development primarily take place within the Urban Service Area, evidences an intent on the part of the County to discourage urban sprawl. See page 1-40 of St. Lucie County exhibit 1 and finding of fact 43. Applying the indicators of urban sprawl to the Charboneau Amendment leads to the conclusion that the Charboneau Amendment does not discourage urban sprawl: The Charboneau Amendment allows the development of 164 acres of land as a low-density, single-use development of one dwelling unit per acre despite the lack of need for any additional residential development in the County. It allows urban development in rural areas at a significant distance from existing urban areas while leapfrogging over less dense and undeveloped land within the Urban Service Area more suitable for such development. It allows urban development in an area that is primarily used for agricultural purposes and, consequently, fails to protect agricultural areas. It fails to maximize the use of existing or future public facilities and services by allowing urban development outside of the Urban Service Area. At some time in the future, the residents of the Charboneau Property can reasonably be expected to expect public facilities and services. It will increase disproportionately the costs in time, money and energy of providing and maintaining facilities and services because the Charboneau Property is located outside the Urban Service Area. It fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. It fails to promote and support infill development and redevelopment. The Charboneau Amendment does not, by itself, create urban sprawl. No development of the Charboneau Property will occur simply because the Charboneau Amendment is found to be "in compliance" until development orders are issued by the County. These facts do not, however, support the suggestion that the Plan will not fail to discourage urban sprawl as a result of the Charboneau Amendment. The Charboneau Amendment, even though contrary to Objective 1.1.2 and the Policies thereunder which discourage urban sprawl, if found in compliance, will cause the Plan to contain provisions which not only fail to discourage urban sprawl. It will cause the Plan to include provisions which encourage urban sprawl. Inconsistency with Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan. Rule 9J-5.005(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that comprehensive plan elements be consistent with each other and that future conditions maps reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the plan elements. The Department has alleged, and proved, that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Future Land Use Element of the Plan and, therefore, creates an inconsistency within the Future Land Use element. Objective 1.1.2 of the Plan provides the following: Provide in the land development regulations provisions for a compatible and coordinated land use pattern which establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban service boundary and promote retention of agricultural activities, preserve natural resources and maintain native vegetative habitats. Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan provides the following: The County shall include in its land development regulations a site assessment process to evaluate the potential conversion of existing or designated agricultural land uses to non- agricultural land uses in a rational and orderly manner. such provision shall require as a condition to such conversion that the Board of County Commissioners affirmatively find that the proposed non-agricultural use: is compatible with adjacent land uses; maintains the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands; contains soils suitable for urban use as defined by the St. Lucie County soil survey; is suitable with existing site-specific land characteristics; is consistent with comprehensive develop- ment plans; will have available the necessary infrastructure concurrent with the anticipated demands for development; and, will avoid the extension of the urban services boundary to create any enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Policy 1.1.2.4 was added to the Plan as part of the settlement entered into between the Department and the County during the review of the Plan. Based upon data contained in the Plan, there were approximately 211,428 acres out of a total of 330,402.7 acres in the County in 1988 devoted to agricultural use. This amounts to approximately 63.9 percent agricultural use. The area outside the Urban Service Area is: . . . recognized for first being appropriate for the production of citrus, cash crops, or ranching activities. . . . Based upon the entire area to the west of the Urban Service Area, including the Charboneau Property and the property surrounding the Charboneau Property, the conversion of the Charboneau Property from Agriculture-2.5 to Residential Estate would create an incompatible use of the Charboneau property. This conclusion is reinforced by consideration of the general impact of the conversion of agriculture lands to non-agriculture lands throughout the State of Florida. Of the State's 10.9 million acres of land, approximately 150,000 to 200,000 acres of farm land are lost to other uses yearly. Contributing to this problem is the fact that, as one parcel is converted to non-agricultural uses, the adjacent property values increase and farmers become discouraged. This impact contributes to the premature conversion of agricultural land. To reduce the impact on adjacent agricultural lands caused by the conversion of agricultural land, a clear demarcation between rural and urban land uses should be designated. The Urban Service Area of the Plan serves this purpose in the County Although the evidence failed to prove that agricultural lands adjacent to the Charboneau Property will no longer be used for agricultural purposes upon the conversion of the Charboneau Property or that such a phenomenon has occurred in the County in the past, concern over such impacts are evidenced and recognized by Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4. of the Plan. The Charboneau Amendment ignores these concerns. It is, therefore, concluded that the Charboneau Amendment will detract from the continued viability of property outside the Urban Service Area for agricultural uses. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires that a development "maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands." The Charboneau Amendment, even if the domino impact of the conversion of other acreage from agricultural uses may not occur, does not maintain such viability. The Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 because it allows the conversion of agricultural property in an agricultural area (with two parcels of existing, inconsistent uses), outside the Urban Service Area and at a density that is considered an urban density: The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses is not compatible with adjacent land uses. The conversion of the Charboneau Property to urban uses does not maintain the viability of continued agricultural uses on adjacent lands. The Charboneau Property contains soils that are approximately equally suited for agricultural purposes or residential purposes. Wells and septic tanks are used on subdivisions in the area and similar soils exist in areas being used for the cultivation of citrus. The Charboneau Amendment is consistent with other portions of Policy 1.1.2.4. While Objective 1.1.2 and Policy 1.1.2.4 of the Plan specifically only require that the County adopt land development regulations to govern the conversion of agricultural lands, the Objective and Policy also contain substantive provisions which must be contained in those regulations. Therefore, even though the Charboneau Amendment may not specifically impact the County's compliance with the requirement that it "adopt land development regulations," the substance of the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Objective and the Policy of the Plan and would create an inconsistency in the Plan if found to be "in compliance." Inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Goal 16 of the State Comprehensive Plan and Policies 1 and 2 of Goal 16 are as follows: (16) LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. . . . . Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. Section 187.201(16), Florida Statutes. Converting the Charboneau Property to a non-agricultural classification outside the Urban Service Area is inconsistent with Policy 1 of Goal 16. The existence of the inconsistent uses of Fort Pierce Gardens and Pine Hollow, which were allowed because of their existence before the effective date of the Plan, does not justify further exceptions in the area outside the Urban Service Area designated for rural land uses. The existence of a nonconforming use does not justify further nonconforming uses. Inconsistency with the Treasure Coast Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has adopted a Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Regional Plan"). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives for St. Lucie, Indian River, Martin and Palm Beach Counties. In its Statement of Intent, the Department has alleged that the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Regional Plan Policy 16.1.2.2. Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan provides, in part, the following: Land use within the Region shall be consistent with State, regional, and local Future Land Use Maps. . . . Goal 16.1.2 of the Regional Plan goes on to provide for a Regional Future Land Use Map and defines the land use categories to be included in the regional map. Policy 16.1.2.2 of the Regional Plan provides the following policy statement concerning Goal 16.1.2: Future land use maps of government comprehen- sive plans shall be based upon surveys, and data regarding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the projected population, the character of undeveloped land, the availability of public services, the ability of government to provide adequate levels of service, and the need for redevelopment. The provisions of Policy 16.1.2.2 are also contained in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. As found in more detail, supra, the Charboneau Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 16.1.2.2 because of a lack of data necessary to support an increase in residential land or increased density in the County and because it fails to promote redevelopment by infill or revitalization within the Urban Service Area.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Jim and Paulette Holzinger own Lot 17, Section B, Long Beach Estates, located on Big Pine Key in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. The property is south of Long Beach Drive. The property is located within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Under these statutes, Monroe County adopted a comprehensive plan and implemented it with land development regulations which are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Department of Community Affairs approved the County's comprehensive plan in Rule Chapter 9J-14, Florida Administrative Code, and the Administration Commission approved the comprehensive plan in Chapter 28-29, Florida Administrative Code. The County's comprehensive plan is implemented through its land development regulations, codified as Chapter 9.5 of the Monroe County Code. Monroe County is responsible for issuing development orders for land development in unincorporated Monroe County, including these development orders (building permits). The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, restricts the County from permitting development which is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Sections 163.3161(2) and 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes. No person may undertake any development within an area of Critical State Concern except in conformity with Chapter 380; Section 380.05(16), Florida Statutes. After the County issued the three related permits, the Holzingers engaged Pinewood Enterprises, Inc., as general contractor, for the construction of their single-family residence. Those permits were rendered to the Department of Community Affairs on July 21, 1992, and the Department issued its notice of appeal of those permits on September 4, 1992. No party disputes the timeliness of the appeal. The Holzingers' lot is vegetated by mangroves, transitional plant species, and beach berm plant species. The site plan, and which was part of the Holzingers' application for the permits, which Monroe County approved, includes the approval of dredging of a portion of Lot 17 and the placement of fill on site to provide driveway access to the single-family residence. The site plan locates the single-family residence in an area of Bay Cedar thicket. The mangroves are located along the north of the lot along Long Beach Drive. Facts Found Based on Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing The Holzingers' lot is located at the southernmost area of Big Pine Key, and is separated from the rest of the key by a wetland to the north of the property. To its south is the Atlantic Ocean. The lot is approximately 100' x 230' and contains approximately 22,750 square feet from property line to property line. On the lower keys land elevations only extend from sea level to a maximum of approximately five or six feet above sea level. The soil or substrate conditions on the lot are white calcareous deposits which appear to the untrained eye to be sand. It is not quartzite, but deposits from the breakdown of marine grasses or marine algae which have the appearance of sand. There is no caprock on the property. B (1). Habitats Recognized in the Monroe County Plan The Monroe County Comprehensive Development Plan is based upon the Data and Analysis found in volume 1 of the Plan. According to that Data and Analysis, there are different types of habitat found in the Keys. These include salt marsh, salt marsh and buttonwood association, mangrove community, tropical hardwood hammock, and beach berm complex. The most significant one here is beach berm complex; it includes: "bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of and usually parallel to the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organism such as corals, algae and mollusks. The berm may include forested costal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation." Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code [the land development regulations]. In the Data and Analysis, the County records that on Long Beach Key the most landward area of the berm is tropical hardwood hammock. The low hammocks are upland hardwood forest communities containing species such as blolly, buttonwoods, darling plums, spanish stopper and wild dilly, all of which are found on the vegitation survey of the lot done by a biologist for Mother Nature's Enterprises, Linda Pierce, as part of the Holzinger building permit application. See Section 9.5-4(L-10), Monroe County Code, which defines low hammocks. Low hammocks include berm hammock, and the beach berm association described in the County comprehensive plan includes berm hammocks (Tr. 184). B (2). The Land Use Maps and their Designations The existing conditions map which is part of the Monroe County comprehensive plan designates the area of the Holzingers' property as beach berm association. That map is drawn at the sale of one inch equals 2,000 feet. Similar aerial maps at a scale an order of magnitude smaller (one inch equals 200 feet) also show the land as beach berm with fringing mangroves. These aerial photographs have been overlaid with the Comprehensive Plan's habitat designations for use in the practical application of the land development regulations by County employees. Under the land use regulations found in the Monroe County Code, the County Commission is required to follow the existing conditions map it adopted, Section 9.5-227, Monroe County Code. Under the first paragraph of Section 9.5- 345 the environmental design criteria applicable to development of a parcel of land depend upon the habitat designated for the parcel on the existing conditions map (the map drawn at the larger scale of one inch equals 2,000 feet). Ground proofing of the habitat on the lot done by the Lower Keys' biologist, Diana Stephenson, and by the Department of Community Affairs planner/biologist, Kathleen Edgerton, show that the land is actually beach berm from the ocean to the mangroves, and there is a small area of disturbed saltmarsh landward from the mangroves to the county road which runs down the center of the key. I am not persuaded by the testimony of the biologist for the Holzingers, Mr. Smith, who believes that there is a separate tropical hardwood hammock habitat on the Holzingers' lot. A full habitat analysis would have been required if there were mixed habitats on the lot (Tr. 88, 96) and the Holzingers did not submit one to the County as part of their application. Because the County biologist found no separate low hardwood hammock habitat on the lot, she believed that no habitat evaluation index was required in processing the Holzinger application, and none was done independently by the County. Mr. Smith contended at final hearing that there are several distinct habitats on the single lot. Moving south from Long Beach Drive toward the ocean he first finds a disturbed saltmarsh of approximately 4,000 square feet; then a mangrove community of about 2,500 square feet; then a saltmarsh and buttonwood association of about 2,500 square feet; next a tropical hardwood hammock of moderate quality and finally, closest to the ocean, beach berm complex. This analysis, which designates a separate saltmarsh and buttonwood association waterward of the mangrove community, and then a separate tropical hardwood hammock waterward of the saltmarsh and buttonwood association, fails to give significant weight to the fact that low hammocks are typically found within beach berm complex. While Mr. Smith testified to the square footages for each of the five habitats, he only performed rough calculations for their size, he was not working with, nor did he perform an actual survey which would define the boundaries of the various habitats he believes are present. He readily acknowledged his preliminary habitat analysis was incomplete. Moreover, accepting for the sake of argument that there is a mixed habitat on the lot under the evidence adduced by the Holzingers, a complete habitat evaluation index should have been performed by the Holzingers as a necessary part of their application, since the County biologist did not do one in the belief there was no need for one. The essential problem with the view expressed by Mr. Smith that there are five habitats on this 100-foot lot is his contention that due to the very small changes in elevation through the Keys, one must identify different habitats recognized in the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations by assessing the predominance of different types of vegitation typical of a habitat. To Mr. Smith, if the vegitation is of a type normally found in a tropical hardwood hammock, and it predominates over the other vegitation, that area must be classified as a tropical hardwood hammock. At that level of generalization, the statement is no doubt true. Neither the land development regulations or the County's Comprehensive Plan require, or even permit, a microanalysis of the vegitation for the purpose of defining multiple habitats on a lot. Taking a broad view, such as that embodied in the existing conditions map, the predominate vegetative and soil conditions on the southern part of the island where Lot 17 is located are consistent with the categorization as beach berm association. The same is true using the aerial maps on which the different habitat designations from the land development regulations have been overlaid. What Mr. Smith has done is to look for small areas within the 100' x 230' parcel to identify areas where tropical hardwood species may be said to "predominate." The obvious purpose of Mr. Smith's division of the lot into small areas is to be able to characterize these uplands species as "predominating." This is essential to justify intensive use of the property. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations do not permit any use of areas colonized by mangroves, which are wholly protected by a 100 percent open space requirement. This means that 100 percent of the area colonized by mangroves must be maintained in its natural condition and free and open to the sky, Section 9.5-343, Monroe County Code. Open space ratio for saltmarsh and buttonwood associations is .85 but for moderate quality low hammocks is only .60. Beach berm association is highly protected, with an open space requirement of 90 percent. Only 10 percent of the land area waterward of the mangrove habitat, therefore, can be covered with the footprint of the single-family residence and any associated driveway or other access way because it is beach berm complex. Accepting the mangrove line contained in the vegitation assessment submitted by the Holzingers in their application done by Mother Nature's Enterprises, and then using a "planimeter" to measure the area from the mangrove line to the mean high water line on the lot, there is 16,594 square feet of property. Given the 90 percent open space requirement, a very small area of 1,659 square feet may be covered with the footprint of the single-family home, including its porch, eaves, and driveway. The footprint of the house, its porch, and driveway shown on the site plan approved by the County, with the addition of a five-foot clearing zone around the footprint of the house [because it is essentially impossible to clear land only to the footprint of the completed building] reveals that the County's permits would allow the clearing of 2,880 square feet. Even without the five-foot construction zone around the house, porch and driveway, the County permits allow the clearing of 2,172 square feet. It is very difficult to understand how the Monroe County official in charge of the office which issues building permits could have determined that the development proposed by the Holzingers was permittable. That official did not testify. The County biologist for the Lower Keys who did testify, Ms. Stephenson, was adamant that the project was never permittable under the Monroe County land development regulations. The only explanation by which the permit conceivably could have been granted would be to do something the land development regulations do not permit: aggregate the square footage which the code makes available for development on the landward side of the mangroves, in the area of disturbed saltmarsh between the road and the mangroves, and add the usable square footage for that habitat area to the usable square footage on the waterward side of the mangroves, in the beach berm association. But the amount of each habitat which must remain as open space is determined for each habitat type. They cannot be aggregated across habitats, to give some total usable number of square feet, to be cleared anywhere on the property. That would ignore the significance of the separate habitat designations. The 1,659 square feet available for development in the beach berm association must be used only within that habitat, and square footage available for development within the disturbed salt marsh cannot be added to it. Fill Issues The site plan approved by the County permits fill to be used to construct a driveway on the property through the mangrove area and the beach berm area. This is simply an error on the part of the County, for no party disputes that fill is forbidden in these areas. The performance standards in the land development regulations do permit certain piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways over mangrove areas, but no fill is permitted. Section 9.5- 345(m)(1), Monroe County Code (Tr. 139). The Holzingers could receive a permit to build a raised bridge over the mangroves for access to the beach berm association portion of the lot, as has been done on a nearby lot to the west of the Holzingers' lot. They cannot, however, fill the mangroves to create the driveway shown on the site plan the County approved. The building permit the County granted which purports to allow fill in mangrove areas is inconsistent with the County's own land development regulations and cannot stand. The next question is whether there is some alternate means of access to the lot which can be used instead of that permitted. At the final hearing Mr. Smith stated that on a recent visit to the Holzingers' property, he found an old road on the east side of the property which is high land which could serve as a location for a driveway or accessway to the interior of the Holzingers' property. There is, however, actually no old road anywhere on Lot 17. There was an old road on Lot 16, and a bit of the spoil from that road may be found on Lot 17, but there simply never has been a road on the Holzingers' lot which they can use for a driveway. Fill will be required to locate any driveway, and that is inconsistent with the County land development regulations. The only thing the Holzingers can do to overcome this problem would be to build a bridge over the mangrove area and completely avoid the use of any fill. Summary of Findings The scarified or a disturbed saltmarsh area from the county road to the mangrove area is too small to be useful. The Holzingers do not plan to build in that area. Whatever portion of that area which is not required to be open space cannot be "banked" to allow additional clearing in the beach berm association on the waterward side of the mangroves. For all practical purposes, that disturbed saltmarsh area adds nothing to the buildable or clearable area on Lot 17. The mangrove area has a 100 percent open space requirement. Mangroves are a highly protective habitat, which contribute nothing to the buildable area on Lot 17. The remaining portion of the Lot 17 waterward from the mangrove area to the mean high water line is too small to permit the construction and erection of the house and driveway permitted by the development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County. The buildable area in the beach berm association is no more than a total of 1,660 square feet for the house, its porch, the driveway. The County has issued a permit to use 2,880 square feet of that habitat (including an allowance for a construction zone), or at least 2,172 square feet, assuming the location of the house, porch, and an eight-foot wide driveway and no construction clearing around the footprint around the house/porch. This fails to meet the 90 percent open space requirement found in the Monroe County Code. The building permits issued by Monroe County to the Holzingers are therefore invalid. To obtain valid permits, the Holzingers must substantially reduce the footprint of the house, including an allowance for a construction clearing zone. A house that small may be undesirable, but it could be permitted. What the County has attempted to permit, however, is invalid under its own regulations.