The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, 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 is statutorily charged with the duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and to 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 local comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time. 1000 Friends is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that maintains its headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. Its corporate purpose is to ensure the fair and effective implementation of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, through education, lobbying, research and litigation. 1000 Friends has approximately 3,500 members, 174 of whom live in the County. NPCA is a foreign, not-for-profit corporation that is registered to do business in Florida. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It has a branch office in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. NPCA’s purpose is to protect and preserve national parks, including Everglades National Park. NPCA has approximately 340,000 members, 1,000 of whom live in the County. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. Lowe’s is a for-profit corporation that owns and operates a business in the County. David Brown, along with his father and brother, is a co-applicant for the Brown amendment. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, the Department and the Intervenors aligned with the Department will be referred to, collectively, as Petitioners. Standing Lowe’s filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-44 (Lowe’s Amendment). Lowe’s submitted comments to the County concerning the Lowe’s Amendment during the period of time from the County’s transmittal of the amendment to the County’s adoption of the amendment. Brown filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-45 (Brown Amendment). Brown resides in the County. Brown is a manager/member of BDG Kendall 172, LLC, which has a contract to purchase the larger of the two parcels on the application site. Brown is also a manager/member of BDG Kendall 162, LLC, which owns and operates a business in Miami-Dade County. Brown submitted comments to the County at the transmittal and adoption hearings. 1000 Friends submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. 1000 Friends presented its comments to the County on behalf of its members who reside in the County. 1000 Friends does not own property or maintain an office in the County. 1000 Friends does not pay local business taxes in the County and did not show that it is licensed to conduct a business in the County. 1000 Friends has engaged in fundraising, lobbying, and litigation in the County. Its activities include efforts to promote growth management, affordable housing, and Everglades restoration. 1000 Friends did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. NPCA submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. NPCA presented its comments to the County on behalf of NPCA members who reside in the County. NPCA does not own property or maintain an office in the County. No evidence was presented to show that NPCA pays business taxes in the County or that it is licensed to conduct business in the County. NPCA did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. They submitted comments to the County regarding the amendments during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. The Amendment Adoption Process The applications which resulted in the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments were submitted to the County during the April 2007 plan amendment cycle. The County’s review process for comprehensive plan amendments includes a public hearing before the community council which has jurisdiction over the area of the County where the affected lands are located. Following the public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the community councils recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments. The County’s Planning Advisory Board also reviews proposed amendments before the transmittal and adoption hearings. Following public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the Planning Advisory Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments for transmittal and for adoption. The County planning staff recommended that the proposed amendments be denied and not transmitted to the Department. The principal objection of the planning staff was that the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), an aspect of both proposed amendments, was unjustified. In November 2007, the Board of County Commissioners voted to transmit the amendments to the Department. The Department reviewed the proposed amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on February 26, 2008. In the ORC Report, the Department stated that expanding the UDB would be internally inconsistent with the CDMP because the need for the expansion had not been demonstrated. In addition the Department determined that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of wetlands, and the Brown Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of agricultural lands. When the amendments came before the Board of County Commissioners after the ORC Report in March 2008, the County planning staff recommended that the amendments be denied, repeating its belief that the expansion of the UDB would be inconsistent with the CDMP. Under the County’s Code of Ordinances, an expansion of the UDB requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted the amendments through Ordinances No. 08-44 and 08-45 on April 24, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Mayor Carlos Alvarez vetoed the ordinances, citing inconsistencies with the UDB policies of the CDMP. His veto was overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2008. On July 18, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance. The Lowe’s Amendment The Lowe’s Amendment site consists of two parcels located in close proximity to the intersection of Southwest 8th Street, also known as Tamiami Trail, and Northwest 137th Avenue. The easternmost parcel, Parcel A, is 21.6 acres. The adjacent parcel to the west, Parcel B, is 30.1 acres. Neither parcel is currently being used. About 50 percent of both Parcels A and B are covered by wetlands. The wetlands are partially drained and show encroachment by exotic vegetation, including Melaleuca and Australian pine. The Lowe’s site is located within the Bird Trail Canal Basin, which the CDMP characterizes as containing “heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands.” Both Parcels A and B are currently designated Open Land under the CDMP, with a more specific designation as Open Land Subarea 3 (Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins), and can be used for residences at densities of up to one unit per five acres, compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, certain agricultural uses, recreational uses, limestone quarrying, and ancillary uses. East of the Lowe’s site is another parcel owned by Lowe’s that is designated Business and Office and is within the UDB. North and west of the Lowe’s site is Open Land. The Lowe’s site is bordered on the south by Tamiami Trail, a six- lane road. Across Tamiami Trail is land designated Business and Office. The Lowe’s amendment would reclassify Parcel A as Business and Office and Parcel B as Institution, Utilities, and Communications. The Lowe’s Amendment would also extend the UDB westward to encompass Parcels A and B. The Business and Office designation allows for a wide range of sales and service activities, as well as compatible residential uses. However, the Lowe’s amendment includes a restrictive covenant that prohibits residential development. The Institution, Utilities, and Communications land use designation allows for “the full range of institution, communications and utilities,” as well as offices and some small businesses. Parcel A is subject to another restrictive covenant that provides that Lowe’s shall not seek building permits for the construction of any buildings on Parcel A without having first submitted for a building permit for the construction of a home improvement store. The use of Parcel B is restricted to a school, which can be a charter school. If a charter school is not developed on Parcel B, the parcel will be offered to the Miami-Dade County School Board. If the School Board does not purchase Parcel B within 120 days, then neither Lowe’s nor its successors of assigns have any further obligations to develop a school on Parcel B. The Brown Amendment The Brown Amendment involves four changes to the CDMP: a future land use re-designation from “Agriculture” to “Business and Office”; an expansion of the UDB to encompass the Brown site; a prohibition of residential uses on the site; and a requirement that the owner build an extension of SW 172nd Avenue through the site. The Agriculture designation allows agricultural uses and single family residences at a density of one unit per five acres. The proposed Business and Office land use designation allows a wide range of commercial uses, including retail, professional services, and office. Residential uses are also allowed, but the Declaration of Restrictions adopted by the County with the Brown Amendment prohibits residential development. The Brown Amendment site is 42 acres. Some of the site is leased to a tenant farmer who grows row crops. The balance is vacant and not in use. The Brown site has a triangular shape. Along the sloping northern/eastern boundary is Kendall Drive. Kendall Drive is a major arterial roadway, a planned urban corridor, and part of the state highway system. On the site's western boundary is other agricultural land. There is commercial development to the east. Along the southern boundary is the 1200-unit Vizcaya Traditional Neighborhood Development, which is within the UDB. The entirety of the Brown site has been altered by farming activities. In the southwest portion of the site is a four-acre, degraded wetland that is part of a larger 28-acre wetland located offsite. The wetland is not connected to any state waters and the Army Corps of Engineers has not asserted jurisdiction over it. The wetland is not on the map of “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas” in the Land Use Element of the CDMP. The dominant plants in the wetland are exotic species. There is no evidence that any portion of the site is used by any threatened or endangered species. The Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Area The principal dispute in this case involves the application of Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP regarding the expansion of the UDB. Policy LU-8F directs that adequate supplies of residential and nonresidential lands be maintained in the UDB. If the supply of lands becomes inadequate, Policy LU-8G addresses where the expansion of the UDB should occur. The UDB is described in the Land Use Element: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2015 from areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2015 provided that level- of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The UDB promotes several planning purposes. It provides for the orderly and efficient construction of infrastructure, encourages urban infill and redevelopment, discourages urban sprawl, and helps to conserve agricultural and environmentally-sensitive lands. The County only accepts applications for amendments seeking to expand the UDB once every two years, unless they are directly related to a development of regional impact. In contrast, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, allows two amendment cycles in a calendar year, Amendments that would expand the UDB must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners. Other types of amendments only require a majority vote of the quorum. Outside the UDB are County lands within the relatively small Urban Expansion Area (UEA), which is described in the CDMP as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2015 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2015 and 2025.” The UEA consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall be avoided” when the County is considering adding land to the UDB. They are (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The “future” wetlands on this list are existing wetland areas delineated by the County on Figure 14 of the Land Use Element. A far larger area of the County, mostly west of the UDB and UEA, consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. These are water conservation areas, lands associated with Everglades National Park, the Redland agricultural area, and wellfield protection areas. Policy LU-8F Policy LU-8F of the Land Use Element provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy LU-7F. The adequacy of non- residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. There is no further guidance in the CDMP for determining the “adequacy of land supplies” with respect to nonresidential land uses. Neither Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, nor Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 requires that local governments use a particular methodology to determine the adequacy of nonresidential land supplies. The County’s usual methodology for determining need is described in the Planning Considerations Report that the County planning staff prepared for the 2007 amendment cycle. A report like this one is prepared by the staff for each amendment cycle to evaluate the adequacy of the CDMP to accommodate growth and to evaluate pending amendment applications. The County compares a proposed use to its immediate surroundings and the broader area of the County in which the proposed use is located. The basic geographic unit used in the County’s need analysis is the Minor Statistical Area (MSA). Larger planning areas, called Tiers, are groupings of MSAs. The County is divided into 32 MSAs and four Tiers. The Lowe’s Amendment site is in MSA 3.2, but it is on the border with MSA 6.1, so the two MSAs were consolidated for the County’s need analysis regarding the Lowe’s Amendment, even though MSA 3.2 is in the North Central Tier and MSA 6.1 is in the South Central Tier. The Brown Amendment is in MSA 6.2, but it is close to MSA 6.1, so the County combined the two MSAs for its need analysis for the Brown Amendment. Both MSAs are in the South Central Tier. The Planning Considerations Report contains a 2007 inventory of commercial land. The only vacant land used in the analysis of available commercial land supply was land zoned for business, professional office, office park, or designated Business and Office on the Land Use Map. Although it is stated in the Planning Considerations Report that lands zoned or designated for industrial uses are often used for commercial purposes, this situation was not factored into the calculation of the available supply of commercial lands. The County also excluded any supply that could be gained from the redevelopment of existing sites. Petitioners contend, therefore, that the County’s need for commercial land is less than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report. On the other hand, Respondents contend that the County’s need for commercial land is greater than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report because the County planning staff did not apply a “market factor” for commercial lands as it does for residential lands. A market factor is considered by some professional planners to be appropriate for commercial land uses to account for physical constraints and other factors that limit the utilization of some vacant parcels, and to prevent situations where the diminished supply of useable parcels causes their prices to rise steeply. The CDMP recognizes the problem in stating that: impediments can arise to the maximum utilization of all lands within the boundaries [of the UDB]. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density and character of a particular area. The County used a market factor of 1.5 (50 percent surplus) to determine the need for residential land. The County did not use a market factor in its analysis of the need for commercial land. The Department’s expert planning witness, Mike McDaniel, testified that the Department generally supports use of a 1.25 allocation (25 percent surplus). The County’s most recent UDB expansions for nonresidential uses (other than Lowe’s and Brown) were the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland amendments in 2002. The Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland UDB expansions were approved despite the fact that the County did not project a need for more industrial land within the planning horizon. The need determinations for these amendments were not based on the use of a market factor, but on a percieved2`` need for the particular land uses proposed – warehouses and related industrial uses on large parcels to serve the Miami International Airport and the Port of Miami. The evidence indicates that the County’s exclusion from its analysis of industrial lands that can be used for commercial purposes, and additional commercial opportunities that could be derived from the redevelopment of existing sites, is offset by the County’s exclusion of a market factor. If the supply of commercial land had been increased 25 percent to account for industrial lands and redevelopment, it would have been offset by a 1.25 market factor on the demand side. The calculations made by the County in its Planning Considerations Report would not have been materially different. The Planning Considerations Report analyzes commercial demand (in acres) through the years 2015 and 2025, and calculates a “depletion year” by MSA, Tier, and countywide. A depletion year is the year in which the supply of vacant land is projected to be exhausted. If the depletion year occurs before 2015 (the planning horizon for the UDB), that is an indication that additional lands for commercial uses might be needed. The County planning staff projected a countywide depletion year of 2023, which indicates there are sufficient commercial lands in the County through the planning horizon of 2015. The County then projected the need for commercial land by MSA and Tier. MSA 3.2, where the Lowe’s site is located, has a depletion year of 2025, but when averaged with MSA 6.1’s depletion years of 2011, results in an average depletion year of 2018. The North Central Tier, in which the Lowe’s Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2023. The County’s depletion year analysis at all three levels, MSA, Tier, and countywide, indicates no need for more commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a depletion year of 2017, but when combined with MSA 6.1’s depletion of 2011, results in an average depletion year for the two MSAs is 2014. The South Central Tier, in which the Brown Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2014. Therefore, the County’s depletion year analysis, at the MSA and Tier levels, indicates a need for more commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County also analyzed the ratio of commercial acres per 1,000 persons by MSA, Tier, and county-wide. The countywide ratio is not a goal that the County is seeking to achieve for all Tiers and MSAs. However, if a Tier or MSA shows a ratio substantially lower than the countywide ratio, that MSA or Tier might need more commercial lands. The countywide ratio of commercial lands per 1,000 persons is projected to be 6.1 acres per 1,000 persons in 2015. MSA 3.2, in which the Lowe’s site is located, has a ratio of 11.3 acres per 1,000 persons. MSA 6.1 has a ratio of 2.6 acres. The average for the two MSAs is 6.95 acres. The ratio for all of the North Central Tier is 6.3 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison of the countywide ratio with the MSAs and Tier where the Lowe’s site is located indicates there is no need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a ratio of 4.1 acres per 1,000 persons. When combined with MSA 6.1’s ratio of 2.6 acres, the average for the two MSAs is 3.35 acres. The ratio for all of the South Central Tier is 4.