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that development approval for the subject lot be denied, unless the applicant presents, and the County and the Department approve, a revised permit and site plan which demonstrates compliance with the mandatory open space requirements for the beach berm and mangrove habitats, and which eliminates the placement of fill in the beach berm complex and the mangrove wetlands on site. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of July 1993. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of July 1993. APPENDIX The Findings of Fact proposed by the Department have been generally adopted, although the long quotation from Volume I and II of the County Comprehensive Plan are not essential or necessary. See proposed finding 10. The Respondents submitted no proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie M. Callahan Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 209 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendments to the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinances 2008- 048, 2008-049, and 2008-050 are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and has the statutory power and duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and determine whether the amendments are “in compliance,” pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Patricia Curry, Alexandria Larsen, and Sharon Waite own property and reside in Palm Beach County. They made comments to the County regarding the three amendments during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the amendments and ending with the adoption of the amendments. Patrick Wilson owns property and resides in Palm Beach County, but he presented no evidence at the final hearing to show that he made comments to the County on any of the challenged amendments. Sluggett is the owner of the parcel that is the subject of the amendment adopted by Ordinance 2008-050 (“Sluggett Amendment”). He resides in Palm Beach County on the land affected by the amendment. Coconut Northlake LLC and Northlake Land Group LLC are Florida corporations with their principal place of business in Palm Beach County. Coconut Northlake LLC is the owner of the property that is affected by the amendment adopted by Ordinance 2008-049 (“Northlake Amendment”). Northlake Land Group LLC has an option to purchase the property. Panattoni is a Florida corporation that entered into a contract in 2006 to purchase the property affected by Ordinance 2008-048 (“Panattoni Amendment”). Panattoni was the applicant for the Panattoni Amendment. After the application was filed, Panattoni transferred its rights and obligations under its contracts, including the contract to purchase the Panattoni Property, to Panattoni Development Company, Inc. The Amendments Ordinance 2008-50 (“Sluggett Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 64.48-acre parcel located at the northwest intersection of Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road (“Sluggett Property”) from Rural Residential 10 (one dwelling unit per 10 acres) to Commercial-Low/Rural Residential 5 (one dwelling unit per five acres). Ordinance 2008-49 (“Northlake Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 30.71-acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Coconut Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard (“Northlake Property”) from Rural Residential 20 to Commercial-Low/ Rural Residential 5. Ordinance 2008-48 (“Panattoni Amendment”) would change the future land use designation of a 37.85-acre parcel located on the south side of Lake Worth Road, 1,320 feet east of Lyons Road (“Panattoni Property”) from Low-Residential 2 to Commercial-High with an underlying 2 units per acre. Findings Applicable to all Amendments The County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System in 1999, which places all lands in the County into one of five tier classifications: Urban/Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades. The tiers are intended to define distinct geographical areas within the County that “allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities.” None of the three amendments propose to change the Tier in which the affected properties are located. The new future land use designations created by the three amendments are allowable land uses within their respective tiers. In the Department’s Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, following the transmittal of the three amendments, the Department objected to the amendments for the following reason: These amendments include statements or conditions that would limit development to a certain size, use, or intensity. Without these development limitations, one or more specific facilities (water supply, water and wastewater treatment, and road capacity) would not be available at the adopted level of service standards to serve these sites if they are developed at their maximum development potential. The County has not included these site specific limitations or conditions in a policy in the Future Land Use Element nor included a corresponding and appropriate notation on the Future Land Use Atlas to clearly indicate that development limitations apply to these sites. The County addressed the Department’s objection by agreeing to place notations in its Future Land Use Atlas (FLUA) to indicate that the land uses on the properties affected by the amendments are subject to special limitations and conditions. The three amendments affect properties located near the “Acreage” and “Loxahatchee,” which are areas of antiquated subdivisions that are suburban in nature and home to approximately 50,000 people. When these areas were first platted and developed, they were far to the west of the urbanized areas of the County, and had insufficient commercial uses in or around them to serve the residents. The planning studies that have been conducted for this central-western area of the County have consistently concluded that the area needs more commercial land uses to serve the residential population. Today, there are only about 40,000 square feet of commercial uses in this central-western area of the County. Based on a planning ratio of 35 square feet of commercial uses per capita, about 1.5 million square feet of commercial uses would be needed to serve the residential population. The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan requires applicants for a FLUA amendment to demonstrate consistency with Policy 3.5-d of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), regarding traffic impacts. Policy 3.5-d requires a long-term traffic analysis based on the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (“Test One”) and a short-term, five-year traffic analysis based on the County’s five-year plan (“Test Two”). Under Test One, if the traffic associated with an amendment to the FLUA would significantly impact a road that is projected to fail to operate at adopted level of service (LOS) standard “D” based on the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, the amendment cannot be adopted. In contrast, a failure to meet an LOS standard based on the County’s five-year plan -- Test Two -- can be remedied. Under Test Two, if LOS standards on affected roads would not be maintained, the applicant must commit to make or fund additional road improvements to accommodate the traffic impacts associated with the future land use re-designation. Alternatively, an applicant could be required to develop the land in phases so that the traffic impacts associated with each development phase can be accommodated without exceeding the capacity of the roadways. The County’s income from gas tax sources which are used to fund transportation improvements has decreased due to the nationwide downturn in the economy, and the decrease has affected the timing of some planned transportation improvements. However, the County has not abandoned the scheduled improvements for the roads that are affected by the challenged amendments. Map LU 4.1 of the comprehensive plan depicts the public wellfield protection zones within the County and the Turnpike Aquifer Protection Overlay. These planning zones were established to protect sources of public drinking water. The properties affected by the three amendments are located outside of these protection zones. Petitioners presented no competent evidence that the three amendments, alone or in combination, would harm the sources of public drinking water. Petitioners’ evidence was only sufficient to support the general proposition that more land development increases the potential for contamination of surface water and groundwater. The evidence did not establish that the three amendments, alone or in combination, create a measurable increase in the potential for contamination or pose a foreseeable threat of adverse impact to surface water or groundwater. Petitioners’ expert witnesses conceded that they had insufficient data and had conducted no specific studies to support an opinion that any of the amendments would cause harm to natural resources, generally, or to the aquifer, in particular. Ordinance 2008-50, the Sluggett Amendment2/ The Sluggett Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 64.48-acre parcel located at the northwest intersection of Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road from Rural Residential 10 to Commercial-Low/Rural Residential 5. The Sluggett Property is within the Rural Tier. Southern Boulevard and Seminole Pratt Whitney Road are major arterial roadways. The Commercial-Low designation limits building coverage to a maximum of 10 percent. On the Sluggett Property, that would equate to about 280,000 square feet of commercial development. However, the Sluggett Amendment contains a condition that further restricts the intensity of commercial development on the Sluggett Property to 161,000 square feet. Residential density on the Sluggett Property is limited to 15 residential units, and is derived from the allowed density for the 64-acre parcel (12 units), plus three more units which are allowed under the County’s Workforce Housing bonus program. The Workforce Housing bonus program allows an increase in density when some units will be developed as low or moderate income housing. The Sluggett Amendment includes a condition that requires that the commercial and residential development on the Sluggett Property meet a Traditional Marketplace Development form. Traditional Marketplace Development is a development form that requires low intensity commercial and institutional uses, vertically integrated with residential uses, with a pedestrian orientation. This development form is achieved primarily through the design and organization of buildings and public spaces and the dispersal of parking. The Sluggett Amendment limits any single non- residential or commercial single tenant to a maximum of 65,000 square feet. To the north of Sluggett Property are lands classified Rural Residential 5 and Rural Residential 2.5. To the east is Loxahatchee Groves, the County’s newest municipality. Directly south, across Southern Boulevard, is land owned by the South Florida Water Management District. Southeast of the Sluggett Property is the incorporated Village of Wellington. The Sluggett Property is separated from the Acreage community to the west by a stormwater drainage canal and 80- foot-wide stormwater drainage easement managed by Seminole Improvement District. To provide compatibility with the residential areas north of the Sluggett Property, the Sluggett Amendment includes a condition that requires a minimum of ten acres of open space on the northern portion of the Sluggett Property. Because the Sluggett Property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, it meets the siting requirement of FLUE Policy 1.4-f for commercial uses in the Rural Tier. In prior planning studies in the central-western area of the County, the Sluggett Property was specifically identified as an appropriate location for neighborhood-serving commercial development. The residential component of the Sluggett Amendment is supported by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research population projections and by other data and analyses in the record. The residential units are also necessary to achieve the preferred Traditional Marketplace Development form. The inclusion of residential units also serves to achieve the County’s objective of increasing workforce housing. The need for the Sluggett Amendment was adequately demonstrated. The Sluggett Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. The LOS standard for the affected roads would not be maintained if the Sluggett Property were developed at the maximum commercial intensity allowed under the proposed future land use designation (plus 15 dwelling units). This situation would cause the Sluggett Amendment to fail Test One of FLUE Policy 3.5-d, described above. If development of the Sluggett Property is limited to 161,500 square feet of commercial, Test One is met. Therefore, the Sluggett Amendment limits development of the Sluggett Property to 161,500 square feet or commercial. The Sluggett Amendment includes two other conditions related to traffic to avoid potential roadway failures based on Test Two’s five-year analysis. These conditions limit the development to 46,500 square feet of commercial, “until construction commences on the south approach of the intersection of Southern Boulevard and Big Blue Trace to provide for dual left turn lanes, or one through lane and dual right turn lanes.” The potential traffic impacts associated with the Sluggett Amendment have been addressed in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of the comprehensive plan. Water and wastewater utilities are available to the Sluggett Property and there is adequate capacity to serve the Property. School facilities, emergency medical services, and fire and police services are also available and adequate to serve the Sluggett Property. Although Petitioners suggested that the Sluggett Amendment would cause stormwater drainage problems, no competent evidence was presented to demonstrate that a real threat of stormwater contamination exists or that any comprehensive plan provision related to stormwater would be violated. In their petition for hearing, Petitioners claimed that the Sluggett Amendment meets the definition of urban sprawl, but included no specific factual allegation other than the amendment would allow “strip-type commercial development.” The requirement of the Sluggett Amendment that ten acres of open space be set aside in the northern portion of the property, and the requirement to develop as a Traditional Marketplace Development prevents a strip development, as that term is normally applied in land use planning. The Sluggett Property is somewhat distant from other commercial uses, a consequence of the poorly planned development of the residential subdivisions in the area. The Sluggett Amendment reduces a deficit in neighborhood-serving commercial uses and thereby remedies an existing imbalance of land uses caused by the past urban sprawl. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council determined that the Sluggett Amendment was consistent with the Council’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Petitioners did not show how the Sluggett Amendment causes an inconsistency with any provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ordinance 2008-49, the Northlake Amendment3/ The Northlake Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 30.71-acre parcel located on the southwest corner of Coconut Boulevard and Northlake Boulevard from Rural Residential 20 to Commercial-Low/ Rural Residential 5. The Northlake Property is in the Exurban Tier. East of the Northlake Property, along Northlake Boulevard, are the residential communities of Bayhill Estates and Rustic Lakes, which were developed at a density of one unit per two acres and one unit per five acres, respectively. Farther east, is the large, gated golf course development called Ibis, which consists of approximately 2,000 units developed at 1.25 dwelling units per acre. On the north side of Northlake Boulevard is a large tract of agricultural land located in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Northeast are Osprey Isles and Carlton Oaks, which are residential developments with quarter-acre lots, and a cemetery and land designated for commercial low/office development. South of the Northlake Property, across two-lane Hamlin Road, is the Acreage. Existing and proposed institutional development in the vicinity of the Northlake Property include the adjacent parcel to the east, which is proposed to be developed as a 21,000- square-foot U.S. Post Office and, to the west, the existing Pierce Hammock Elementary School. The comprehensive plan allows development of institutional uses in the Exurban Tier at intensities of up to .20 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Northlake Amendment proposes development at less than half that intensity, .08 FAR. The Northlake Property is located in an area that was the subject of a regional planning effort called the Western Northlake Corridor Study (WNCLUS) conducted by the county, the City of West Palm Beach, and the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The WNCLUS was completed in 1998 and is now being updated. In April 2008, an updated, intergovernmental analysis of the need for commercial uses in the study area concluded that the need exceeded the square footage of commercial uses that would be provided by the Northlake Amendment. The Northlake Property is one of the few parcels in the area that meets the commercial land use siting criterion in FLUE Policy 1.3-f, having frontage on an arterial road and a collector road. In their petition for hearing, Petitioners claimed that the Northlake Amendment meets the definition of urban sprawl, but included no specific factual allegation other than the amendment would allow “strip-type commercial development.” The Northlake Amendment only affects one parcel. The amendment would not extend any existing commercial uses on Northlake Boulevard or Coconut Boulevard. The applicant has agreed to record restrictive covenants on parcels owned by the applicant that are west of the Northlake Property, which would remove any potential for their future development for commercial uses. Executed restrictive covenants and easements are being held in escrow by the County Attorney and would be recorded after the approval of the Northlake Amendment. Although the Northlake Property is not integrated with other commercial uses, that situation is a consequence of the poorly planned development of the residential subdivisions in the area. The Northlake Amendment reduces a deficit in neighborhood-serving commercial uses and thereby remedies an existing imbalance of land uses caused by past urban sprawl. The residential density allowed by the Northlake Amendment (one dwelling unit per five acres) conforms with the adjacent residential densities, which range from one unit per five acres to one unit per 1.25 acres. The Northlake Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. If the Northlake Property were developed at the maximum commercial intensity of 133,000 square feet, LOS standards on affected roadways would likely be exceeded. Therefore, the Northlake Amendment includes a condition that limits development to 106,566 square feet of commercial. Water and wastewater utilities are available to the Northlake Property and there is adequate capacity to serve the property. School facilities, emergency medical services, fire and police services are all available and adequate to serve the Northlake Property. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reported that it considered the Northlake Amendment to be inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, “unless and until the County updates the WNCLUS in coordination with the Cities of Palm Beach Gardens and West Palm Beach.” The Council did not identify any specific provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan with which the Northlake Amendment was inconsistent. The Council issued its comments without the opportunity to consider subsequent data and analysis that are included in the record of this case. For example, after the Council issued its report, the City of Palm Beach Gardens expressed support for the Northlake Amendment. In addition, the County planning staff’s objections to the Northlake Amendment, which appeared to be the primary basis for the Council’s finding of inconsistency, were subsequently refuted by the County’s Planning Director. Ordinance 2008-48, the Panattoni Amendment4/ The Panattoni Amendment would change the future land use designation of a 37.85-acre parcel located on the south side of Lake Worth Road, and 1,320 feet east of Lyons Road, from Low- Residential 2 to Commercial-High with an underlying 2 units per acre. The Panattoni Property is within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The Urban/Suburban Tier is described in the Plan as “urban levels of service.” The Urban/Suburban Tier is expected to accommodate about 90 percent of the County’s population. The Panattoni Property is also within the County’s Urban Service Area. The Urban Service Area is the area in which the County anticipates the extension of urban services through the long range planning horizon. The properties to the north, south, east, and west are designated Low Residential 2. There is an existing residential community to the west. The properties to the north, south, and east are vacant. The Panattoni Amendment requires the property to be developed as a Lifestyle Commercial Center. The Lifestyle Commercial Center is similar to a Traditional Marketplace Development, being a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly form of development. The Panattoni Amendment meets the commercial land use siting criteria in FLUE Policy 1.2-k. The county planning staff anticipated that the surrounding vacant properties would be developed at a higher density than two units per acre through one or more of the county’s density bonus programs. The Panattoni Amendment includes a condition that at least five percent of the project must be designated as public open space as squares, greens, or plazas. Parking must be dispersed through the site. The interconnected vehicular and pedestrian circulation system must provide on-street parking and access to transit stops and off- site pedestrian and bicycle systems where feasible. The Panattoni Property be developed with building mass and placement to provide a spatial definition along streets. Additionally, the design must incorporate human-scale elements along streets and in common areas that includes seating, landscaping, lighting and water or art features. No single tenant can exceed 100,000 square feet and cannot not be a “big box.” The Panattoni Amendment would not result in strip development. The Panattoni Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. Petitioners testified that a number of stores in the area have closed as evidence that the area does not need additional commercial uses. A window survey of empty stores is not an accurate way to evaluate vacancy rates, in particular, or the need for commercial uses, generally. Panattoni provided an adequate justification and demonstrated need for the 396,000 square feet of commercial uses authorized by the Panattoni Amendment. The Panattoni Property is located in the tier in which the County has indicated it wants most of its development to occur. Petitioners presented no evidence that the Panattoni Amendment would cause urban sprawl. There are adequate public services and infrastructure to accommodate the Panattoni Amendment. The potential traffic impacts associated with the Panattoni Amendment were reviewed under the Test One and Test Two analyses. As to Test One, the traffic analysis shows that affected roads will not meet the LOS standard in 2025 at the maximum development intensity. Therefore, the Panattoni Amendment includes a condition that the development must be limited to 396,000 square feet of commercial use. As to Test Two, the traffic analysis shows that all roads will operate at the adopted LOS standard if the project is limited to 65,000 square feet until construction has commenced for the recommended improvements at Lake Worth Road/Turnpike interchange. Therefore, the Panattoni Amendment includes this condition on the development. Construction of the improvements has already commenced. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council determined that the Panattoni Amendment is consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Petitioners did not show how the Panattoni Amendment causes an inconsistency with any provision of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan.