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison with the countywide ratio of 6.1 acres indicates a need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County’s need analysis treated the Kendall Town Center as vacant (i.e., available) commercial land, but the Kendall Town Center is approved and under construction. If the Kendall Town Center had been excluded, the County’s projected future need for commercial land in the area of the Brown site would have been greater. The Planning Considerations Report does not discuss parcel size in its commercial need analysis. Lowe’s contends that the County should have considered whether there is a need for larger “community commercial” uses in the area of the Lowe’s site. Policy LU-8F refers only to the need to consider (by “Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof”) the adequacy of land supplies for “regional commercial activities.” Lowe’s planning expert testified that there are few undeveloped commercial parcels in MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that are ten acres or more, or could be aggregated with contiguous vacant parcels to create a parcel bigger than ten acres. Lowe’s submitted two market analyses for home improvement stores, which conclude that there is a need for another home improvement store in the area of the Lowe’s site. The market analyses offered by Lowe’s differ from the County’s methodology, which focuses, not on the market for a particular use, but on the availability of commercial lands in appropriate proportion to the population. Even when it is reasonable for the County to consider the need for a unique use, the County’s focus is on serving a general public need, rather than on whether a particular commercial use could be profitable in a particular location. Some of the assumptions used in the market analyses offered by Lowe’s were unreasonable and biased the results toward a finding of need for a home improvement store in the study area. The more persuasive evidence shows that there is no need for more commercial land, and no need for a home improvement store, in the area of the Lowe’s site. Lowe’s Parcel B is proposed for use as a school. The elementary, middle and high schools serving the area are over- capacity. Lowe’s expects the site to be used as a charter high school. Using an inventory of lands that was prepared by the County staff, Lowe’s planning expert investigated each parcel of land located within MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that was over seven acres2 and determined that no parcel within either MSA was suitable for development as a high school. The record is unclear about how the Lowe’s Amendment fits into the plans of the County School Board. The proposition that there are no other potential school sites in the area was not firmly established by the testimony presented by Lowe’s. The need shown for the school site on Parcel B does not overcome the absence of demonstrated need for the Business and Office land use on Parcel A. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8F. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8F is fairly debatable. Policy LU-8G Policy LU-8GA(i) identifies lands outside the UDB that “shall not be considered for inclusion in the UDB. Policy LU- 8G(ii) identifies other lands that “shall be avoided,” including (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. A peculiarity of the UEA is that it is composed entirely of lands that “shall be avoided” when the County considers adding lands to the UDB. The Department contends that “shall be avoided” means, in this context, that the County must make “a compelling showing that every other option has been exhausted” before the UDB can be expanded. However, the CDMP does not express that specific intent. The CDMP does not provide any direct guidance about how compelling the demonstration must be to expand the UDB. Policies LU-8F and LU-8G appear to call for a balancing approach, where the extent of the need for a particular expansion must be balanced against the associated impacts to UEA lands and related CDMP policies. The greater the needs for an expansion of the UDB, the greater are the impacts that can be tolerated. The smaller the need, the smaller are the tolerable impacts. Because the need for the Lowe’s Amendment was not shown, the application of the locational criteria in Policy LU- 8G is moot. However, the evidence presented by Lowe’s is addressed here. Within the meaning of Policy LU-8G(ii)(a), the wetlands that “shall be avoided” are those wetlands that are depicted on the Future Wetlands Map part of the Land Use Element of the CDMP. About 50 percent of the Lowes site is covered by wetlands that are on the Future Wetlands Map. Petitioners speculated that the construction of a Lowe’s home improvement store and school on the Lowe’s site could not be accomplished without harm to the wetlands on the site, but they presented no competent evidence to support that proposition. The wetland protections afforded under the environmental permitting statutes would not be affected by the Lowe’s Amendment. Nevertheless, this is a planning case, not a wetland permitting case. It is a well-recognized planning principle that lands which have a high proportion of wetlands are generally not suitable for land use designations that allow for intense uses. The Lowe’s Amendment runs counter to this principle. Policy LU-8F(iii) identifies areas that “shall be given priority” for inclusion in the UDB: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Lands contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Lands having projected surplus service capacity where necessary services can be readily extended. The Lowe’s site satisfies all but the first criterion. The Lowe’s site is in the Tier with the latest projected supply depletion year. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G. Because a reasonable showing of need for the Brown Amendment was shown, it is appropriate to apply the locational criteria of Policy LU-8G. The Brown Amendment would expand the UDB into an area of the UEA that is designated Agriculture. The single goal of the CDMP’s Land Use Element refers to the preservation of the County’s “unique agricultural lands.” The CDMP refers elsewhere to the importance of protecting “viable agriculture.” Brown argued that these provisions indicate that the County did not intend to treat all agricultural lands similarly, and that agricultural activities like those on the Brown site, that are neither unique nor viable, were not intended to be preserved. Petitioners disagreed. The County made the Redland agricultural area one of the areas that “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. Therefore, the County knew how to preserve “unique” agricultural lands and prevent them from being re-designated and placed in the UDB. The only evidence in the record about the economic “viability” of the current agricultural activities on the Brown site shows they are marginally profitable, at best. The Brown site is relatively small, has a triangular shape, and is wedged between a major residential development and an arterial roadway, which detracts from its suitability for agricultural operations. These factors also diminish the precedent that the re-designation of the Brown site would have for future applications to expand the UDB. The Brown site satisfies all of the criteria in Policy LU-8G(iii) to be given priority for inclusion in the UDB. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8G is fairly debatable. Policy EDU-2A Policy EDU-2A of the CDMP states that the County shall not purchase school sites outside the UDB. It is not clear why this part of the policy was cited by Petitioners, since the Lowe’s Amendment would place Parcel B inside the UDB. Policy EDU-2A also states that new elementary schools “should” be located at 1/4 mile inside the UDB, new middle schools “should” be located at least 1/2 mile inside the UDB, and new high schools “should” be located at least one mile inside the UDB. The policy states further that, “in substantially developed areas,” where conforming sites are not available, schools should be placed as far as practical from the UDB. Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy EDU-2A because Parcel B, the school site in the Lowe’s Amendment, would be contiguous to the UDB if the Lowe’s Amendment were approved. However, when a policy identifies circumstances that allow for an exception to a stated preference, it is necessary for challengers to show that the exceptional circumstances do not exist. It was Petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that there were conforming school sites farther from the UDB in the area of the Lowe’s site. Petitioners did meet their burden. The County’s determination that the Lowe’s Amendment is consistent with Policy EDU-2A is fairly debatable. Urban Sprawl 1000 Friends and NPCA allege that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments would encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Department did not raise urban sprawl as an “in compliance” issue. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 “primary indicators” of urban sprawl. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators is to be considered to determine “whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is designating for development “substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low- intensity, low-density, or single use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need.” It was found, above, that the County had a reasonable basis to determine there was a need for the Brown Amendment, but not for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, this indicator is triggered only by the Lowe’s Amendment. Indicator 2 is designating significant amounts of urban development that leaps over undeveloped lands. The facts do not show that undeveloped lands were leaped over for either of the amendments. Indicator 3 is designating urban development “in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns.” The Lowe’s and Brown Amendments do not involve radial or isolated development patterns. What would constitute a “ribbon” pattern was not explained. Not every extension of existing commercial uses constitutes strip sprawl Other factors need to be considered. For example, both the Lowe’s and Brown sites are at major intersections where more intense land uses are commonly located. Under the circumstances shown in this record, this indicator is not triggered for either amendment. Indicator 4 is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. This indicator is frequently cited by challengers when an amendment site contains wetlands or other natural resources, without regard to whether the potential impact to these resources has anything to do with sprawl. In the area of the Lowe’s site, the UDB generally divides urbanized areas from substantial wetlands areas that continue west to the Everglades. The Lowe’s Amendment intrudes into an area dominated by wetlands and, therefore, its potential to affect wetlands is an indication of sprawl. In the area of the Brown Amendment, the UDB generally separates urbanized areas from agricultural lands that already have been substantially altered from their natural state. The Brown Amendment invades an agricultural area, not an area of natural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Brown Amendment on the small area of degraded wetlands on the Brown site do not indicate sprawl. Indicator 5 is failing to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities. Because this indicator focuses on “adjacent” agricultural areas, it is not obvious that it includes consideration of effects on the amendment site itself. If this indicator applies to the cessation of agricultural activities on the Brown site, then the Brown Amendment triggers this primary indicator. If the indicator applies only to agricultural activities adjacent to the Brown site, the evidence was insufficient to show that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve the proposed use. Petitioners did not show that new public facilities must be created to serve the Lowe’s or Brown sites. The proposed amendments would maximize the use of existing water and sewer facilities. Petitioners did not show that the amendments would cause disproportionate increases in the costs of facilities and services. Indicator 9 is failing to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The Lowe’s Amendment would create an irregular and less clear separation between urban and rural uses in the area and, therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment triggers this indicator. The Brown Amendment does not trigger this indicator because of it is situated between the large Vizcaya development and Kendall Drive, a major arterial roadway. The Brown Amendment would create a more regular separation between urban and rural uses in the area. Indicator 10 is discouraging infill or redevelopment. The CDMP delineates an Urban Infill Area (UIA) that is generally located east of the Palmetto Expressway and NW/SW 77th Avenue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments discourage infill within the UIA. Petitioners did not show how any particular infill opportunities elsewhere in the UDB are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive for infill. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. The CDMP promotes redevelopment of buildings that are substandard or underdeveloped. Petitioners did not show how any particular redevelopment opportunities are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive to redevelop existing properties. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. Indicator 11 is failing to encourage or attract a functional mix of uses. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this primary indicator is triggered. Indicator 12 is poor accessibility among linked or related uses. No evidence was presented to show that this indicator would be triggered. Indicator 13 is the loss of “significant” amounts of open space. These amendments do not result in the loss of significant amounts of open space, whether measured by acres, by the percentage of County open lands converted to other uses, or by any specific circumstances in the area of the amendment sites. Evaluating the Lowe’s Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Evaluating the Brown Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Land Use Analysis The Department claims that the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments are inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), which requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan be based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected population. The Department believes the analyses of need presented by Lowe’s and Brown’s consultants were not professionally acceptable. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no need for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c). A preponderance of competent, substantial, and professionally acceptable evidence of need, in conformance with and including the methodology used by the County planning staff, demonstrated that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c).3 Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 - Natural Resources Petitioners contend the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, which require that the land use element of every comprehensive plan contain a goal to protect natural resources, and that every conservation element contain goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species, and wetlands. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CDMP does not contain these required goals, objectives, and policies. Therefore, Petitioners failed to prove that the Lowe’s amendment is inconsistent with these provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5.4 The State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s and Brown amendments are inconsistent with several provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan. Goal (9)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies address the protection of natural systems. Petitioners contend that only the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. Goal (15)(a) and its associated policies address land use, especially development in areas where public services and facilities are available. Policy (15)(b)2. is to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and policy. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies Goal (16)(a) and its associated policies address urban and downtown revitalization. Although the expansion of the UDB diminishes the incentive to infill or redevelop, Petitioners did not show this effect, when considered in the context of the CDMP as a whole and the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, impairs the achievement of this goal and its associated policies to an extent that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with this goal of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies. Goal (17)(a) and its associated policies address the planning and financing of and public facilities. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the proposed amendments is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (22)(a) addresses agriculture. Policy(b)1. is to ensure that state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. This policy recognizes that agricultural landowners have the same right to seek to change the use of their lands, and that engaging in agricultural activities is not a permanent servitude to the general public. The policies cited by Petitioners (regarding the encouragement of agricultural diversification, investment in education and research, funding of extension services, and maintaining property tax benefits) are not affected by the Brown Amendment. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (25)(a) and its associated policies address plan implementation, intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement, and ensuring that local plans reflect state goals and policies. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, and was found to contribute to the proliferation of urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.. Strategic Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Goals 11, 12, and 20 of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and several policies associated with these goals. The SFRPC reviewed the proposed Brown Amendment and found it was generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Goal 11 and its associated policies encourage the conservation of natural resources and agricultural lands, and the use of existing and planned infrastructure. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal 12 and its associated policies encourage the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. The CDMP encourages the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. Because it was found that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with this regional goal and its policies. Goal 20 and its associated policies are to achieve development patterns that protect natural resources and guide development to areas where there are public facilities. Because it was found that there is no need for the Lowe’s Amendment and that it constitutes urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with these regional goal and policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that: Ordinance No. 08-44, the Lowe’s Amendment, is not in compliance, and Ordinance No. 08-45, the Brown Amendment, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 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 11th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether it should be determined that the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan, as amended, was in compliance with Chapter 163, Fla. Stat. (1993), as of the adoption of the County Ordinance 94-1 on March 2, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Adoption History Highlands County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan with a land use map in 1991. The Department of Community Affairs (the DCA or Department) took the position that the initial comprehensive plan was not in compliance. On September 15, 1993, the County adopted an amended comprehensive plan. (County Exhibit 6) The DCA took the position that the amended comprehensive plan, in particular its natural resources element, did not adequately protect areas of important plant and animal habitat from agricultural land uses. (County Exhibit 8). Highlands County adopted remedial amendments on March 2, 1994. (County Exhibit 9) On March 16, 1994, DCA published a Cumulative Notice of Intent to find the Highlands County Comprehensive Plan and Remedial Comprehensive Plan Amendments in compliance. (County Exhibit 13) The Petition for Administrative Hearing by Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. (HEC) was filed on or about April 6, 1994. The HEC Petition was signed by Kris Delaney, as its president. The parties' Prehearing Stipulation filed on October 17, 1994, eliminated several of the issues initially raised in the HEC Petition. The Lake Wales Ridge Highlands County is special because of the presence of a feature known as the Lake Wales Ridge, which is only between five and 14 miles wide but stretches for about 100 miles in a north-south orientation through the County. Most of the Ridge is contained within Highlands County, but smaller portions extend into neighboring counties. The Lake Wales Ridge had its beginnings when the sea covered much of what is now the Florida peninsula. A paleo beach and dune system was formed at the edge between the sea and the Ridge. When the waters receded, it left behind a ridge of relatively high ground characterized by generally coarse sands. These sands, which began as beach sand, have been weathered