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 amendments adopted by Palm Beach County by Ordinances 2008-48, 2008-49, and 2008-50 are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 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.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Escambia County (County) by Ordinance No. 2017-53 on September 7, 2017, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner owns real property and resides in the County. She submitted written comments to the County during the adoption phase of the amendment. She is an affected person within the meaning of section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The County is a local government that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A sector plan is the process in which the local government engages in long-term planning for an area of at least 5,000 acres. §§ 163.3164(42) and 163.3245(1), Fla. Stat. It involves two levels of planning: a) a long-term master plan, and b) a Detailed Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which implements the master plan. A DSAP is created for an area that is at least 1,000 acres and identifies the distribution, extent, and location of future uses and public facilities. § 163.3245(3), Fla. Stat. While the DSAP is created by a local development order that is not subject to state compliance review, an amendment to an adopted sector plan is a plan amendment reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The development standards in the DSAP are separate and distinct from the development standards in non-sector plan properties. On June 3, 2010, the County approved Ordinance No. 2010-16, which adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to the Plan, including a new Optional Sector Plan (OSP). The Ordinance was challenged by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and assigned DOAH Case No. 10-6857GM. In response to the DCA challenge, on February 3, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-3 as a stipulated remedial amendment. The Ordinance establishes a long-term master plan for central Escambia County known as the Mid-West Escambia County Sector Plan (Sector Plan). The Sector Plan is comprised of approximately 15,000 acres, north of Interstate 10, west of Highway 29, and south of Highway 196. The area is depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as the OSP. The DCA determined the Ordinance to be in compliance. To implement the long-term master plan, on September 9, 2011, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2011-29, which establishes two DSAPs: Muskogee DSAP and Jacks Branch DSAP. Petitioner's residence and the subject property are located within the Jacks Branch DSAP. State compliance review of that action under section 163.3184(3) or (4) was not required. In 2011, the Legislature created the right to opt out or withdraw from a sector plan. See § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. This can be accomplished "only with the approval of the local government by plan amendment adopted and reviewed pursuant to s. 163.3184." Id. In response to the statutory amendment, the County adopted a plan amendment which provides that any additions to, or deletions from, a DSAP must follow the established procedures in the Plan. See Ex. 40, p. 14. In order to consolidate the County zoning districts, on April 16, 2015, the County adopted Ordinance No. 2015-12, which repealed the entire Land Development Code (LDC) and replaced it with a new LDC, which has a county-wide rezoning plan. After the first (and only) application to opt out of the Sector Plan was filed by a property owner, on March 16, 2017, the County amended the LDC through Ordinance No. 2017-14, which establishes seven criteria for evaluating this type of request. See LDC, § 2-7.4. The Ordinance was not challenged. According to the County, the criteria were actually drafted by the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and require it to consider the following: All standard Comprehensive Plan map criteria; Comprehensive Plan requirement for changes to an existing DSAP; The size of the subject parcel in relation to the individual DSAP land use category and in relation to the overall Sector Plan, to specifically include the aggregate acreage of any previously granted opt-outs; The existing transportation infrastructure and any impact the proposed opt-out may have on the capacity of the infrastructure; The underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations; The consistency of the requested future land use designation with the underlying zoning; and The previous future land use designation. Besides the foregoing criteria, subsection 2-7.4(b) provides that when the County reviews an opt-out application: [t]o the extent possible, the staff analysis and the reviewing bodies shall consider whether the applicant lost development rights or was effectively downzoned as part of the Sector Plan adoption. The Board may take into consideration any other relevant factors in making its determination related to the request. Once a parcel is removed from the County's Sector Plan, the underlying zoning that was in effect when the Sector Plan was created remains the same, but a new future land use (FLU) category must be assigned to the property by a plan amendment. § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. Withdrawing from a DSAP does not modify the DSAP because the DSAP is the development standard itself. The Property The parcel lies on the eastern edge of the DSAP about ten miles north of Interstate 10 on the northwest corner of Highway 29 and Neal Road. Highway 29 is a major four-lane arterial road running in a north-south direction with a median in the middle. The road is maintained by the state. Neal Road is a small, two-lane County road that intersects with Highway 29 from the west and provides access to a residential area where Petitioner resides. Existing commercial development is located on the east side of Highway 29. Most recently, a Family Dollar Store was developed directly across the street from the property. Currently, the parcel is vacant and lies in the Conservation Neighborhood District, which permits a maximum density of three dwelling units per gross acre and is the lowest density of residential development allowed in the Sector Plan. Only residential uses are allowed in the district, which is intended to treat stormwater and preserve open space and wildlife. Based on maps of the area, Petitioner's property appears to be no more than one-half mile west of the subject property. The character of the area in Petitioner's neighborhood is low-density residential development. Before the Sector Plan was adopted, the assigned land use on the parcel was MU-S. This use is intended for "a mix of residential and non-residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." Its express purpose is to serve as a mixed-use area. As described by a County witness, "the mixed-use aspect of it allows a non-residential component first, but, again, it's predominately residential, low-density residential." The range of allowable uses includes residential, retail services, professional office, recreational facilities, and public and civic, with a maximum intensity of a 1.0 floor area ratio. Until the Sector Plan was created, the parcel was zoned as Gateway Business District (GBD). Under the new rezoning plan established in 2015, all parcels outside the Sector Plan which were zoned GBD were consolidated with similar zoning categories into the new district of Heavy Commercial/ Light Industrial (HC/LI). Permitted uses under this district are residential, retail sales, retail services, public and civic, recreation and entertainment, industrial and related, agricultural and related, and "other uses," such as billboards, outdoor sales, trade shops, warehouses, and the like. Once a parcel is withdrawn from the Sector Plan, it retains the underlying zoning in effect when the DSAP was established. Because the new zoning scheme consolidates GBD into HC/LI, the parcel will revert to HC/LI. Therefore, the zoning and land use will be the same as they were before the Sector Plan was created. This combination is not unusual, as there are "multiple parcels" outside the DSAP that have this zoning/land use pairing. The Challenged Amendment In June 2016, the property owner filed an application with the County requesting that his parcel be removed from the Mid-West Sector Plan. At that time, neither the County nor the applicant realized that a new land use must be assigned. Consequently, no request for a new land use was made. Because this was the first time an opt-out application had been filed with any local government, the County had a series of meetings with DEO seeking guidance on how to proceed. It was told by DEO that the opt-out application and a FLU change should be processed in the same manner as a FLUM amendment and then reviewed under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO also provided suggested criteria that should be considered when processing such an application. These criteria were adopted as new LDC section 2-7.4. The County followed all steps suggested by DEO. DEO instructed the County to require a second application from the property owner, which included a request for a new land use category. After the second application was filed, the County began the process of determining whether the application satisfied the opt-out criteria in section 2-7.4 and relevant Plan requirements. The second application addressed the FLU requirement and contained the analysis required for each component of the Plan. A future land use of Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) was initially requested by the owner. This category is consistent with HC/LI zoning, but is a much more intense land use category than MU-S. Because of concerns that the MU-U land use would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in the DSAP, the County changed the proposed new land use to MU-S, the use assigned to the property before the Sector Plan was adopted. MU-S is the same land use assigned to other non-Sector Plan parcels surrounding the subject property, and there are non- industrial uses within the HC/LI zoning district that are consistent with MU-S. If the application is approved, only 25 potential residential units will be removed from the total Sector Plan, and the reduction in total developable area will be de minimis. Except for a change to the DSAP map and the acreage table, no changes to the text of the DSAP are made. During the application process, the County addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts on the environment. The County also evaluated the application in light of the criteria found in section 2-7.4 and determined that, as a whole, it satisfied those requirements. See Cnty. Ex. 34, pp. 28-39. Because a proposed use of the property was not submitted with the application, an analysis of a specific use was not made. When a site plan to develop the property is filed, the proposed use will be evaluated by the Development Review Committee, and then by the Board of County Commissioners. That review will ensure that the intended development will not be inconsistent with the zoning district and land use assigned to the parcel. The opt-out request was debated extensively during a series of ten public hearings that began in September 2016. Members of the public were allowed to speak for or against the proposal. On September 7, 2017, the County voted to amend the Plan by (a) allowing the parcel to withdraw from the OSP, removing the Sector Plan overlay on the parcel, and amending the FLUM by assigning the property a MU-S land use designation. No other changes were made. The amendment does not create a remnant area or fragmented DSAP. The amendment was transmitted to DEO for review under the State Coordinated Review process. DEO determined it met the requirements of chapter 163 for compliance purposes. The State Coordinated Review is more comprehensive than the Expedited Review process under section 163.3184(3). On November 8, 2017, a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance was issued by DEO. See Cnty. Ex. 39. Petitioner filed her Petition within 30 days after the Ordinance was adopted, but before DEO issued its Notice of Intent. Therefore, it was timely. Besides DEO's review, the Department of Transportation and Department of Education reviewed the proposal for impacts on transportation and school concurrency, respectively. No further information was requested from the County by any agency. Petitioner's Objections In the parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioner raises a procedural objection to the manner in which the withdrawal application was adopted. She also alleges generally that the amendment creates inconsistent and incompatible zoning and future land use pairing in violation of sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1); is inconsistent with the FLU Element; conflicts with statutory provisions regarding compatibility of adjacent land uses; and lacks sufficient data and analysis required by section 163.3177(1)(f). These contentions, and others not directly related to a compliance challenge, are addressed below. Petitioner first contends an opt-out application must be adopted by a local development order, rather than by a plan amendment. She argues the County erred by not providing her the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the adoption hearing and failing to subject the proposal to more "intense review and analysis." The quasi-judicial process requires strict scrutiny of a local government's action, rather than a fairly debatable standard of review, and provides third parties the right to challenge the local government's decision in circuit court, rather than in a section 163.3184 proceeding. This contention has been rejected and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner contends approval of the application will lead to further requests by other property owners to opt out of the Sector Plan. Currently, there are over 1,000 property owners in the Sector Plan. During the County hearings, staff identified 24 or 25 other properties that might choose to file an opt-out application in the future. Whether those owners will do so is no more than speculation at this point. The County responds that it will evaluate each application on a case-by- case basis. A case-by-case analysis is necessary because an application involving a large parcel of property would clearly have a different analysis than one which involves only 8.67 acres. More importantly, because the opt-out process is a statutory right created by the Legislature, the County is obligated to consider every opt-out application filed, and if it satisfies the applicable criteria, it must be approved. In any event, there is nothing in sections 163.3184 or 163.3245 which requires the local government to deny an application merely because