for millions of years, rendering them very sterile and low in nutrients. Water passes very quickly through these sands, making the soil and environment resemble those occurring in much drier places. Although created through the same processes, the Ridge contains many different unique and specialized habitats. Because of these habitats, the Ridge is a national "hot spot" for endemism. This means that many different species of organisms occur in this relatively small area; many of these species occur exclusively or primarily on the Ridge. At least two dozen plant species are found exclusively or primarily on the Ridge, and it is believed that many species have yet to be discovered. In more recent times, the high and dry Ridge also has attracted a disproportionate share of the residential, commercial and agricultural development in the County. Development pressures have conflicted with the habitat needs for the survival of many of the plant and animal species that occurred on the Ridge. Urban and citrus development tend to obliterate habitat; they also compete for available water supply. In addition, as the Ridge has developed, the natural fires that served an important role in maintaining the special habitats of the Ridge were suppressed. More recently, although man has come to understand the importance of fire to these habitats and the species that thrive in them, the increasing presence of man's development has made fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. With more and more development, the habitats of the Ridge with their many endemic plant and animal species have come under increasing pressure. The most widespread kind of natural habitat on the Ridge is called scrub. Scrub consists mainly of scrub oak and shrubs adapted to dry, low nutrient conditions. Scrub contains a disproportionate share of the threatened and endangered plant and animal species on the Ridge. These include the Florida scrub jay, the gopher tortoise, the sand skink, the scrub lizard and the Florida mouse. Natural scrub habitat is rapidly disappearing from the Ridge. By 1981, about 64 percent of the scrub on the southern Ridge had been severely altered. Along the central Ridge, losses were even greater--about 74 percent. By 1991, losses were estimated to be approximately 70 to 90 percent. Sandhill is the rarest natural community in the County. It is the historic high pineland community dominated by long leaf pines. (A vegetative community known as southern sandhill is not dominated by long leaf pines and is not true sandhill; it actually is a type of scrub.) Only about one percent of the original true sandhill still existed as of March, 1994. Although altered by fragmentation and fire suppression, the remaining sandhill still supports several important endemic plant and animal species, such as the gopher tortoise, Sherman's fox squirrel, and a plant called the clasping warea. A type of natural habitat unique to Highlands County portion of the Ridge is cutthroat seep. Cutthroat seeps occur where groundwater near and at surface elevation flows rapidly through areas usually adjacent to true wetlands, keeping the area wet but not ponded. These areas are dominated by cutthoat grasses, which require periodic burning to maintain their dominance. Drainage related to development lowers the water table and otherwise interrupts the needed lateral flow of water, allowing the invasion of woody species. In addition, development makes fire management more problematic and, in some cases, impossible. The most effective protection of cutthroat seep requires preservation of relatively large parcels, approximately ten acres or more. Smaller parcels are harder to fire manage. In addition, smaller parcels could be subjected to inadvertent hydrologic interruption from nearby development. There are about 18 plant species that occur only on the Ridge. Forty plant species occur only in Florida scrub and occur on the Ridge. Twenty-two plants on the Ridge are federally listed as either endangered or threatened. The Florida scrub jay is a federally listed endangered species that occurs only in peninsular Florida. The scrub jay also serves as an indicator species--management for scrub jay habitat will meet the habitat requirements of most other species that occur in scrub habitat. Scrub jays require the presence of scrub oak, as well as bare ground and low growing scrub. Periodic fire is necessary to maintain this mix. Scrub jays are very territorial. The tend to stay on one specific site. Scrub jays are monogamous, pairing to breed for life. Juveniles help feed and protect younger birds before dispersing to find a territory of their own. Dispersal distance typically is less than a mile. Each family group occupies a relatively large area--approximately 25 acres. Large sites are necessary to maintain a viable scrub jay population. Population viability models indicate that 150-200 individuals are needed for a population to persist for 200 years. Using this standard, fewer than ten potentially secure populations of scrub jay exist. It is believed that as much as 750 acres of scrub oak may be required to give a such a population a 90 percent chance of survival for 100 years. Development destroys scrub jay habitat. In addition, nearby development not only makes fire management difficult, if not impossible, it increases scrub jay mortality from feral cats and dogs and from motor vehicles. In the Base Documents supporting the Highlands County Plan, as amended, the County recognized the unique and sensitive natural resource represented by the Lake Wales Ridge. The Base Documents acknowledged that, before the comprehensive plan was adopted, the County did not have a "formal mechanism to examine the effects of proposed development and agricultural uses on natural vegetation and wildlife." The Base Documents also acknowledged that the Ridge required "more stringent controls and greater incentives for resource protection." Conservation, Use, and Protection of Natural Resources Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 3 providing that the County shall protect and acquire native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida and shall restrict activities known to adversely affect the endangered and threatened species and their habitat. Under that Objective, Highlands County has adopted a number of Policies. Highlands County's approach to conservation, use, and protection of natural resources under Objective 3 and its policies is to identify, evaluate, and protect natural resources on a site-by-site basis. (County Exhibit 6, Pages NRE-10 through NRE-25, inclusive, and County Exhibit 9) The review procedures prepared by Petitioner's representative, Kris Delaney, for the Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) also used a site-by-site approach. (Petitioner Exhibit 56) Kris Delaney is the immediate past president of HEC and was described by Petitioner's counsel as its main representative. Highlands County's approach to evaluation of natural resources also is comparable to the review processes adopted by federal statute and state law for the protection of threatened and endangered species. Site specific evaluation was necessary due to the variety of protected species needs, site conditions, and legal constraints. Under Policy 3.1, A., Highlands County has adopted a number of source documents to identify endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern. Under Policy 3.1, B., Highlands County has adopted a number of documents as guidelines for establishing mitigation, on-site protection, and remedial actions for the protection of habitats and listed species in the County's land development regulations. Under Policy 3.2, Highlands County adopted a Conservation Overlay Map series to be used as a general indicator for the presence of xeric uplands, wetlands, cutthroat seeps, historical and archeological resources, cones of influence for potable wells, and aquifer recharge areas. (See Findings 52-59, infra, for a detailed description and explanation of these maps.) Whenever a particular site is in an area where one of those resource categories is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map series or are otherwise known to occur, Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element requires the applicant to submit to the Highlands County Planning Department a preliminary field investigation report prepared by a County-approved professional, firm, government agency, or institution. If that field investigation determines that any of those resources actually exist on the site, an Environmental Impact Report is required of the applicant. Those Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) must also be prepared by a County approved-professional, firm, agency, or institution. Policy 3.3, E., specifies the content of the EIR: (1) maps and a description of natural vegetative communities occurring on the proposed development site in terms of their habitat functions and significance; (2) maps and a description of the aforementioned natural resource categories which may be impacted by the proposed development; (3) an assessment of the potential impacts which would be sustained by a natural resource as a result of the proposed development; (4) an evaluation of water quality inputs and outputs; recommendations for appropriate mitigation and on-site protection measures; recommended land maintenance and management procedures to assure the continued viability or function of the natural resource after development; and a list of agencies which may have permit requirements pertaining to the proposed development. Under Policy 3.3, F., the application package and the EIR are transmitted for review and comment to the agencies listed in the Environmental Impact Report as having permit requirements and to the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee. Responsive comments and recommendations which are received are forwarded to the County employee or board having decision-making authority concerning the applicable permit and included in the County records pertaining to the project. Under Policy 3.3, G., after receiving the application packet, the EIR, and the comments and recommendations from other permitting agencies and the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory Committee, the County evaluates and determines the permit conditions required to: (1) protect and preserve the water quality or natural functions of flood plains and drainage ways, potable water wells, and wetlands; (2) protect and preserve the function of native vegetative communities which are endemic to Central Florida or the habitats of endangered species, threatened species, or species of special concern; (3) preserve and protect historical and archeological resources; (4) establish measures to protect life and property from flood hazard; and (5) establish land maintenance and management procedures for the natural resource to assure its continued viability or function after development. Policy 3.3, G., further requires that the County's final development order must be conditioned upon adequate avoidance, preservation, mitigation, or remedial actions for the protection of the aforementioned resources and must be consistent with the wetlands, flood plain, aquifer recharge, water quality, and cultural resource protection measures set forth within the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. It also requires the County to require that the necessary state and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for the project's final development order. In determining the appropriate conditions for the County's final development order, Policy 3.3, B., states that avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the first choice for protecting the resource. Acquisition, conservation easements or dedications, and site design methods (including clustering development to the portion of the site where the resource does not exist or, if that is not possible, to the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site), are among the methods allowed to accomplish that purpose. Appropriate buffers between the development and the resource are also required. Policy 3.3, C., also provides that a mitigation fee may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners for small, isolated tracts containing less significant habitat and that the mitigation fees collected would be used to fund off-site mitigation in order that preservation of equal or greater habitat type, function, and quantity can be achieved. This is consistent with the "Review Procedure for Special Habits: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC which provides that "[L]ocal government may wish to establish procedural relationship with such agencies and, based on locally determined criteria, a minimum parcel size requiring review." Similarly, Policy 3.4 provides an environmental mitigation fee alternative for construction of single-family residences on preexisting lots of records to the extent consistent with state and federal regulations. These mitigation fee provisions are consistent with existing state and federal programs for protection of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern (Petitioner Exhibit 53, Pages 58 through 60; Petitioner Exhibit 56, Page 25, Level III, G.1 (cont.); and Petitioner Exhibit 78, Page 16) Policy 3.15 identifies several mitigation options which are consistent with those found in the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC. Policy 3.5, A., requires the County to institute an ongoing program to define, identify, and conserve its native vegetative communities and the habitats of endangered or threatened species and species of special concern and states that the conservation program must include the following implementation measures: (1) acquisition of lands using public funds and grants; (2) lease of land; (3) tax abatement; (4) land swaps and transfers of title; (5) establishment of conservation or open space easements; (6) density bonuses for cluster development; (7) density bonuses for development that preserves habitat and avoids impact on endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (8) density transfers for conservation set-asides to buildable portions of sites; and (9) mitigation fees and mitigation fee credits. Under Policy 3.5, B., the County has established as the top priority of its conservation program working with public and private agencies to acquire and preserve in their natural state: (1) scrub or sand hill habitats (xeric uplands); (2) endemic populations of endangered or threatened species, including species of special concern; (3) wetlands, cutthroat grass seeps, and estuaries; (4) important aquifer recharge areas; and (5) unique scenic or natural resources. In Policy 3.6, the County specifically references the "Review Procedure for Special Habitats: Xeric Uplands" prepared by Kris Delaney for the CFRPC as the model for its development review process for coordination with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Policy 3.6(g) specifically provides for coordination with local, state, and federal agencies concerning native vegetative communities or habitat areas spanning more than one local jurisdiction. Policy 3.7 establishes funding sources for the County's conservation trust fund and requires that the fund be used exclusively for the acquisition of the priorities listed in Policy 3.5, B., or the enhancement of other publicly- owned conservation-valued lands, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners. To discourage clearing of land prior to environmental review, the County adopted Policy 3.13, which requires property owners to obtain a County land clearing permit prior to land clearing. Issuance of the land clearing permit is conditioned upon completion of the environmental review process adopted in Policy 3.3. If property is cleared without a County land clearing permit, no development orders may be issued for that site for a period of three years after such clearing. Under Policy 3.13, C., of the Plan, as amended, no land clearing permit is required for "any agricultural activity not requiring a Highlands County land development order conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide agricultural operation" on property "designated by the Future Land Use Map as either General or Urban Agriculture . . .." Under the policy, such operations are "encouraged to implement a Soil and Water Conservation District approved conservation plan, including the use of Best Management Practices, as applicable to the specific area being cleared, and [to secure all other permits required by State and federal agencies exercising jurisdiction over the natural resources referred to in Policy 3.2 and found on said property]." [Emphasis added.] In addition, Policy 3.9 of the Natural Resources Element provides for encouraging agricultural uses which are compatible with wildlife protection and water quality outputs, implementation of erosion control and Best Management Practices. Highlands County also has adopted many other policies in the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] of the Natural Resources Element for the protection of natural resources, including: Policy 3.8, providing for the removal and control of exotic plant species; Policy 3.10, requiring the County to incorporate the protection and conservation measures adopted under the Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Subelement [sic] into all County surface water management plans, public works projects and infrastructure improvement plans; Policy 3.11, encouraging the expansion of wildlife/greenbelt corridors; Policy 3.12, encouraging the creation of parks for the protection, preservation, and conservation of natural resources; Policy 3.14, requiring setbacks from environmentally sensitive land; Policy 3.16, providing for transfers of density and density bonuses to encourage preservation of environmentally sensitive lands and listed species through the use of planned unit developments; Policies 3.17 through 3.19, providing for the appointment, functions and responsibilities of the Highlands County Natural Resource Advisory Committee; Policy 3.20, providing for the adoption of a five-year acreage target for acquisition of natural resource lands; and Policy 3.21, providing for a buffer around Highlands Hammock State Park, publicly-owned conservation lands, and conservation lands being considered for acquisition with public funds. Wetlands Subelement [sic] Highlands County has adopted, as the Wetlands Subelement [sic] of its Natural Resources Element, Objective 4 providing for the protection of wetlands systems and their ecological functions to ensure their long term, economic, environmental, and recreational value and to encourage restoration of wetlands systems to a functional condition. Under Objective 4 of the Natural Resources Element, Highlands County has adopted a number of policies to protect wetlands systems. Policy 4.1 provides for the protection of ecological functions of wetlands systems by the County through actions such as supporting the restoration of wetlands systems, protecting the natural functions and hydrology of wetlands systems by buffering against incompatible land uses and mitigating development impacts, providing for clustering and open space buffering, intergovernmental cooperation, and the acquisition of wetlands systems, including cutthroat grass seeps. In Policy 4.2, Highlands County adopted definitions for wetlands and cutthroat seeps which are required to be mapped according to Policies 3.2 and 4.3. In Policies 4.4 through 4.7, the County provided for the adoption of land development regulations which: encourage the restoration of wetlands systems; provide that development orders in cutthroat seeps be conditioned upon the issuance of wetlands permits by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the South and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts, as their jurisdictions apply, as a condition of approval of the project's final development order or land clearing permit; prevent the net loss or alteration of wetlands on a County-wide basis; and require conservation easements and delineation on final plats for wetland and cutthroat grass seep areas used for mitigation purposes. State and Federal Protections State and federal permitting processes protect threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in Highlands County. See Conclusions 125-130 and 140-147, infra. The review processes required to obtain the state and federal permits pertaining to threatened and endangered species require site-specific review, comparable to obtaining environmental clearance from the County under Policy 3.3 of the Natural Resources Element. In view of the diversity of threatened and endangered species and species of special concern and their habitat needs, variations in quantity and quality of resources existing on site, and statutory and constitutional property rights protection, the County has chosen not to establish fixed set asides for every resource under every circumstance on a County-wide basis. By including in its permitting process notification to federal and state agencies having permitting responsibilities, Highlands County will be providing valuable assistance to state and federal environmental protection by bringing those agencies in at an early stage of the review process. Moreover, the County's requirements that the necessary federal, state, and local permits be obtained as a condition of approval for a project's final development order will assist those federal and state agencies in enforcing environmental permits in Highlands County. Measuring Success of Protection Measures Extensive work by federal and state agencies has been devoted to identifying and studying threatened and endangered species, both plant and animal. Threatened and endangered species and the habitats necessary for their survival exist throughout the State of Florida. Listed species found in Highlands County are also found in other areas of the State of Florida. The amount and land-cover types of conservation areas have been extensively studied for the entire State of Florida. The percentage of conservation lands in Highlands County (9.4 percent) exceeds the statewide median for the portion of conservation lands within individual counties (8.6 percent). The land cover types for the entire State of Florida have been identified and quantified by location and number of acres and the amounts of those habitats in conservation lands have also been determined. Likewise, for every county, the land cover types have been located, identified, mapped, and acreage determined for "natural" upland cover types, "natural" wetland cover types, and "disturbed" cover types. The "natural" upland cover type category includes coastal strand, dry prairie, pine lands, sand pine scrub, sand hill, xeric oak scrub, mixed hardwood-pine forest, hardwood hammocks and forest, and tropical hard wood hammocks. "Natural" wetland cover types include coastal salt marshes, fresh water marsh and wet prairie, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, bay swamp, shrub swamp, mangrove swamp, and bottomland hardwood forest. "Disturbed" cover types include grass land and agriculture, shrub and bush land, exotic plant communities and barren and urban land. Open water areas were also identified, located, mapped, and the acreage areas determined. The amounts of land in each of those land cover categories has been tabulated by county and for the State as a whole. The amount of land in each of those categories located in conservation lands has also been tabulated for each county and for the State as a whole. The tabulation for land cover types for Highlands County and the amount of conservation lands for each cover type are as follows: "Natural" upland cover types - coastal strand (0/0), dry prairie (427/112), pine lands (167/41), sand pine scrub (14/3), sand hill (0/0), xeric scrub oak (112/12), mixed hardwood-pine forest (4/0), hardwood hammocks and forests (46/5), tropical hardwood hammocks (0/0); "Natural" wetland cover types - coastal salt marshes (0/0), freshwater marsh and wet prairie (129/34), cypress swamp (21/8), mixed hardwood swamp (41/5), bay swamp (17/0), shrub swamp (21/5), mangrove swamp (0/0), bottomland hardwood forest (0/0); Open water (202/1); and "Disturbed" cover types - grass land and agriculture (1086/15), shrub and brush land (271/18), exotic plant communities (0/0), barren and urban land (307/11) Within the parenthesis above, the first number represents the total area in square kilometers and the second number represents the conservation lands in that category, also in square kilometers. There are approximately 247 acres per square kilometer. For Highlands County, these identified land cover types cover 2,866 square kilometers of which, 270.8 square kilometers are conservation lands. In addition to mapping those important habitat areas in each county in the State of Florida, the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern found in those habitat areas have also been identified. Those habitat areas and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern which they support have been specifically identified and mapped for Highlands County. Since the land cover types in Highlands County have been identified, located, mapped, and quantified and the threatened and endangered species and species of special concern, both plant and animal, supported by those land cover types have been identified, Highlands County has the ability to objectively measure the success of its adopted Goals, Policies, and Objectives in protecting natural resources. Data and Analysis and Maps Eugene Engman, AICP, a planner/economist, was the principal author of the conservation element and Base Documents of supporting data and analysis for the County's 1991 Plan. The Base Documents indicate extensive analysis of the County's natural resources, including: surface waters; floodplains; mineral deposits; areas with erosion problems; and fisheries, wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. The Conservation Overlay Maps The Base Documents also contain a "methodology for conservation designation," that applies to areas identified as areas of outstanding natural resources and to areas containing special habitat (high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge). With respect to the latter, it was not Engman's intention to map all vegetative communities on and near the Ridge; oak hammock and palm hammock, for example, was not mapped. It also was not Engman's intention to map the entire County. Engman did not believe that mapping of high quality scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest was required, but he mapped them at no charge to the County to enable the County to better protect endangered species and other resources on and near the Ridge where most the special habitat and most development coincided. Following the methodology, Engman and his colleagues prepared the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40. They consisted of 27 USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) quadrangle maps, two with acetate overlays. The quad maps themselves show some resources indicated by a separate legend available from the SCS. In addition, Engman and his colleagues indicated the location of scrub habitats, seeps and wetland forest through use of an additional legend they wrote on the quad maps. Some legends applied to more than one quad map. In addition to the SCS quad maps themselves, Engman and his colleagues used the Soil Survey field notes of Lew Carter of the SCS, 1985 infrared aerial photographs, and local knowledge of the Dr. James Layne of the Archbold Research Station, Lew Carter of the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Mike Sawyer of the Florida Division of Forestry, and County sources. The Base Documents also contains a Generalized Soils Map which references as its source "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989." The Base Documents also contained two maps at the scale of one inch equals three miles--one mapping outstanding natural resources, and the other mapping special habitat. These two maps were then combined into a third map at the scale of one inch equals five miles. This third map was designated the Conservation Overlay Map in the Base Documents. Each quarter section (160 acres) of the County that contained any of the identified resources depicted on the Resource Base Maps was depicted as "Conservation" on the Conservation Overlay Map. The Conservation Overlay Map advised that: "This map is for comprehensive planning purposes only. Specific locations are identifiable on the Resource Base Maps located in the Office of the County Planning Director." No duplicates or copies of the Resource Base Maps--County Exhibit 40-- were made before the final hearing in this case. They were available to the public during the development of the 1991 Plan, and they were forwarded to the County Planning Department when Engman's work was finished. There, they remained available for use by the County Planning Department in implementing the Plan, and remained available for public inspection, except for a period of approximately one year when they were misplaced and could not be located. FLU-54, the Conservation Overlay Map in the Future Land Use Map series, is the same map that is contained in the Base Documents as the Conservation Overlay Map. The Future Land Use Map Series In addition to FLU-54, the Future Land Use Map Series in the adopted plan, as amended through 1993, contained a Future Land Use Map Set of three large maps--a one inch equals two miles base map, and two one inch equals one/half mile maps--together with several letter-size maps at one inch equals five miles (one is at one inch equals four miles), which are FLU-55 through FLU- 62. The adopted plan, as amended through 1994, contained the same text as the plan as amended through 1993, along with an updated Future Land Use Map Set of six large color sheets. The base map is at a scale of one inch equals two miles and is a colorized version of the base map contained in the 1993 version of the plan; the other five maps are color insets from the base map at a scale of one inch equals one quarter mile. The rest of the Future Land Use Map Series is the same as in the Plan as amended through 1993. In addition to the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, the future land use map series included: a Generalized Soils Map which identifies its source as "USDA/SCS, Soil Survey of Highlands County, Florida, July, 1989"; Highland's County Peat Deposits, whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Wetlands 600, whose legend identifies "wetlands" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Floodplains, whose legend identifies "floodplains" and "ridge," and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. September, 1988"; Water and Canal Map 500, whose legend identifies "generalized interim well protection zones (cones of influence) for potable water supply wells" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc., Highlands County Building and Zoning Department and DER," and which is dated December, 1990; Future Traffic Circulation Map State Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands County Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Department and FDOT"; Future Traffic Circulation Map County Roads, which depicts various types of roads and whose source is "Highlands Co. Engineering Dept. (9/88) and FDOT (11/90)"; and Modified Community Parks which depicts existing and proposed parks and "existing urban land use" and whose source is "Adley Associates, Inc. April, 1990". FLU-55, the Generalized Soils Map, was prepared using the 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey. Major field work for the USDA/SCS Soil Survey was completed in 1986. It is the same map as the Generalized Soils Map contained in the Base Documents. FLU-57 maps wetland features which are not depicted on either the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) or the Conservation Overlay Map. The 1989 USDA SCS Soil Survey was used to identify wetlands on FLU-57. HEC's Contentions HEC contended that the maps in the Plan, as amended, were deficient. It became apparent during the course of the final hearing that HEC considered the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map in the Plan, as amended, to be the only map pertinent to the designation of conservation lands. HEC contended that FLU-54 is too small, not clear and legible enough, and inadequate for its purposes. It appeared that HEC learned of the existence of the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) during the final hearing. HEC contended that the Resource Base Maps were deficient because they were not based on the appropriate and best available data. As a result, HEC contended, the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map "missed" some significant resources. Kris Delaney quickly reviewed the Resource Base Maps during the course of the final hearing and testified that on the Frostproof, Lake Arbuckle, Sebring, and Fort Kissimmee quad sheets some "significant areas of native vegetation were not shown on the mylar overlays." Delaney's observations regarding the five allegedly-inaccurate mylar quad map overlays were made with reference to the USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey and what he believed was a wetland symbol on the underlying quad map. But it is not clear that Delaney understood the legend to the Resource Base Maps. Furthermore, he was not offered as an expert in photogrammetry, geography, or surveying, and the specifics of his personal knowledge of the areas in dispute were not made clear. Another HEC witness, Dr. Menges, testified to his opinion that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. He testified that, to map native vegetative communities on a species-specific basis, Steve Christman's 1988 report for the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission would provide the best available data. (He also mentioned data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, but it was not clear that those data were not used or how available those data were.) However, it was not clear from the evidence that the Christman report was not used as a data source. In addition, Menges conceded that "the primary source for the distribution of (native vegetative) communities" (in Highlands County) would be the "Soil Conservation Service Survey map," and it is clear that the County's consultants used this data source, together with other soil survey information and aerial photography, as was appropriate. It should not be surprising that the Base Resource Maps and FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map did not map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. As previously, stated, the effort was limited to high quality scrub habitat, cutthroat grass seeps with predominantly native vegetation, and forested wetlands on and near the Ridge. There was no intention to map all native vegetative communities throughout the County. Regardless of the alleged deficiencies with the Resource Base Maps and the FLU-54 Conservation Overlay Map, HEC did not take into account all of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series in contending that the mapping was deficient. HEC did not recognize that Policy 3.2 provides for the use of the "adopted Conservation Overlap Map series contained in the Future Land Use Element" as the "general indicator" for the resources described in the policy. The Future Land Use Map series includes not only FLU-54 and the Resource Base Maps (County Exhibit 40) but also: FLU-55 (the Generalized Soils Map), FLU-57 (the Wetlands 600 map), FLU-58 (the Floodplains map), and FLU-59 (the Water and Canals Map 500). HEC also did not recognize that the environmental clearance procedures under Policies 3.3 and 3.13 are triggered not only if the presence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 is mapped on the Conservation Overlay Map (which includes not only FLU-54, but also the Resource Base Maps), but also if they are known to occur by reference to any of the maps in the Future Land Use Map series, or are otherwise known to occur. The references acknowledged by the County in Policy 3.1 can serve as the source of knowledge of where the resources described in Policy 3.2 occur. It is not beyond debate that these sources of information, taken together, are adequate for purposes of indicating the existence of the resources described in Policy 3.2 and triggering environmental clearance review under Policy 3.3. HEC did not establish beyond debate that the County did not use appropriate or the best available data, that the County did not apply the data in a professional manner, or that the Plan, as amended, did not react to the data in an appropriate way. Future Land Use Element Residential Land Use Density In Agricultural Land Use Categories HEC presented no credible testimony or evidence to substantiate its allegation that the land use densities for agriculture and urban agriculture encourage "urban sprawl" or are not supported by adequate data. No expert testimony in land use planning was offered, although HEC had identified such potential experts on its witness list. The Base Documents stated that agricultural density was at 1 unit/acre prior to the adoption of the Plan and recommended that the density be decreased to 1 unit/10 acres. The draft of the Base Documents recommended a density of 1 unit/ 5 acres. The Plan established the General Agriculture land use category as the predominant land use for rural areas. It has the lowest development potential of all adopted land use categories. The General Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per ten acres. The Urban Agriculture land use category was established as a transitional zone between urbanized and rural lands. The Urban Agriculture land use category has a density range of one unit per five acres. (County Exhibit 6, Pages FLU-6 and FLU-7 There was no evidence to prove that lesser densities are required to discourage urban sprawl, to protect natural resources, to protect agricultural lands, or for any other reason. Population Accommodation Data and Analysis HEC did not present any population accommodation analysis. There was no competent evidence presented in this case as to the population accommodated in the year 2000 under either the Plan as amended and adopted on March 2, 1994, or the Plan as amended and adopted on September 15, 1993. HEC pointed to a projection in the Housing Element in the County's Plan indicating a need for 10,075 new housing units to accommodate 16,977 new residents by the year 2000. HEC also pointed to data and analysis indicating that there are approximately 108,000 residential lots in existing subdivisions of 100 lots or more in the County that potentially could be developed to accommodate new housing units. But HEC did not establish that it is realistic to project maximum development in those subdivisions at one unit per lot; nor did HEC establish the extent of vested rights to development in those subdivisions. Protection of Water Quality and Quantity The Base Documents contain extensive data and analysis of County geology and soils, including water supply considerations, and recharge. Aquifer recharge in Highlands County occurs primarily on the Lake Wales Ridge. Contamination of groundwater has been documented from hazardous waste associated with landfills, agricultural use of the pesticides EDB (ethylene dibromide) and Bromicil, and leaking underground storage tanks. Of these, only the agricultural pesticide use is documented to have impacted potable water supplies. EDB, the primary source of contamination noted, has not been used since 1983. While the presence of Bromacil is also noted, the number of wells is not mentioned. Moreover, the evidence does not mention a single health- related case. Where EDB contamination has been found, the State of Florida has paid the cost of connecting to public water supplies or installing carbon filters. There is no evidence that stormwater management activities has caused groundwater contamination. Highlands County has adopted a number of objectives and policies in both the Infrastructure Element and the Natural Resources Element of the Plan, as amended, intended to protect potable water wells, conserve potable water resources, and reduce the risk of groundwater contamination. Objective 6 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] of the Infrastructure Element is to ensure public health by protecting the water quality of potable wells. Among the policies adopted to implement that objective is Policy 6.4, adopting stringent restrictions on activities within a 600 feet radius around public potable water wells. Highlands County also adopted Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.3 under the Potable Water Subelement [sic] to establish minimum design and construction requirements for all potable water wells to protect and assure delivery of potable water. Highlands County has also adopted a number of other objectives and policies under the Natural Resources Element intended to protect groundwater quality, including: prohibiting the location of hazardous waste treatment facilities in the County; requiring cooperation with the DEP "DRASTIC" program; prohibiting discharges of untreated stormwater and waste material into underground formations; adopting stormwater quality and quantity standards; mapping wellhead protection zones; and encouraging implementation of best management practices for agricultural operations in the County. HEC did not prove beyond fair debate that, taken together, the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan, as amended, do not ensure the protection and conservation of potable water supplies.