another property owner might file a similar application at some point in the future. Petitioner contends the County acted "unreasonably" because it did not establish opt-out criteria until after the application was filed. The County's action was reasonable under the circumstances because it had no standards or precedent for reviewing this type of application; at the direction of DEO, the criteria were adopted before final action on the application was taken; and the criteria were considered by the County. Petitioner contends the criteria in section 2-7.4 are vague and lack specific, objective evaluation standards. However, Ordinance No. 2017-14 was never challenged and is presumed to be valid. Petitioner contends HC/LI zoning is inconsistent with the MU-S land use and violates sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3194(1)(b).1/ Those provisions require generally that zoning regulations and land uses be consistent with one another and the elements of the Plan. The zoning and land use will be the same as existed before the Sector Plan was adopted. They correlate with the zoning and land use on numerous other non-Sector Plan parcels in the immediate area and throughout the County. MU-S contemplates a mixed-use area, while HC/LI contains a variety of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Although industrial uses are inconsistent with the land use, see Endnote 1, there are many other uses within the zoning district that are compatible with MU-S. It is fairly debatable that the zoning and land use designation are compatible. FLU Objective 1.3 provides that future land use designations should "discourage urban sprawl, promote mixed use, compact development in urban areas, and support development compatible with the protection and preservation of rural areas." By allowing more intensive development next to the Conservation Neighborhood District, Petitioner contends the plan amendment is inconsistent with this directive because it encourages urban sprawl. "Sprawl" is defined in chapter 3 of the Plan as [h]aphazard growth of dispersed, leap- frog and strip development in suburbs and rural areas and along highways; typically, sprawl is automobile-dependent, single use, resource-consuming, and low-density development in previously rural areas and disconnected from existing development and infrastructure. The parcels on the east side of Highway 29 have similar zoning and land uses as the subject property and are interspersed with commercial development. Therefore, future development on the subject property would not be "disconnected from existing development and infrastructure," and it would not leap-frog into non-developed areas. It is fairly debatable that the plan amendment does not encourage urban sprawl. Petitioner contends the underlying zoning on the parcel is incompatible with the land use in her neighborhood. Although the County considered this issue, it points out that the Sector Plan and Comprehensive Plan have different development standards, and therefore there is no requirement that it consider the compatibility of non-Sector Plan property with property in the DSAP. Moreover, to restore the property rights that an owner once had, when the withdrawal application is approved, the property should revert to the underlying zoning in existence when the Sector Plan was established. Notwithstanding the foregoing, LDC section 2-7.4(a)5. requires that when reviewing an opt-out application, the County must consider "[t]he underlying existing zoning category and its compatibility with surrounding DSAP land use designations." To this end, the County addressed this factor by assigning a less intense MU-S land use to the parcel so that more intense uses allowed by HC/LI would be prohibited or minimized. It is fairly datable that the underlying zoning will be compatible with the neighboring area. Petitioner contends the amendment is not supported by data and analysis, as required by section 163.3177(1)(f). Prior to adopting the amendment, the County staff made a qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts on natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, the environment, and adjacent lands. Because Highway 29 is a state road, the County has limited planning responsibilities for traffic impacts. Even so, a limited analysis of traffic impacts is found in County Exhibit 17. In addition, the Department of Transportation performed a more complete analysis of traffic impacts attributable to the amendment. Because the parcel is currently vacant, traffic impacts on Neal Road cannot be fully analyzed until a site plan is filed. A review of school concurrency issues was performed by the Department of Education and no adverse comments were submitted. The County verified that Emerald Coast Utility Authority had available water, sewer, and garbage capacity to serve the parcel. Finally, the County took into account the fact that removal of such a small parcel from the edge of the eastern side of the Sector Plan would have minimal, if any, effect on the Sector Plan goals and objectives. It is fairly debatable that the amendment is supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2017-53 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2018, 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 10th day of May, 2018.
The Issue Whether Escambia County Ordinance No. 2017-65 (Ordinance) adopted on November 30, 2017, amending the Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial (HC/LI) zoning district in the Escambia County Land Development Code (LDC) is consistent with the 2030 Escambia County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). Whether Remedial Ordinance No. 2018-30 (Remedial Ordinance) adopted on August 2, 2018, alleviates any inconsistency in the Ordinance such that the HC/LI zoning district regulation is consistent with the Comp Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner lives and owns property in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida, in proximity to parcels of land impacted by the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance. As such, the Petitioner would be subject to an increase in noise and traffic resulting from the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance, as well as an adverse change in the character of her rural neighborhood. The County is a non-charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is the affected local government and is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. DEO is the state land planning agency and has the duty to review and investigate petitions submitted under section 163.3213, challenging land development regulations adopted by local governments. The Ordinance was enacted to amend Part III of the County's LDC to address consistency of parcels zoned HC/LI with the MU-S FLU Category. The preamble to the Ordinance indicates a previous consolidation of zoning districts implemented on April 16, 2015, "did not eliminate all occurrences of zoning districts that appear to allow uses, density, or other intensities of use not authorized by the prevailing purposes and associated provisions of applicable future land use categories." The County's Board of County Commissioners (Board) found that "there are occurrences of HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category," and "it is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public to address any inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S future land use category." After the DEO's determination of partial inconsistency, the County adopted the Remedial Ordinance, which makes no reference to the April 15, 2015, consolidation of zoning districts in the preamble. In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amends the Ordinance to delete certain confusing references to parcels and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. Thus, the Remedial Ordinance is much clearer than the Ordinance in addressing the prior inconsistency created by HC/LI zoning within the MU-S FLU category. Mixed-Use Suburban Future Land Use Category The MU-S FLU is described in FLU Policy 1.3.1 of the Comp Plan as "[i]ntended for a mix of residential and non- residential uses while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and suburban land uses." The MU-S FLU lists the range of allowable uses as "[r]esidential, retail sales & services, professional office, recreational facilities, public and civic, limited agriculture." The MU-S FLU prescribes standards, such as a residential maximum density of 25 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a non-residential maximum intensity floor area ration (FAR) of one. The MU-S FLU also describes the mix of land uses that the County intends to achieve for new development in relation to location, i.e., the distance from arterial roadways or transit corridors. Within one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 8 to 25 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 5 to 20 percent; non-residential uses such as retail service at 30 to 50 percent; and office at 25 to 50 percent. Beyond one-quarter mile of arterial roadways or transit corridors: residential percentages of 70 to 85 percent; public, recreational and institutional percentages of 10 to 25 percent; and non- residential percentages of 5 to 10 percent. The mix of land uses described by the Comp Plan MU-S FLU category can be implemented by multiple zoning districts in the LDC. Certain zoning districts within MU-S further the residential intentions of the FLU category and other zoning districts further the non-residential intentions of the MU-S FLU category. However, all zoning districts within MU-S contain some element of residential use. The Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance The Remedial Ordinance amended the purpose subsection (a) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by adding language that directly limited the "variety and intensity of non- residential uses within the HC/LI [zoning] district" by "the applicable FLU." This means that although various non- residential uses are permitted in the HC/LI zoning district, the FLU category in the Comp Plan determines the "variety and intensity" of those non-residential uses. The Ordinance had amended subsection (h) of section 3-1.3 of the County LDC to clarify that "[o]ne or more districts may implement the range of allowed uses of each FLU, but only at densities and intensities of use consistent with the established purposes and standards of the category." This clarification is consistent with FLU Policy 1.1.4 in the Comp Plan, which states that "[w]ithin a given future land use category, there will be one or more implementing zoning districts." The Remedial Ordinance amended the permitted uses in subsection (b) of section 3-2.11 of the County LDC by deleting the confusing reference to parcel sizes and their previous zoning as of April 15, 2015. In paragraph (6) of subsection 3-2.11(b), the Remedial Ordinance made clear that the listed "industrial and related uses" are not permitted "within MU-S." In general, the other permitted uses mirror the range of allowable uses in the MU-S FLU category. The Remedial Ordinance amended the conditional uses in subsection (c) of section 3-2.11 to make clear that the listed industrial and related conditional uses are not permitted within MU-S. The Ordinance added MU-S to the site and building requirements in subsection (d) of section 3-2.11 to require a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Remedial Ordinance also imposed a maximum structure height for "any parcel previously zoned GBD [Gateway Business District] and within the MU-S" of 50 feet, which is lower than the maximum of 150 feet for HC/LI zoning not within MU-S. The Remedial Ordinance amended the location criteria in subsection (e) of section 3-2.11 to limit "[a]ll new non- residential uses proposed within the HC/LI district" to parcels previously zoned GBD and within the MU-S FLU category that are located along and directly in front of "U.S. Highway 29 or State Road 95A." In addition, another location criterion limits new non-residential uses along arterial streets to within one-quarter mile of their intersection with an arterial street. The provisions of the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance are consistent with the County Comp Plan. Petitioner's Objections The Petitioner contended that the HC/LI zoning regulation allows intensities and scales of commercial uses that are inconsistent with the character of a predominantly residential FLU like MU-S. The Petitioner based her contention on the Comp Plan definition of "suburban area" and argued that the Ordinance and Remedial Ordinance permitted uses, densities, and intensities that were not "suburban in nature." "Suburban area" is defined in the Comp Plan as "[a] predominantly low-density residential area located immediately outside of an urban area or a city and associated with it physically and socioeconomically." By contrast, "mixed-use" is defined in the Comp Plan as "any use that includes both residential and non-residential uses." See ch. 3, § 3.04, Escambia Cnty. Comp Plan. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, the MU-S FLU category's primary focus is on a mix of uses in a suburban area. See Findings of Fact Nos. 6-8, above. Indeed, the FLU element of the Comp Plan expresses a purpose and intent to encourage mixed- use development. Also, the Petitioner's focus on the differences between the MU-S and Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U) FLU categories in the Comp Plan was misplaced. The premise that the HC/LI zoning district implements the MU-U FLU category better than it implements the MU-S FLU category was not the issue to be determined in this proceeding. Rather, it was whether the Ordinance, as amended by the Remedial Ordinance, amending the HC/LI zoning district in the LDC is consistent with the Comp Plan. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-45 on September 4, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background 1. E. K. Edwards (Edwards) and Richard J. Clark (Clark), who are non-parties, own two tracts of land totaling 43.76 acres approximately four or five miles west-northwest of the City of Pensacola in unincorporated Escambia County. The larger tract (known as the Northern Parcel and owned by Edwards) consists of one parcel totaling 26.76 acres and is located at 2700 Blue Angel Parkway, also known as State Road 173. The second tract (known as the Southern Parcel and owned by Clark) consists of four contiguous parcels totaling around 17 acres and is located approximately 560 feet south of the Northern Parcel at the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of Blue Angel Parkway and Sorrento Road (intersection). The two tracts are separated by two large privately-owned lots that currently have residential uses. (However, the land use on one of those parcels, totaling almost 9 acres, was recently changed to a Commercial land use designation. See Finding of Fact 15, infra.) On July 10, 2002, a realtor (acting as agent on behalf of the two owners) filed an application with the County seeking to change the land use on the FLUM for both the Northern and Southern Parcels from LDR to Commercial. The LDR category allows residential densities ranging from one dwelling unit per five acres to 18 dwelling units per acre, as well as neighborhood commercial uses. The Commercial category would allow the owners to place a broad range of commercial uses on their property, such as shopping centers, professional offices, medical facilities, convenience retail, or other similar uses. On November 20, 2002, the County Planning Board (on which Petitioner was then a member) considered the application and voted unanimously to change the land use classification on the Southern Parcel to Commercial. It also voted to change the non-wetlands portion of the Northern Parcel to Commercial. However, the request to change the land use on the wetlands portion of the Northern Parcel was denied. This recommendation was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which modified the Planning Board's recommendation and approved the application as originally submitted. The amendment was then sent to the Department for an in compliance determination. On June 13, 2003, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report. In the ORC, the Department expressed concerns that there were insufficient "adequate data and analyses to demonstrate the suitability of the [Northern Parcel] for the proposed Future Land Use designation" because of the presence of on-site wetlands. The ORC went on to say that the County had failed to demonstrate how the proposed amendment would be consistent with four other Plan provisions that prohibit the location of commercial and industrial land uses in certain types of wetlands. The ORC recommended that the County "provide a more detailed characterization of the site and the surrounding area relative to the natural resources [wetlands] on the amendment site and the general area." After the issuance of the ORC, Mr. Edwards retained an ecological consultant, Dr. Joe A. Edmisten, to address the Department's concerns. On July 16, 2003, Dr. Edmisten submitted a 14-page Report in which he essentially concluded that while there were wetlands on the site, there were no endangered, threatened, rare, or listed plant or animal species. That Report has been received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. In light of this new information, the Planning Board again considered the matter on August 20, 2003, and by a four- to-one-vote recommended that the application, as originally filed, be approved. The matter was then forwarded to the Board. In response to an inquiry by a Board member at the Board's meeting on September 4, 2003, Dr. Edmisten stated that he found a "few pitcher plants in the wetlands [on Mr. Edwards' property]," including Sarracenia leucophylla, which is on the State (but not federal) Endangered Plant List. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 5B-40.0055(1)(a)334. Even though this information had not been disclosed in the Report, by a three- to-two vote, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 2003-45, which approved the change to the FLUM for both the Northern and Southern Parcels. On October 24, 2003, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Find the Escambia County Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Compliance. On November 17, 2003, Petitioner, who resides, owns property, and operates a business within the County, and submitted written or oral comments, objections, or recommendations to the County before the amendment was adopted, filed his Petition alleging that the plan amendment was not in compliance. Petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law and has standing to file his Petition. In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Petitioner contends that there is inadequate data and analyses relative to the natural environment (wetlands), traffic concurrency, and urban sprawl to support the amendment. As further clarified by Petitioner, he does not challenge the change in the FLUM for the Southern Parcel, but only contests that portion of the amendment which changes the land use on the Northern Parcel, on which wetlands are sited. In view of this, only the Northern Parcel will be considered in this Recommended Order. The Property The Northern Parcel fronts on the eastern side of Blue Angel Parkway approximately 1,400 feet north of the intersection. In broader geographic terms, the property is in western Escambia County and appears to be several miles west- northwest of the Pensacola Naval Air Station (which lies west- southwest of the City of Pensacola) and several miles south of U.S. Highway 98, which runs east-west through the southern part of the County. Blue Angel Parkway is a minor arterial roadway (at least where it runs in front of the Northern Parcel) and begins at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (to the south) and runs north to at least U.S. Highway 98. From the Naval Air Station to the intersection, Blue Angel Parkway appears to have four lanes, and from that point continuing past the Northern Parcel to U.S. Highway 98, it narrows to two undivided lanes. At the present time, an old borrow pit sits on the eastern side of the land, for which the property was given a special exception by the County's Zoning Board of Adjustments in March 1995. Also, there are at least three other ponds (or old borrow pits) formerly used by the owner for catfish farming; two large, unused metal buildings (apparently hangars) moved from the Naval Air Station to the property as military surplus; and numerous stored empty tanks in the southeastern corner of the property. The remainder of the property is vacant. When Dr. Edmisten's Report was submitted in July 2003, all of the ponds were filled with water due to recent heavy rains. Because of existing development at all corners of the intersection except the southwest corner, the intersection has been designated by the County as a commercial node, and the County considers the node to extend from the intersection northward along the eastern side of Blue Angel Parkway to the Northern Parcel. (However, on the western side of the road, the County has determined that the node terminates at the end of a parcel on which a Wal-Mart Super Center sits, and that further commercial development beyond that point would be inappropriate.) This determination is consistent with the Commercial land use classification found on the western portion of the Northern Parcel. See Finding of Fact 13, infra. The property presently carries a split future land use: an approximate 150-foot deep sliver of land which fronts on Blue Angel Parkway is classified as Commercial, while the remainder of the parcel is LDR. This dichotomy in land uses stems from a decision by the County in 1993 (when the Plan was adopted) to designate a narrow commercial strip on both sides of Blue Angel Parkway from just south of the intersection to Dog Track Road, which lies north of the Northern Parcel. The property also carries an Industrial zoning classification (presumably related to the mining activities), even though the land use on most of the parcel is residential. By his application, Edwards is seeking to "unify" the back or eastern portion of his property, which is now LDR, with the western portion fronting on Blue Angel Parkway, which is classified as Commercial. To the east of the Northern Parcel is Coral Creek, a fairly large residential subdivision platted in the 1990s. Some of the single-family lots in that subdivision back up to the eastern boundary of the property. The property to the north is vacant, is populated with some pitcher plants, and is classified as residential. Across the street and to the southwest is a new Wal-Mart Super Center which opened in the last year or so at the northwestern quadrant of the intersection. (The northern boundary of the Wal-Mart Super Center parcel is directly across the street from the southern boundary of the Northern Parcel.) The property directly across the street and extending to the north is vacant and classified as Residential. That parcel also contains pitcher plants and is informally designated as "pitcher plant prairie." The property which separates the Northern and Southern Parcels is classified as Residential, except for 8.98 acres which were recently changed from LDR to Commercial through a small-scale development amendment approved by the Department. See Gregory L. Strand v. Escambia County, DOAH Case No. 03-2980GM (DOAH Recommended Order Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Final Order Jan. 28, 2004). The Final Order in that case, however, has been appealed by Petitioner. While the precise amount of wetlands on the site is unknown, the record does indicate that wetlands exist on "approximately" one-half of the Northern Parcel, or around thirteen or so acres, leaving a like amount of uplands. (Therefore, even if the property is reclassified, the amount of development on the property will be restricted in some measure through the application of the County's Wetlands Ordinance found in the Land Development Code.) A small area of wetlands exists on the western side of the property near Blue Angel Parkway while a larger wetland system lies on the eastern side of the property and acts as a buffer with the Coral Creek subdivision. The wetlands are under the permitting jurisdiction of the United States Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner contends that the amendment is not in compliance because there is inadequate data and analyses relative to conservation (wetlands), traffic, and urban sprawl to support the change in the land use.2 These issues will be addressed separately below. Wetlands As to this objection, Petitioner's principal concern is that if the land use change is approved, there will be much more intense development on the property which will result in a loss of wetlands, even with mitigation. Citing Policy 11.A.2.6.d of the Coastal Management Element of the Plan, he contends that there is insufficient data and analyses to support the plan amendment's distribution of land uses in such a way as to minimize the effect and impact on wetlands. The cited policy contains provisions which govern the development of lands within wetland areas, including one provision which states that "commercial and industrial land uses will not be located in wetlands that have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance, including the following types of wetlands: . . . Wetlands that have a high degree of biodiversity or habitat value, based on maps prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or Florida National Areas Inventory, unless a site survey demonstrates that there are no listed plant or animal species on the site." In Case No. 03-2980GM, supra, which involved a change in the FLUM on a parcel of property which separates the Northern and Southern Parcels, Petitioner contended, among other things, that the terms of Policy 11.A.2.6.d should apply whenever the FLUM is being amended, and that because there were wetlands on the parcel, along with two types of endangered plants, the policy prohibited a change from a residential to a commercial land use. In rejecting that contention, however, the Department approved and adopted language by the Administrative Law Judge which concluded, for several reasons, that "the County intended Policy 11.A.2.6.a through e to apply to decisions of the County regarding development applications and not to changes in future land use designations or categories in a FLUM." (Recommended Order, page 19). Therefore, the policy applies to development applications, and not to FLUM amendments, and does not have to be considered at this juncture. (That policy, and the County's Wetlands Ordinance, will obviously come into play at the time a site plan is filed and the owner seeks to develop the property.) As such, there is no need for data and analyses at this time to demonstrate that the policy has been satisfied. As noted above, after the Department issued its ORC, Mr. Edwards engaged the services of Dr. Edmisten, who performed a study and prepared a Report that evaluated the wetlands on the Northern Parcel. That Report constitutes much of the data and analyses which support the amendment. Despite the presence of one endangered plant species, the Report indicates that the wetlands do not have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance; that the change in the FLUM is consistent with all relevant policies in the Plan, including those cited in the ORC; that a mitigation plan will be offered prior to any development; and that all wetlands issues will be addressed during the development stage. The Report also indicates that among other things, Dr. Edmisten utilized the National Wetlands Inventory Map in reaching his conclusions. The Department reviewed the document and found that it constituted the best available data and analyses, that the data were analyzed in a professional manner, and that the County reacted to the data in an appropriate manner when it adopted the amendment. This is especially true since the County has provisions in its Plan for wetlands avoidance and fully considers these issues through the site-review process. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that there exist adequate data and analyses regarding wetlands to support the change in the land use on the property. Traffic Petitioner also contends that there is a lack of adequate data and analyses to demonstrate that the proposed change in land use will not adversely impact traffic in the area. More specifically, he contends that the County failed to perform an analysis of infrastructure capacity, and that it also failed to include information that Blue Angel Parkway is not in its five-year plan for improvements. Data and analyses were provided in the form of a spreadsheet dated November 6, 2002, and entitled Traffic Volume and Level of Service Report (Traffic Report). The Traffic Report contained several categories of information regarding traffic volume, Level of Service (LOS), and other transportation information. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The data were far more detailed than data previously used by the County on other amendments of this size and character, and they were based on Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) accepted standards of traffic calculations. The data and analyses were the best available at the time the plan amendment was adopted. The data shows that the section of Blue Angel Parkway on which the Northern Parcel fronts has an adopted LOS of "D." At the time the amendment was adopted, the service volume on that portion of the road was 74 percent, which means that the roadway was operating at 74 percent of its capacity. Therefore, when the amendment was adopted, the roadway was not failing, and it could handle additional traffic, including any that might be associated with the future development of the land. Petitioner also contends that the County's study was flawed because the County used so-called "Art Tab" software, which became outdated after September 1, 2002. (Art-Tab software has now been updated and is called Free Plan software.) He further suggests that the County should have performed a new study using updated software. Under DOT requirements set forth in its Quality/Level of Service Handbook, however, the County was not required to redo its analysis; rather, it was required to use the new software only in the event further studies were required. Because Blue Angel Parkway was not failing at the time the study was performed, it was not necessary for the County to undertake a new study. During the interagency review process, the DOT did not issue any objections, recommendations, or comments to the Department concerning the amendment. Finally, Petitioner contends that because the County did not have Blue Angel Parkway on any road improvement list at the time the amendment was adopted, its analysis of infrastructure capacity was flawed. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that each local government's comprehensive plan contain a capital improvements element with a component which outlines the principles for correcting public facility deficiencies covering at least a five-year period. Whether the County's Plan contains such a component is not of record. In any event, even if the County failed to consider the fact that Blue Angel Parkway was not scheduled for upgrading when the amendment was adopted, given the other data and analyses available at that time (the traffic spreadsheet), which reflected that the roadway was operating below capacity, the County had sufficient information regarding infrastructure capacity to support the amendment. Based on the foregoing, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment has adequate data and analyses relative to traffic impacts to support the land use change. Urban sprawl Finally, Petitioner asserts that no data were gathered and no analyses were performed to demonstrate that the change in land use will discourage urban sprawl. In this case, the Department did not require that the County perform an urban sprawl analysis, given the type of surrounding land uses; the relative small size of the Northern Parcel; the absence of any land use allocation problems; the ability of the owner to now place up to 18 units per acre and/or neighborhood commercial development on the property under the current LDR classification; and the fact that the Northern Parcel is located on the edge of a rapidly urbanizing area of the County. At the same time, Petitioner presented no evidence which supported the need for such a study. The Northern (and Southern) Parcel is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the County and is close to several other urban uses. Indeed, as noted earlier, there is a Wal- Mart Super Center across the street at the northwestern quadrant of the intersection, and a mix of commercial and residential uses abut the intersection to the southeast. All four corners of the intersection have been designated as a commercial node in the County's draft Southwest Sector Plan, and the County has determined that the node continues northward on the eastern side of the road to and including the Northern Parcel. As a general rule, the Department considers the size and shape of nodes to be a local government decision, and it found no reason here to question that determination. The Plan encourages commercial development at intersectional nodes. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(134), urban sprawl is defined in part as "urban development or uses which are located in predominately rural areas." Indicators of urban sprawl include "[t]he premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses," and the "creation of areas of urban development or uses which are not functionally related to land uses which predominate the adjacent area." The evidence does not support a finding that the amendment will result in the poorly planned conversion of rural lands, or the creation of a land use that is not functionally related to land uses that predominate the adjacent area. Given these considerations, Petitioner has not proven beyond fair debate that the plan amendment will result in urban sprawl, or that the County lacked adequate data and analyses related to urban sprawl to support the change in the land use.
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 amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2003-45 on September 4, 2003, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 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 6th day of May, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's applications for two outdoor advertising permits, dated June 1, 1999, and received by the Respondent on June 10, 1999, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for, among other things, issuing permits and regulating outdoor advertising structures and signs along the state highway system, the interstate system, and the federal-aid primary system. Section 479.02, Florida Statutes (1999). In the applications received by the Department on June 10, 1999, AK Media sought permits for two signs to be attached to one monopole, one sign to be facing north and one sign to be facing south. The applications stated that the proposed location of the monopole is the west side of State Road 7/U.S. 441, 2.4 miles north of Atlantic Avenue in Palm Beach County, Florida, and approximately 57 feet from the State Road 7 right-of-way. AK Media has leased the proposed site from its owner. As a required part of the applications, AK Media submitted two Florida Department of Transportation forms executed on April 12, 1999, by Jon Mac Gillis, Principal Site Planner for Palm Beach County. The current zoning of the proposed site was identified on the form as "CG Commercial General," and the designation of the proposed site on the future land use map was identified as "SA", that is, "Special Agriculture." It was further indicated on the form executed by Mr. Gillis that, within the "SA" designation, commercial and industrial uses were the "predominate uses allowed within 660' of the highway adjacent to the proposed site." On May 26, 1999, Palm Beach County issued a Special Permit allowing AK Media to register the proposed billboard. In its Notice of Denial of Application, the Department identified one basis for denying AK Media's applications as follows: Site is in un-permittable land use designation. Pursuant to Section 479.111, Florida Statutes, outdoor advertising signs must be located in commercial or industrial zoned or unzoned areas. Section 479.01(3) defines "commercial or industrial zone" as an area "designated predominately for commercial or industrial use under the future land use map of the comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 163." The land use designation for the subject site is SA. The Palm Beach County, Florida, Official Zoning District Map in effect at the time of the hearing identified the zoning of the proposed site of the outdoor advertising signs as "CG" (Commercial General). The Future Land Use Atlas of Palm Beach County in effect at the time of hearing designated the proposed site of the outdoor advertising signs as "SA" (Special Agriculture). Palm Beach County's 1989 Comprehensive Plan, as revised December 13, 1999, was in effect at the time of the hearing. "Special Agriculture Uses" are defined therein in pertinent part: The following land uses and intensities are allowed in areas designated Special Agriculture where permitted by the terms of the Unified Land Development Code: Fruit and vegetable markets and terminals for farm products; Agricultural production uses including, but not limited to, produce packing plants, poultry and egg production, nurseries, growing, livestock, kennels, training centers and potting soil manufacturing; Agriculturally related services such as feed and grain stores and farm implement sales and service and fueling areas restricted solely to agricultural activities; Mining, subject to the limitations; Uses and structures accessory to a permitted use; and Limited residential uses as described below, farm labor quarters and camps; caretaker's quarters, such as for pump houses; dwelling quarters and farm residences for bona fide farm operations; or dwelling units allowed as alternative use. The Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan defines "Commercial Agricultural Development" as follows: "Agriculture conducted for commercial purposes within the Agricultural Production Plan Category North of L-8 Canal and East of the North Tieback Canal, the AG Reserve Plan Category, and those activities classified as special agriculture." In concluding that AK Media's applications should be denied, the Department's field inspector confirmed the "SA" designation on the Palm Beach County future land use map but disregarded the certification of the Principal Site Planner for Palm Beach County that the proposed site was zoned "GC" and that predominately commercial uses were allowed within areas designated "SA" in the future land use map. The proposed site of the outdoor advertising signs is designated for commercial use in Palm Beach County's future land use map, albeit commercial use related to agriculture, and the site is zoned General Commercial, as shown on Palm Beach County's current zoning map. The proposed site is, therefore, located within a commercial zone.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting the applications of AK Media, Inc., for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on the site identified in the applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 8th day of June, 2000.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to 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 land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "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." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 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)