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 Highlands County Plan adopted through County Ordinance 91- 1, as amended by County Ordinances 93-16 and 94-1, is "in compliance." DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinance No. 05-20 is "in compliance," as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2005),1 for the reasons set forth in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and Statement of Intent filed by the Department of Community Affairs ("the Department").
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty of reviewing comprehensive plans and their amendments, and determining whether a plan or amendment is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Lee County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and has adopted a comprehensive plan that it amends from time to time pursuant to Section 163.3167(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Leeward is a Florida limited liability company that owns a portion of the real property that is the subject of the amendment at issue. The Amendment The amendment would change the future land use designation for 41.28 acres in the northeast quadrant of the Interstate 75 (I-75)/State Road 80 (SR 80) interchange from General Commercial Interchange to Urban Community, as shown on the FLUM. The General Commercial Interchange land use is described in the County Plan as “intended primarily for general community commercial land uses: retail, planned commercial districts, shopping, office, financial, and business.” It does not allow residential development. The Urban Community land use provides for a mix of residential, commercial, public, quasi-public, and limited light industrial uses. The standard density range for residential uses in the Urban Community category is one to six dwelling units per acre (du/a). The 41.28 acres affected by the amendment ("the amendment site") consist of 19.28 acres of lands along the Orange River owned by Leeward, a platted subdivision known as Dos Rios of approximately 11 acres, and the remaining acreage consists of right-of-way for SR 80 and I-75. Currently operating on Leeward's property is a vessel repair facility, a marina with wet and dry slips, and an ecotourism company. Leeward also has its office on the site. The Dos Rios subdivision includes 26 single-family lots. Apparently, only a few of the lots (the number was not established in the record) have been developed. Because residential land uses are not allowed in the General Commercial Interchange category, the Dos Rios lots were non-conforming uses. Maximum Allowed Density The County Plan provides residential density bonuses to promote various County objectives, such as the provision of affordable housing. With density bonuses, lands designated Urban Community can boost their density to a maximum of ten du/a. There was testimony presented by Leeward that the County has not often approved applications for density bonuses. Even if the practice of the County in approving density bonuses were relevant, the practice can change. It is reasonable for the Department to consider the maximum intensity or density associated with a future land use designation when determining whether a FLUM amendment is in compliance. Therefore, in this case, it is reasonable to consider the Urban Community land use designation as allowing up to ten du/a. The Department asserts that the amendment would allow the 41.2 acres affected by the amendment to have a total of 412 dwelling units (41.2 acres x 10 du/a). Leeward disputed that figure because the 41.2 acres includes road right-of-way and the Dos Rios subdivision. A hearing officer appointed to review a Lee County development order recently determined that right-of-way external to a development should not be included in calculating allowable units, and the County accepted the hearing officer's recommendation based on that determination. The definition of "density" in the County Plan supports the determination.2 Therefore, for the purposes of this case, the right-of-way in the northeast quadrant should not be included in calculating the maximum residential density that would result from the amendment. On the other hand, Leeward's argument that the Dos Rios subdivision acreage should not be included in the ten du/a calculation is rejected. For the purposes of an "in compliance" determination, it is reasonable for the Department to apply the maximum potential densities to all developable and re- developable acreage. Using 29 acres as the approximate acreage affected by the amendment when road right-of-way is subtracted, the amendment would create the potential for 290 residences in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Adoption of the Amendment The amendment was initiated as part of the County's reexamination of the existing land use designations in the four quadrants of the I-75/SR 80 interchange. Following the County planning staff's completion of a study of the entire interchange, it recommended several changes to the County Plan, but no change was recommended for the northeast quadrant. Apparently, the amendment at issue was urged by Leeward, and, at a public hearing held on June 1, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners voted to adopt the amendment. Pursuant to Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment was forwarded to the Department for an "in compliance" review. Following its review, the Department issued its ORC Report on August 19, 2005. In the ORC Report, the Department objected to the proposed amendment based upon what it considered to be inappropriate residential densities in the coastal high hazard area (CHHA) and floodplain. The Department recommended that the County not adopt the proposed amendment. On October 12, 2005, another public hearing was held before the Board of County Commissioners to consider adoption of the amendment. At the public hearing, the County planning staff recommended that the land use designation in the northeast quadrant not be changed to Urban Community "due to the potential increase in density in the Coastal High Hazard Area." Nevertheless, the Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment. Representatives of Leeward appeared and submitted comments in support of the amendment at the public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners. On December 16, 2005, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance, identifying three reasons for its determination: (1) inconsistency with state law regarding development in the CHHA and flood prone areas, (2) internal inconsistency with provisions of the County Plan requiring the consideration of residential density reductions in undeveloped areas within the CHHA, and (3) inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan regarding subsidizing development in the CHHA and regulating areas subject to seasonal or periodic flooding. On January 5, 2006, the Department filed its petition for formal hearing with DOAH. Coastal High Hazard Area The Florida Legislature recognized the particular vulnerability of coastal resources and development to natural disasters and required coastal counties to address the subject in their comprehensive plans. [I]t is the intent of the Legislature that local government comprehensive plans restrict development activities where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources, and that such plans protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster. § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. The statute also requires evacuation planning. Until 2006, the CHHA was defined as the "category 1 evacuation zone." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In 2006, the CHHA was redefined as "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model."3 Ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. The County Plan defines the CHHA as "the category 1 evacuation zone as delineated by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council." Map 5 of the County Plan, entitled "Lee County Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)," shows the entire amendment site as being within the CHHA. Nothing on Map 5, however, indicates it was produced by the Regional Planning Council. Daniel Trescott, who is employed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and is responsible for, among other things, storm surge mapping, stated that the Category 1 evacuation zone is the storm surge level for the worst case scenario landfall for a Category 1 storm. He stated that the Category 1 storm surge for Lee County was determined by the SLOSH model to be 5.3 feet. Mr. Trescott stated that the 5.3 foot contour (shown on Plate 7 of the Regional Planning Council's "Hurricane Storm Tide Atlas - Lee County") more accurately delineates the CHHA than Map 5 of the County Plan. Although Mr. Trescott's testimony suggests a conflict between the County Plan's definition of the CHHA and Map 5's depiction of the CHHA, the two can be reconciled by a finding that Map 5 is a gross depiction of the CHHA for general public information purposes, but the precise location of the CHHA boundary is the one delineated by the Regional Planning Council, and the latter is controlling. Using the 5.3 contour on the amendment site, Leeward's witness, Michael Raider, estimated that there are approximately 16 acres of the amendment site within the CHHA. Applying the maximum allowable residential density under the Urban Community land use designation (with bonuses) of ten du/a means the amendment would result in a potential for 160 dwellings in the CHHA. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)7., respectively, require each local government’s coastal management element to contain one or more specific objectives that "[d]irect population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas” and limit development in these areas. The parties' evidence and argument regarding whether the amendment was "in compliance" focused on these rules and the following goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan related to the CHHA: GOAL 105: PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters. OBJECTIVE 105.1: DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS. Development seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line will require applicable State of Florida approval; new development on barrier islands will be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion will not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. POLICY 105.1.4: Through the Lee Plan amendment process, land use designations of undeveloped areas within coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduced density categories (or assignment of minimum allowable densities where ranges are permitted) in order to limit the future population exposed to coastal flooding. In the opinion of Bernard Piawah, a planner employed by the Department, the amendment is inconsistent with the goal, objective and policy set forth above because these provisions only contemplate possible reductions of residential densities in the CHHA and there is no provision of the County Plan that addresses or establishes criteria for increasing residential densities in the CHHA. Population Concentrations As stated above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. directs local governments to include provisions in their comprehensive plans to direct population concentrations away from the CHHA. The term "population concentrations" is not defined in any statute or rule. The term apparently has no generally accepted meaning in the planning profession. The word "population" has the ordinary meaning of "all of the people inhabiting a specific area." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1981). The word "concentration" has the ordinary meaning of "the act or process of concentrating." Id. The word "concentrate" means "to direct or draw toward a common center." Id. In the context of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.012, the term "population concentrations" suggests a meaning of population densities (dwelling units per acre) of a certain level, but the level is not stated. Leeward argues that, because there is no state guidance on the meaning of the term "population concentrations," surrounding land uses should be examined to determine whether a proposed density would be "proportionate to its surroundings." According to Leeward, in order to be a population concentration, the density under review would have to be greater than the surrounding density. This comparative approach is rejected because the overarching Legislative objective is protection of life, which plainly calls for a straightforward consideration of the number of lives placed in harm's way. The Department, in its Proposed Recommended Order, states: By assigning either zero residential density to land by virtue of an Open Space land use designation, or a maximum density of one unit per acre by assigning a low density land use designation, the County Plan fulfills the mandates of State law that development be limited in and residential concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. Thus, not surprisingly, the Department does not consider one du/a to be a population concentration. A density of ten du/a is an urban density, as indicated by the fact that it is the maximum density allowed in the Urban Community land use designation and the highest density within the "standard density range" for the County's Central Urban land use designation. It is a generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that urban areas are areas where populations are concentrated. It is a another generally known fact, of which the undersigned takes notice, that ten dwelling units on one acre of land amounts to a lot of people living in a small space. Leeward, itself, described the residential density allowed under the Urban Community designation as "relatively intense." Leeward's Proposed Recommended Order, at 7. Whether measured by density alone (ten du/a) or by Leeward's estimate of 160 residences on 16 acres, the amendment places a population concentration in the CHHA. Offsets in the CHHA Leeward presented evidence that the County has been reducing residential densities, sometimes referred to as "down- planning," in other areas of the CHHA in Lee County. The reduction in dwelling units in the CHHA over the past several years may be as high as 10,000 units. The Department did not present evidence to dispute that there has been an overall reduction in dwelling units in the CHHAs of Lee County. Leeward argues that these reductions "offset" the increase in dwelling units in the CHHA that would result from the amendment and this "overall" reduction in densities in the CHHA must be considered in determining whether the amendment is "in compliance" with state law and with provisions of the County Plan related to directing population concentrations away from the CHHA. At the hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argued that the consideration of offsets in the CHHA was improper and unworkable, but that argument conflicts with the Department's actual practice and official position as described in the January 2006 "Department of Community Affairs Report for the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee." In that report, the Department acknowledged there is no statutory or rule guidance regarding what the maximum density should be in the CHHA. The Report notes that some local governments have established maximum densities for the CHHA (e.g., Pinellas County, 5 du/a; Franklin County 1 du/a). The Department states in the report that it reviews amendments to increase density in the CHHA on a "case by case" basis, and explains further: When a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in the CHHA proposes a density increase, DCA's review considers the amount of the density increase, the impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" (generally accomplished through public acquisition). One of the visual aides used in conjunction with the 2006 report to Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee, entitled "Policy Issue #2 - Densities in High Hazard Areas," also describes the Department's practice: Without locally adopted density limits, DCA conducts a case by case review of amendments without any defined numeric limit. DCA considers amount of density increase, impact on evacuation times and shelter space, and whether there will be a corresponding offset in density through "down planning" in other areas of the CHHA. These statements use the phrase "there will be a corresponding offset," which suggests that for an offset to be considered, it would have to be proposed concurrently with an increase in residential density on other lands within the CHHA. However, according to the director of the Department's Division of Community Planning, Valerie Hubbard, offsets in the CHHA do not have to be concurrent; they can include previous reductions. Furthermore, although the Department pointed to the absence of any criteria in the County Plan to guide an offset analysis, Ms. Hubbard said it was unnecessary for a comprehensive plan to include express provisions for the use of offsets. To the extent that this evidence of the Department's interpretation of relevant law and general practice conflicts with other testimony presented by the Department in this case, the statements contained in the report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Study Committee and the testimony of Ms. Hubbard are more persuasive evidence of the Department's policy and practice in determining compliance with the requirement that comprehensive plans direct population densities away from the CHHA and limit development in the CHHA. As long as the Department's practice when conducting an "in compliance" review of amendments that increase residential density in the CHHA is to take into account offsets, the Department has the duty to be consistent and to take into account the County's offsets in the review of this amendment. The County planning director testified that he believed the applicable goal, objective, and policy of the County Plan are met as long as there has been a reduction in residential densities in the CHHAs of the County as a whole. The Department points out that the planning director's opinion was not included in the County planning staff's reports prepared in conjunction with the amendment. However, it necessarily follows from the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of the amendment that it does not interpret Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 as prohibiting an increase in residential density in the CHHA. Although these provisions make no mention of offsets, the Department has not required offset provisions in a comprehensive plan before the Department will consider offsets in its determination whether a plan amendment that increases density in the CHHA is in compliance. The wording used in Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4 requiring "consideration" of density reductions in the CHHA can be harmonized with the County planning director's testimony and with the County's adoption of the amendment by construing these plan provisions consistently with the Department's own practice of allowing increases in the CHHA when the increases are offset by overall reductions in dwelling units in the CHHA. Seeking to harmonize the amendment with the provisions of the County Plan is the proper approach because, as discussed later in the Conclusions of Law, whether an amendment is consistent with other provisions of the plan is subject to the "fairly debatable" standard which is a highly deferential standard that looks for "any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction." Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Shelter Space and Clearance Time Prior to the hearing in this case, Leeward moved to strike certain statute and rule citations in the Department's petition related to shelter space and clearance time4 because they were not included in the Department's ORC Report. The motion was denied because, although Section 163.3184(8)(b), Florida Statutes, limits the Department's petition to issues raised in the "written comments" in the ORC Report, the statute does not indicate that the Department is barred from citing in its petition, for the first time, a rule or statute that is directly related to the written comments. The CHHA is defined in the County Plan as the category one "evacuation zone." It is the area most in need of evacuation in the event of a severe coastal storm. Shelter space and clearance time are integral to evacuation planning and directly related to the Department's comment in the ORC Report that the amendment would, "expose a substantial population to the dangers of a hurricane." Therefore, the Department was not barred from presenting evidence on shelter space and clearance time in support of this comment. The Department's practice when reviewing an amendment that increases residential density in the CHHA, described in its 2006 report to the Governor's Coastal High Hazard Area Study Committee, is to consider not only dwelling unit offsets in the CHHA, but also the effect on shelter space and clearance time. That report did not elaborate on how shelter space and clearance time are considered by the Department, but evidence that a comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant adverse effect on shelter space or clearance time could presumably negate what would otherwise appear to the Department to be an acceptable offset of residential density in the CHHA. On this record, however, the Department did not show that a significant adverse impact on shelter space or clearance time would be caused by this particular amendment.5 Special Planning Areas Leeward argues that, even if the amendment were determined to be inconsistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4, that inconsistency should be balanced against other provisions in the County Plan that are furthered by the amendment, principally the provisions related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area and the Water- Dependent Use Overlay Zone. There is no authority for such a balancing approach that can overcome an inconsistency with an objective or policy of the comprehensive plan. Therefore, whether the amendment furthers the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area, Water-Dependent Use Overlay Zone, or other subjects is irrelevant to whether the amendment is consistent with Objective 105.1 and Policy 105-1.4. On the other hand, the Department's contention that the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the County Plan related to the Caloosahatchee Shores Community Planning Area is contrary to the more credible evidence. 100-Year Floodplain The amendment site is entirely within the 100-year floodplain. In its Statement of Intent, the Department determined that the amendment was not in compliance, in part, because the amendment site's location in the 100-year floodplain made it unsuitable for residential development. In addition, the Department determined that the amendment caused an internal inconsistency with the following policies of the County Plan related to development in the floodplain: POLICY 61.3.2: Floodplains must be managed to minimize the potential loss of life and damage to property by flooding. POLICY 61.3.6: Developments must have and maintain an adequate surface water management system, provision for acceptable programs for operation and maintenance, and post-development runoff conditions which reflect the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, direction, quality, hydroperiod, and drainage basin. Detailed regulations will continue to be integrated with other county development regulations. According to Mike McDaniel, a growth management administrator with the Department, "we try to discourage increasing densities in floodplains and encourage that it be located in more suitable areas." The policies set forth above are intended to aid in the achievement of Goal 61 of the Community Facilities and Service Element "to protect water resources through the application of innovative and sound methods of surface water management and by ensuring that the public and private construction, operation, and maintenance of surface water management systems are consistent with the need to protect receiving waters.” Plainly, Goal 61 is directed to regulating construction and surface water management systems. There is no mention in this goal or in the policies that implement the goal of prohibiting all development or certain kinds of development in the 100-year floodplain. The Department's argument in this case regarding development in the 100-year floodplain is rejected because it ignores relevant facts and law. First, substantial portions of Lee County and the State are within the 100-year floodplain. Second, there is no state statute or rule that prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. Third, the Department of Environmental Protection, water management districts, and local governments regulate development in the floodplain by application of construction standards, water management criteria, and similar regulatory controls to protect floodplain functions as well as human life and property. Fourth, there has been and continues to be development in the 100-year floodplain in Lee County and throughout the State, clearly indicating that such development is able to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements imposed by the permitting agencies for the specific purpose of protecting the floodplain and the public. Fifth, the Department "discourages" development in the floodplain but has not established by rule a standard, based on density or other measure, which reasonably identifies for local governments or the general public what development in the floodplain is acceptable to the Department and what development is unacceptable. Finally, the Department's practice in allowing offsets in the CHHA, as discussed previously, necessarily allows for development in the 100-year floodplain in that particular context.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the amendment adopted by Lee County in Ordinance No. 05-10 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, 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 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Miami's small scale development amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 12550 on June 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On December 31, 2003, Intervenor submitted an application to the City for an amendment to the FLUM which would change the land use designation on a 7.91-acre tract of property from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial. The property is located at 1818 and 1844 Northwest North River Drive, Miami, and is situated on the north side of the Miami River. It is bordered by Northwest North River Drive to the north, the Miami River to the south, and a recently renovated condominium development known as Serenity to the east. At one time (the specific date is unknown), the property was used as a boat repair facility and commercial marina. The property is currently unused. The application was submitted concurrently with an application for a zoning change in connection with Intervenor's intent to develop a mixed use project on the property. The applications were reviewed by the City's Planning and Zoning Department (Planning Department). The Planning Department recommended that the applications be approved. In doing so, it determined that the land use change furthers the objectives of the Plan, and that the land use pattern in the neighborhood should be changed. On April 7, 2004, the City Planning Advisory Board voted 4-3 in favor of recommending approval of the application. However, that vote constituted a denial due to the failure to obtain five favorable votes. Both the FLUM and zoning applications were initially presented for first reading to the City Commission (Commission) on April 22, 2004. At that meeting, the Commission voted to approve both applications. The applications were again presented to the Commission on June 24, 2004. At that time, Balbino's application for a major use special permit was also presented to the Commission. After consideration, the Commission adopted Ordinance No. 12550, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation on the property, as requested by Intervenor. (It also granted the rezoning request and approved the issuance of a major use special permit.) The Ordinance was signed by the City's Mayor on July 7, 2004. Because the amendment is a small scale development amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, it was not reviewed by the Department. See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. On August 5, 2004, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the FLUM amendment generally alleging that the amendment involved a use of more than ten acres and therefore was not a small scale development amendment, that the amendment was internally inconsistent with other provisions in the City's Plan, and that the amendment was not supported by adequate data and analysis. After an intervening appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal, which involved the timeliness of their Petition, on March 1, 2006, Petitioners filed their Amended Petition which added additional grounds for finding the amendment not in compliance. On August 17, 2006, Intervenor, who is the contract owner of the property, petitioned to intervene in this proceeding. That request was granted on August 18, 2004. The Parties Durham Park is a non-profit corporation comprised of approximately ninety homeowners who reside within the Durham Park area. It lies on the south side of the Miami River across from Balbino's property. According to its president, Horacio Aguirre, every homeowner is automatically a member of the association but no dues are assessed. A list of members is not maintained. At the hearing, Mr. Aguirre acknowledged that the association is not engaged in any business and does not own any property. Although its corporate purpose is not of record, the association occasionally meets to discuss issues that "impact the neighborhood," including the amendment being challenged here. No minutes of meetings are kept. Once, in September 2003, the association published a newsletter. Mr. Aguirre appeared before the City Commission on behalf of Durham Park and offered comments in opposition to the plan amendment. Ann Stetser resides in a ten-story condominium at 1700 Northwest North River Drive, which is on the north side of the River and just east of the subject property. The Serenity condominium development lies between her condominium and Intervenor's property. Ms. Stetser offered oral or written comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment. Therefore, she is an affected person and has standing to bring this challenge. Mr. Payne resides in the City of Davie in Broward County but owns and operates a tug boat company known as Towing and Transportation, which is located in the Lower River portion of the Miami River. Mr. Payne submitted timely comments to the City regarding the small scale amendment and thus is an affected person with standing to bring this action. Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is a private, non- profit trade association comprised of approximately fifty-five members, each of which is a private business. Its mission "is to protect the working river." The executive director of the association, Fran Bohnsack, appeared before the City Commission on behalf of the association and offered comments in opposition to the proposed amendment. The parties agree that Miami River Marine Group, Inc. is an affected person and has standing to participate. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It initially adopted the Plan in 1989. The Plan has been amended from time to time. Balbino is the contract purchaser of the subject property. Balbino submitted comments concerning the amendment to the City at its meeting on June 24, 2004, and is an affected person with standing to participate in this proceeding. Relevant Provisions of the Plan The section of the Plan entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various land use categories in the Plan. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 13-16. It describes the Industrial land use category as follows: Industrial: The areas designated as "Industrial" allow manufacturing, assembly and storage activities. The "Industrial" designation generally includes activities that would otherwise generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact unless properly controlled. Stockyards, rendering works, smelting and refining plants and similar activities are excluded. Residential uses are not permitted in the "Industrial" designation, except for rescue missions, and live-aboards in commercial marinas. The section also describes the "General Commercial" land use classification as follows: General Commercial: Areas designated as "General Commercial" allow all activities included in the "Office" and the "Restricted Commercial" designations, as well as wholesaling and distribution activities that generally serve the needs of other businesses; generally require on and off loading facilities; and benefit from close proximity to industrial areas. These commercial activities include retailing of second hand items, automotive repair services, new and used vehicle sales, parking lots and garages, heavy equipment sales and service, building material sales and storage, wholesaling, warehousing, distribution and transport related services, light manufacturing and assembly and other activities whose scale of operation and land use impacts are similar to those uses described above. Multifamily residential structures of a density equal to R-3 or higher, but not to exceed a maximum of 150 units per acre, are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents. This category also allows commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels for transients. Finally, the section describes the "Restricted Commercial" land use category as follows: Restricted Commercial: Areas designated as "Restricted Commercial" allow residential uses (except rescue missions) to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions; any activity included in the "Office" designation as well as commercial activities that generally serve the daily retailing and service needs of the public, typically requiring easy access by personal auto, and often located along arterial or collector roadways, which include: general retailing, personal and professional services, real estate, banking and other financial services, restaurants, saloons and cafes, general entertainment facilities, private clubs and recreation facilities, major sports and exhibition or entertainment facilities and other commercial activities whose scale and land use impacts are similar in nature to those uses described above, places of worship, primary and secondary schools. This category also includes commercial marinas and living quarters on vessels as permissible. The Plan is based on a pyramid structure. See Joint Exhibit 2, Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map, page 13, paragraph 4. That is, each land use classification permits all land uses within previously listed categories, except as otherwise specifically provided in the Plan. Therefore, with the exception of residential uses, all uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial designation are permitted under the Industrial classification. The Restricted Commercial category is a logical designation for the property because of its proximity to residential neighborhoods. Those residential properties would clearly be more detrimentally affected by industrial activities that may generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact, which are now authorized under the Industrial designation. The Miami River The Miami River runs northwest to southeast for more than five miles from the Miami International Airport to Biscayne Bay (the mouth of the River). For planning purposes, it includes three sections: the Upper River, the Middle River, and the Lower River. Although the demarcations of those sections are in dispute, the best evidence of the appropriate demarcations of the three sections is found in the Miami River Master Plan (Master Plan), which was adopted by the City in 1992. See Joint Exhibit 1. The Master Plan clearly depicts the geographic scope of the Mid-River (or Middle River) as extending west to Northwest 27th Avenue and the Up River (or Upper River) as being that portion of the Miami River lying west of Northwest 27th Avenue. Based on these demarcations, the Lower River would run from the mouth of the Miami River to the 5th Street Bridge, the Middle River from the 5th Street Bridge to Northwest 27th Avenue, and the Upper River from Northwest 27th Avenue westward. It is undisputed that Intervenor's property is located on the Middle River. The parties agree that Restricted Commercial is a reasonable land use designation for the Middle River. Petitioners' expert witness also agreed that the Middle River "is supposed to be a mix of residential." In its discussion of the Middle River, the Master Plan provides: The Mid-River area contains most of the existing housing located along the Miami River. The wide variety of dwelling types, ranging from single family homes to high- rise apartment/condominium buildings, are mostly occupied by middle-income households. This is an important segment of the population for the City to retain in order to support the local economy and tax base. A number of opportunities remain for development of new housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the density of existing developed lots. New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water dependent uses. In the proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district (See page 1.14) residential development could be permitted as an accessory use to a marina. The property is located within the referenced proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district. According to the Master Plan, the strategy for the Middle River is to "[b]ring the neighborhoods back to the river." The Master Plan further provides that "[d]iverse residential neighborhoods interspersed with commercial districts make the Mid-River unusual. The strategy is to develop centers of activities at strategic locations that will become gateways to the river and give identity to the neighborhoods." In contrast, the Master Plan describes the Up-River as "a working river." It also notes that "[m]arine industries in the Up-River area create a busy, economically vital district that is important to preserve. The challenge is to protect these industries from displacement by non-water-dependent uses and to nurture growth in marine industries without negatively impacting nearby residential neighborhoods." In describing the Upper River, the Master Plan provides: The character of the river changes dramatically west of NW 27th Avenue bridge. In fact, it is not really the river there; it is the man-made Miami Canal (and the Tamiami Canal branching off to the west). In contrast to the gently curving paths and irregular edges of the natural river, the canal banks are rigidly straight and significantly closer together at 90 feet. The most striking difference in the up-river area is the change in land use. The Miami Canal is almost entirely industrial in character, with commercial shipping being the predominant use. Most of the larger cargo vessels on the Miami River are loaded and unloaded in this area, resulting in an incredibly busy, narrow river channel. Due to the industrial nature of the up-river corridor, many of the urban design recommendations made for the mid-river and downtown areas are not applicable. The emphasis in this area should be to promote growth in shipping and related industries and to provide adequate roadways for the vehicles and trucks associated with these businesses. Allapattah The property is located in a community development target area known as Allapattah. Community development target areas are neighborhoods to which the City directs community block grants for revitalization. In need of revitalization, Allapattah has deteriorated over time and is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the City. Allapattah has been designated as a neighborhood development zone, a designation used in connection with community development programs. Also within the Allapattah neighborhood, and less than one mile from the subject property, is an area known as the Civic Center. The Civic Center includes Jackson Hospital, Cedars Hospital, the Justice Building, the County Jail, and government offices. More than 25,000 persons work in the Civic Center area. The area continues to expand. Urban Infill Area It is undisputed that the property is located within an urban infill area. Among the purposes of an urban infill designation are the promotion of the efficient use of infrastructure, including transportation and the prevention of urban sprawl. The Civic Center area is a major transportation hub and includes a metro rail station that is located approximately a five-minute drive from the property. The property is also served by several bus routes. As to urban sprawl, the amendment will fulfill a need for housing for persons who work in the Civic Center area. By doing so, the amendment is also expected to promote job creation. The Size of the Parcel Petitioners first contend that the parcel actually comprises 10.41 acres and therefore exceeds the threshold size (ten acres or fewer) for small scale development amendments. Petitioners point out that the approved companion rezoning and special permit encompasses 10.41 acres, while the application for the FLUM amendment is for 7.91 acres. Petitioners argue that the total area encompassed by the rezoning and special permit applications is the correct number to use in determining the actual size of the parcel. The application for the FLUM amendment included a site drawing on which the surveyor certified that the "NET TOTAL LOT AREA" of the property is 7.91 acres. This acreage includes upland and submerged lands and comprises all of the land under Intervenor's ownership and/or control. (Slightly more than one- half of the 7.91 acres is upland property, while the remainder is submerged land in the Miami River where Balbino will construct a marina.) The site drawing also includes areas adjacent to the property (from the boundaries of the property to the centerline of the adjacent rights-of-way and the centerline of the Miami River) and the surveyor's calculation of the sizes of those areas. The sum of the acreage of those areas and of the property is referred to as the "gross total lot area." To determine the size of the property for a future land use map amendment, for at least the last twenty-two years the City has employed the "net lot area" concept. Under that concept, defined in the City's Zoning Ordinance, an applicant may only seek a future land use map amendment with respect to property under its ownership or control, and the only property on which a land use classification is changed as a result of such an application is that which is within the ownership or control of the applicant. Approval of an application for a future land use map amendment does not result in a change in land use classification for lands not within the ownership or control of an applicant, such as a public right-of-way. Petitioners seek to contravene the City's longstanding use of net lot area in determining the size of property subject to a future land use map amendment by contending that it is the gross lot area that should be considered in determining the size of the property subject to the FLUM amendment. By doing so, however, they are improperly attempting to apply a zoning concept to the City's Plan process. More specifically, the concept of "gross total lot area" is relevant only for use in a mathematical calculation of "floor area ratio." Floor area ratio is a mathematical calculation pursuant to which the City determines the square footage of buildings that may be built on a particular piece of property. The City's Zoning Ordinance permits a property owner to include portions of the acreage of adjacent rights-of-way, bays, parks, or other open spaces in the floor area calculation. The floor area calculation will not be affected by the FLUM amendment. The City's net lot area approach is the correct methodology to be used in determining the size of the parcel. Therefore, the map amendment involves or uses only 7.91 acres and was properly considered by the City as a small scale development amendment. Consistency of the Amendment with the Plan At the hearing, Petitioners failed to present any evidence bearing on the consistency (or lack thereof) of the amendment with the following Plan objectives and policies: LU- 1.2.3, LU-1.3.1, HO-1.1, HO-1.2, SS-1.4, SS-2.1, SS-2.2, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, SS-2.1, SS-2.5, SW-1.1, PR-1.1, PR-1.4, CM-1.1, CM-2.1, CM-4.2, NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-3.2, and CI-1.3. Accordingly, Petitioners' challenge to the amendment based upon alleged inconsistencies with these objectives and policies must fail. Remaining for consideration are allegations that the amendment is inconsistent with Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.3.6, and Objectives LU-1.2, LU-1.3, LU-1.6, SS-2.2, PW-1.2, TR-1.1, PA- 3.3, CM-3.1, CM-4.1, NR-1.3, NR-2.1, and CI-1.4. Goal LU-1 in the Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that a goal of the Plan shall be to: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts; and (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources. The property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. By eliminating the potential for development on the property of industrial uses that may generate "excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact," the amendment will enhance the quality of life in those surrounding neighborhoods. The Allapatah neighborhood, in which the property is located, is a declining area. The amendment is therefore consistent with subpart (2) of Goal LU-1, which is concerned with the redevelopment and revitalization of declining areas. Petitioners have also alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (3) of the Goal because it will negatively impact marine industrial uses along the Miami River. However, no persuasive evidence to support this contention was offered. Subpart (4) is not relevant to this case because it pertains to the downtown area and the property is not located in that part of the City. As to subpart (5), Petitioners offered no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the concept of the promotion of the efficient use of land. On the other hand, the evidence shows that the amendment will minimize land use conflicts by placing a land use classification on the property that is consistent with adjacent residential areas. Petitioners failed to offer any evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with subpart (6), which pertains to the protection and conservation of natural and coastal resources. FLUE Objective LU-1.2 provides that one of the objectives of the Plan is to: Promote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas. Because the property is in the Allapatah neighborhood, which is a declining residential area, the amendment will promote redevelopment and revitalization of that area and is therefore consistent with the Objective. FLUE Objective LU-1.3 provides as follows: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE). The concurrency analysis performed by the City shows that approval of the amendment will not result in a failure of existing public facilities to meet or exceed applicable LOS minimum standards. At the same time, the new Restricted Commercial land use category permits the types of land uses that Objective LU- 1.3 seeks to encourage, namely, commercial and office uses. FLUE Policy LU-1.3.6 provides: The City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles. Particular emphasis is on, but not limited to, Southeast Overtown/Park West, Latin quarter, Little Haiti, Little River Industrial District, River Corridor, the Garment District and the Omni area. In considering the amendment, the City gave particular significance to the fact that the Restricted Commercial designation would allow greater flexibility in the development of the property. Such greater flexibility is consistent with the promotion of a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities. The mix of uses permitted under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will promote urban infill and serve to prevent urban sprawl. As such, the amendment is consistent with Policy LU-1.3.6. FLUE Objective LU-1.6 provides as follows: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the City to ensure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This Objective (and its underlying policies) is not relevant because it pertains specifically to land development regulations. Even so, there was no evidence to show that the amendment is inconsistent with the Objective. Potable Water Element Objective PW-1.2 and Natural Resource Conservation Objective R-2.1 are identical and provide as follows: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the City. Petitioners presented no evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with either Objective. Rather, they asserted that in evaluating the amendment application, the City failed to do an independent analysis to address the availability of potable water. (The City relied on information provided by Metro-Dade County.) The City's concurrency analysis revealed that potable water supplies will be available to the City even after the amendment becomes effective. Petitioners also failed to provide any evidence that the potable water usage under the Restricted Commercial classification would exceed that which may occur under the Industrial land use classification. Further, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence that there is a potable water deficiency in the City, or that the amendment would cause one. Finally, there was no evidence that the reliance on information provided by other local governments was unreasonable. Transportation Element Objective TR-1.1 provides as follows: All arterial and collector roadways under County and State jurisdiction that lie within the City's boundaries will operate at levels of service established by the respective agency. All other City streets will operate at levels of service that are consistent with an urban center possessing an extensive urban public transit system and characterized by compact development and moderate-to-high residential densities and land use densities, and within a transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA). The City will monitor the levels of service of all arterial and collector roadways to continue to develop and enhance transportation strategies that promote transit and minimize the impacts of the TCEA. Petitioners contend that the concurrency analysis performed by the City assumed that an unreasonably high percentage of persons accessing the property would use a form of transportation other than an automobile. However, Petitioners' expert conceded that he had no expertise in traffic analysis, and that the City's analysis was performed by persons who did. Because the challenge is based on criticism that is not supported by credible expert testimony, the assertion must necessarily fail. Coastal Management Element Objective CM-3.1 provides as follows: Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(137) defines "water-dependent uses" as "activities which can be carried out only on, in or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for water-borne transportation including ports or marinas; recreation; electrical generating facilities; or water supply." Witness Payne, who is a tug boat captain, stated that the United States Coast Guard requires vessels over five hundred gross tons to "leave the port, seek shelter" in the event of a hurricane and that Intervenor's property is a destination for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane. Because the land use on the property is Industrial, there is no requirement that a marina or any other water-related facility be located on the property as an available site for boats seeking shelter from a hurricane, even in the absence of the amendment. In addition, the Restricted Commercial land use category permits commercial marinas; therefore, the amendment in no way prevents the property from serving as a destination for boats over five hundred gross tons seeking shelter. Finally, because the property can already be developed in such a manner that it would be used by large numbers of persons (e.g., offices and malls), there is no basis upon which to conclude that the amendment will have any impact on the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property by hurricanes. Natural Resources Element NR-1.3 provides as follows: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora. Although the parties agree that there are manatees in the Miami River, Petitioners failed to provide any evidence identifying locations along the Miami River where such manatees are found, or any evidence that the amendment would have any impact on those manatees. It is fair to conclude that by eliminating the potential for development that might include such uses that involve noise, fumes, smoke, and hazardous wastes, this will enhance the status of native species of flora and fauna. Capital Improvements Element Objective CI-1.4 provides as follows: Ensure that public capital expenditure within the coastal zone does not encourage private development that is subject to significant risk of storm damage. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, this Objective does not provide that the City should discourage development in the coastal zone. For example, there are other areas of substantial development within the coastal zone, such as Brickell Avenue. The amendment does not trigger the expenditure of public funds for capital improvements. This is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of development permitted under the Industrial and Restricted Commercial land use classifications. Due to the intensity of development allowed under either land use classification, there is no basis upon which to conclude any development under the Restricted Commercial land use classification will require any greater infrastructure expenditures than development under the Industrial land use classification. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable that the map amendment is internally consistent with other provisions of the Plan. Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment "is not based on the best available, professional acceptable, existing data," as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005 and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes. However, they failed to offer any evidence that the City failed to consider any relevant data in existence at the time the amendment was adopted, or that the City failed to appropriately react to that data. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the City had sufficient data and analysis available at the time the amendment was adopted to justify its approval. For example, the staff considered data provided by Balbino in its application package; data (such as potable water and wastewater transmission capacities) supplied by Metro-Dade County; the Miami River Master Plan; maps; the target area plans for Allapattah; the current Plan, including the extensive data and analysis supporting the Plan found in Volume II; and other related information, including support by citizen groups from the Allapattah area. In response to that data, among other things, the staff performed a concurrency management analysis concerning the availability of public facilities and levels of service (although actual levels of service cannot be determined until the City knows what is going to be built on the site), and it performed a land use study focusing on the area around the subject property and the compatibility of uses in the area with the new land use designation. A summary of the staff's efforts are found in a fact sheet and analysis package which accompanied the amendment. One of Petitioners' primary criticisms on this issue is that the City relied upon Metro-Dade County to provide certain data pertaining to concurrency matters (traffic and potable water). However, Petitioners failed to prove that this data was insufficient to support the adoption of the amendment or that it was unreasonable to rely on that information. Moreover, at least with respect to traffic, small scale amendments are exempt from the requirement that plan amendment applications be accompanied by a traffic concurrency study. Petitioners also contend that the City ignored certain data which shows that the amendment disrupts the existing land use pattern supporting water-dependent uses. As noted above, however, the City performed an extensive land use study to consider, among other things, these very concerns and concluded that the new land use designation is compatible with adjacent properties and consistent with the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the challenged plan amendment is supported by professionally acceptable data and analysis, and that the City reacted to that data and analysis in an appropriate manner. The Port of Miami River Petitioners also argue that the Port of Miami River Sub-Element must be considered in determining whether the amendment is in compliance. This Sub-Element is found within the Plan's Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element. It is an optional element not required under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Plan defines the Port of Miami River as: Simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent, privately-owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a "port facility" within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of the shipping concerns as the "Port of Miami River" was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pump outs. The private shipping companies identified as comprising the Port of Miami River are listed in Volume II of the Plan. The location of each of those companies is also shown. See Joint Exhibit 3, Section VIII, page 35. An updated list is found in the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report. (A few companies are located outside the City's boundaries in unincorporated Dade County.) None are located on 18th Avenue, where the subject property is found. Over the years, the City has consistently interpreted this Sub-Element as applying only to properties that are listed in Volume II of the Plan. Because Intervenor's property is not included within the definition of the Port of Miami River, in reviewing the application, the City adhered to its long-standing interpretation that the Sub-Element was not applicable or relevant to the analysis of the amendment's consistency with the Plan. See Monkus, supra at 33- 34. Under the majority opinion in Payne II, however, the Sub-Element appears to be relevant and is "intended to apply to the 'uses along the banks of the Miami River", and not just to specific companies named in the definition.3 Even so, only Objective PA-3.3 would require consideration.4 That objective reads as follows: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County's Port of Miami. Petitioners failed to present any evidence concerning a lack of coordination activities relative to the FLUM amendment. Coordination does not mean that adjacent local governments or other interested persons have veto power over the City's ability to enact plan amendments. City of West Palm Beach et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 191 at *34, DOAH Case Nos. 04-4336GM, 04-4337GM, and 04-4650GM (DOAH July 18, 2005, DCA Oct. 21, 2005). Rather, the City needs only take into consideration input from interested persons. Id. at *35. The City established that pursuant to its Resolution No. 00-320, before any resolution, ordinance, or issue affecting the Miami River is considered, the City Manager is required to inform the Miami River Commission (MRC) of that impending matter. The MRC serves as a clearinghouse for all interests of the Miami River, including residential, economic, and industrial interests, as well as the other entities listed in the Objective. See §§ 163.06 et seq., Fla. Stat. The evidence shows that the MRC was notified before the amendment was considered, and that it provided a recommendation to the Commission. At the same time, Petitioners, their expert witness (Mr. Luft), and other interested persons were also given an opportunity to provide input into the process before the amendment was adopted. Therefore, the requirements of the Objective and Sub-Element have been met. Other Issues Finally, in their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Petitioners contend that "[t]he FLUM amendment renders the Port of Miami River Sub-Element (goals, objectives, and policies) vague, ambiguous, permissive, and without measurable and predictable standards." They also assert that the amendment "is an over-allocation of residential land use and is not economically feasible." Because these issues were not specifically raised in the Amended Petition or the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, to the extent they are not otherwise discussed above, they have been waived. Even if the issues had been adequately pled, there is insufficient evidence to support these claims.
Conclusions For Petitioners: Andrew W. J. Dickman, Esquire Law Offices of Andrew Dickman, P.A. Post Office Box 771390 Naples, Florida 34107-1390 For Respondent: Rafael Suarez-Rivas, Esquire Assistant City Attorney 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33130-1910 For Intervenor: Paul R. Lipton, Esquire Pamela A. DeBooth, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3224 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1838
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 small scale development plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2055.1 is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2006, 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 16th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Land Development Code (LDC) adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-12 on August 22, 2007, as amended on February 27, 2008, is inconsistent with the effective comprehensive plan for the City of Doral (City), which is the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (County Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Section 64 is a Florida corporation. The Grand is a Florida limited partnership. Both entities are owned by the same individual. On September 25, 2001, Section 7 acquired ownership of an approximate ten-acre tract of property in the County (now the City) located along the southern boundary of Northwest 82nd Street, between 109th and 112th Avenues. See Petitioners' Exhibit 416. On December 16, 2005, title in one- half of the property was conveyed to The Grand in order to divide the property into two different ownerships. Id. It was Petitioners' intent at that time to build two hotels on separate five-acre tracts, one owned by Section 7 and the other by The Grand. The City is located in the northwestern part of Dade County and was incorporated as a municipality in June 2003. At the time of incorporation, the County's Plan and Land Use Code were the legally effective comprehensive plan and land development regulations (LDRs), respectively. On April 26, 2006, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. After the Department determined that the Plan was not in compliance, remedial amendments were adopted on January 10, 2007, pursuant to a Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Although the Department found the Plan, as remediated, to be in compliance, it was challenged by a third party, and the litigation is still pending. See DOAH Case No. 06-2417. Therefore, the County Plan is still the legally effective Plan. See § 163.3167(4), Fla. Stat. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing LDRs whenever the appeal process described in Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes, is invoked by a substantially affected person. History of the Controversy When Petitioners' property was purchased in 2001, the County zoning on the property was Light Industrial (IU-1), having been rezoned by the County to that designation on October 9, 1984. See Petitioners' Exhibit 5. One of the uses permitted under an IU-1 zoning classification is a hotel with up to 75 units per acre. See Petitioners' Exhibit 6. The land use designation on the County's LUP map for the property is Low- Density Residential (LDR), with One Density Bonus, which allows 2.5 to 6 residential units per acre with the ability for a "bump-up" in density to 5 to 13 units per acre if the development includes specific urban design characteristics according to the County urban design guide book. Language found on pages I-62 and I-63 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in effect at the time of the incorporation of the City (now found on pages I-73 and I-74 of the current version of the FLUE) provides in relevant part as follows: Uses and Zoning Not Specifically Depicted on the LUP Map. Within each map category numerous land uses, zoning classifications and housing types may occur. Many existing uses and zoning classifications are not specifically depicted on the Plan map. . . . All existing lawful uses and zoning are deemed to be consistent with the [Plan] unless such a use or zoning (a) is found through a subsequent planning study, as provided in Land Use Policy 4E, to be inconsistent with the criteria set forth below; and (b) the implementation of such a finding will not result in a temporary or permanent taking or in the abrogation of vested rights as determined by the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. As noted above, if there is a concern that zoning might be inconsistent with land use, using the criteria described in the provision, the County may initiate a planning study to analyze consistency and down-zone the property to a less intense use if an inconsistency is found. Although the County initiated a number of planning studies after it adopted its Plan in 1993, and ultimately down-zoned many properties, none was ever initiated by the County for Petitioners' property. Essentially, when existing uses and zoning are not depicted on the County LUP map, the language in the FLUE operates to deem lawfully existing zoning consistent with the land use designation on the property. In this case, the parties agree that the zoning of Petitioners' property is not depicted on the County LUP map. Therefore, absent a planning study indicating an inconsistency, the zoning is deemed to be consistent with the land use category. On August 22, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007-12, which enacted a new LDC, effective September 1, 2007, to replace the then-controlling County Land Use Code. Although the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing the new City Plan, until the new Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Amendments to the LDC were adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-1 on February 27, 2008. The LDC does not change the zoning on Petitioners' property. However, it contains a provision in Chapter 1, Section 5, known as the Zoning Compatibility Table (Table), which sets forth the new land use categories in the City Plan (which are generally similar but not identical to the County land use categories) and the zoning districts for each category. Pertinent to this dispute is an asterisk note to the Table which reads in relevant part as follows: Under no circumstances shall the density, intensity, or uses permitted be inconsistent with that allowed on the city's future land use plan. . . . Zoning districts that are inconsistent with the land use map and categories shall rezone prior to development. See Petitioners' Exhibit 27 at p. I-3. Under the Table, only residential zoning districts (with up to ten dwelling units per acre and no density bonus) are allowed in the City's proposed LDR land use category. Therefore, if or when the City Plan becomes effective, before Petitioners can develop their property, they must rezone it to a district that is consistent with the land use designation shown on the Table. There is no specific requirement in the LDC that the City conduct a planning study when it has a concern that the zoning is inconsistent with the relevant land use category in the new City Plan. Petitioners construed the asterisk note as being inconsistent with the text language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County Plan. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. Accordingly, on August 21, 2008, Petitioners submitted a Petition to the City pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging generally that they were substantially affected persons; that the LDC was inconsistent with the County Plan; that the LDC changes the regulations regarding character, density, and intensity of use permitted by the County Plan; and that the LDC was not compatible with the County Plan, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.023.2 See Petitioners' Exhibit 103. The City issued its Response to the Petition on November 20, 2008. See Petitioners' Exhibit 104. The Response generally indicated that Petitioners did not have standing to challenge the LDC; that the Petition lacked the requisite factual specificity and reasons for the challenge; that the LDC did not change the character, density, or intensity of the permitted uses under the County Plan; and the allegation concerning compatibility lacked factual support or allegations to support that claim. On December 22, 2008, Petitioners filed a Petition with the Department pursuant to Section 163.3213(3), Florida Statutes, alleging that the LDC implements a City Plan not yet effective; that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the existing County Plan; and that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 105. After conducting an informal hearing on April 7, 2009, as authorized by Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, on July 23, 2009, the Department issued a Determination of Consistency of a Land Development Regulation (Determination). See Petitioners' Exhibit 102. See also Section 7 Tract 64 Property, Inc., et al. v. The City of Doral, Fla., Case No. DCA09-LDR-270, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 119 (DCA July 23, 2009). In the Determination, the Department concluded that Petitioners were substantially affected persons and had standing to file their challenge; that the provision on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE did not apply to Petitioners' property because the uses and zoning of the property are specifically designated on the LUP map; that the law does not prohibit the Department from reviewing the LDC for consistency with the not yet effective City Plan; and that because the LDC will require Petitioners to rezone their property to be consistent with the City Plan, the challenge is actually a challenge to a rezoning action and not subject to review under this administrative process. See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. On August 13, 2009, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Proceedings with DOAH raising three broad grounds: that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet effective; that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with the County Plan; and that it changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan and is inconsistent with that Plan. See Petitioners' Exhibit 39. These issues are repeated in the parties' Stipulation. As to other issues raised by Petitioners, and evidence submitted on those matters over the objection of opposing counsel, they were tried without consent of the parties, and they are deemed to be beyond the scope of this appeal. The Objections Petitioners first contend that the LDC unlawfully implements a comprehensive plan not yet in effect, in that it was specifically intended to be compatible with, further the goals or policies of, and implement the policies and objectives of, the City Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.023. But Petitioners cited no statute or rule that prohibits a local government from adopting LDRs before a local plan is effective, or that implement another local government's plan (in this case the County Plan). While the LDC was adopted for the purpose of implementing a City Plan that the City believed would be in effect when the LDC was adopted, the City agrees that until the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC implements the County Plan. Even though the two Plans are not identical, and may even be inconsistent with each other in certain respects, this does automatically create an inconsistency between the LDC and County Plan. Rather, it is necessary to determine consistency between those two documents, and not the City Plan. Except for testimony regarding one provision in the LDC and its alleged inconsistency with language in the County FLUE, no evidence was presented, nor was a ground raised, alleging that other inconsistencies exist. The Table note and the County Plan do not conflict. The LDC is not "inconsistent" merely because it was initially intended to implement a local plan that has not yet become effective. Petitioners next contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the County Plan and is therefore inconsistent with that Plan. Specifically, they contend that the note following the Zoning Compatibility Table in Chapter 1, Section 5 of the LDC is inconsistent with the language on pages I-62 and 63 (now renumbered as pages I-73 and I-74) of the County Plan. In other words, they assert that an inconsistency arises because the note requires them to down- zone their property before development, while the County Plan deems their zoning to be consistent with the County LUP map unless a special planning study is undertaken. The evidence establishes that if there is a conflict between zoning and land use on property within the City, it is necessary to defer to the language on pages I-62 and I-63 of the County FLUE for direction. This is because the County Plan is the effective plan for the City. Under that language, if no planning study has been conducted, the zoning would be deemed to be consistent with the land use. On the other hand, if a planning study is undertaken, and an inconsistency is found, the property can be rezoned in a manner that would make it consistent with the land use. Therefore, the LDC does not change the use, density, or intensity on Petitioners' property that is permitted under the County Plan. It is at least fairly debatable that there is no conflict between the Table note and the County Plan. Finally, Petitioners contend that the LDC changes the uses, densities, and intensities permitted by the not yet effective City Plan because the current industrial zoning designation will be inconsistent with the LDR land use designation. Petitioners argue that once the new City Plan becomes effective, the LDC requires them to down-zone their property before development. However, this concern will materialize only if or when the new City Plan, as now written, becomes effective; therefore, it is premature. Further, the definition of "land development regulation" specifically excludes "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land." See § 163.3213(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Because the challenged regulation (the note to the Table) is "an action which results in zoning or rezoning of land," the issue cannot be raised in an administrative review of land development regulations. Id. The other contentions raised by Petitioner are either new issues that go beyond the scope of the Petition filed in this case or are without merit.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of Pompano Beach (City) by Ordinance Nos. 2011-24 and 2011- 25 on February 8, 2011, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a resident and owner of real property within the City. Through counsel, she submitted written and oral comments to the City during the transmittal and adoption hearings for the plan amendments. Petitioner is employed by the Seminole Tribe of Florida at its casino located in Coconut Creek, Broward County (County). PPI's claim that this challenge is rooted in gaming interests of the Seminole Tribe of Florida appears to be a valid assumption. The City is a municipal corporation in the County and is responsible for adopting and maintaining its Plan. It adopted the amendments pursuant to former section 163.32465, in effect at that time, which codified an adoption process known as the Alternative State Review Pilot Program (Pilot Program). Under the Pilot Program, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)1 did not issue an Objections, Recommendation, or Comments report or a notice of intent regarding compliance or non- compliance of the plan amendments. The DCA and other reviewing agencies did, however, issue letters advising that they did not object to the final version of the adopted amendments. PPI owns property in the City and is the applicant for the amendments. PPI submitted comments in support of the amendments throughout the adoption process. The Amendment Process in Broward County Under the County Charter, land use changes to the City's Plan that are not more restrictive than the County Land Use Plan must be reviewed by the Planning Council to ensure that they are in "substantial conformity" with the County Land Use Plan. However, the Planning Council does not review the City's plan amendments for consistency with the City's Plan or chapter 163. After the County's review was completed, the DCA recommended that certain changes be made. The amendments were transmitted back to the City and were amended to conform to the DCA's recommendations. The amendments were then required to undergo the same review process a second time. Although a determination was made by the Planning Council that the initial amendments were in substantial conformity with the County Land Use Plan, the revised amendments cannot be recertified for consistency until this challenge has been concluded. If plan amendments are in substantial conformity with its Land Use Plan, the County must amend its Plan to incorporate the City's changes. Based upon a favorable recommendation by the Planning Council, on September 28, 2010, the County adopted companion amendments, although not identical to the City's revised amendments. Those amendments are the subject of a pending challenge by the same petitioner in Case No. 10-9939GM and have not yet become effective. A hearing in that case is now scheduled in September 2013. Until that challenge is resolved, the City amendments cannot become effective. The Property PPI owns approximately 230 acres of property within the City. The property is bounded on the north by Racetrack Road, by North Cypress Bend Drive to the south, by Powerline Road to the west, and the CSX railroad tracks to the east. The current land use designation on 160 acres is Commercial Recreation (CR), while the remaining 70 acres has a Regional Activity Center (RAC) designation. The 70 acres makes up the southern part of a pre-existing RAC known as the Arvida Pompano Park Regional Activity Center (Arvida RAC), whose boundaries are coextensive with a Development of Regional Impact approved in the 1980s, but which expired in 2004. Except for the 70 acres owned by PPI, the Arvida RAC is fully developed. The CR property lies just to the south of the Arvida RAC and forms the southern boundary of that development. The 160 acres is now occupied by the Pompano Park Harness Track, Isle of Capri Casino, surface parking lots, various commercial uses, horse stables, a training area, and other uses associated with the harness track and casino. The 160 acres is the only property in the City designated as CR. That designation allows an extremely wide range of permitted uses: outdoor and indoor recreation facilities such as active recreation complexes, marinas, stadiums, jai-alai frontons, bowling alleys, golf courses, and dog and horse racing facilities; accessory facilities, including outdoor and indoor recreation facilities that support the primary recreation facility; hotels, motels, time shares, and similar lodging ancillary to the primary commercial recreation uses; and other active and passive recreation uses. The site was once considered for a new baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins and a hockey arena for the Florida Panthers. The CR property can have more than one primary use. For example, besides the harness track, the casino is an "indoor recreation facility" and qualifies as a second primary use. If a hotel has resort and destination features that are open to the public, the amenities can become a primary use. Under the City's interpretation of CR land, a hotel containing a destination function with resort and recreation features is also a primary use. Ancillary facilities for each of these uses is also allowed. The City is already 95 percent built-out, and it considers PPI's property to be regionally significant, under developed, and ripe for redevelopment as a major attraction. For these reasons, it supports the designation of the property as a new RAC. PPI filed the application because it desires greater flexibility in planning for the future development of the property. If the amendments become effective, PPI intends to expand the existing casino and build a large resort hotel, various commercial and residential uses, and other amenities associated with those activities. The Amendments In December 2009, PPI submitted an application to the City to reduce the existing Arvida RAC by removing PPI's 70 acres south of Racetrack Road; eliminate the development intensity assigned to those 70 acres; and combine the 70 acres removed from the Arvida RAC with its 160 acres of CR property to create a new South RAC. PPI also proposed to transfer credit for the remaining undeveloped portion of the Arvida RAC to the new South RAC. After the local review process was completed, the plan amendments were transmitted to the DCA, which issued a letter of comment recommending that the amendments be revised to identify the maximum amount of development (i.e., square footage) that would be allowed in each non-residential use, including CR, commercial, and office. Based on the DCA's comments, the application was modified by PPI to include floor area ratios (FARs) for each non-residential use, and in October 2010 the revised amendments were approved by the City on first reading. The DCA reviewed the revised amendments and had no objections. In February 2011, the revised amendments were adopted on second reading. Petitioner then timely filed her challenge. The map amendment (Ordinance No. 2011-25) changes the land use designation on the CR property to RAC. It consolidates the 70-acre parcel with the 160-acre parcel to create a unified RAC designation. The amendment does not change the boundary or designation of uses within the existing Arvida RAC. The amended FLUM now shows only a single RAC, with different intensity and density standards assigned to the North and South RACs in the text amendment.2 The text amendment to the FLUE (Ordinance No. 2011-24) affects a total of 399 acres of land, which covers both the existing Arvida RAC and the 160 acres of CR property south of Racetrack Road. It amends the listed uses for the Arvida RAC and names the uses for the new South RAC. The amendments permit a mixed use complex on PPI's property with a combination of 135 acres of CR (rather than 160 acres), 27 acres of commercial uses, 26 acres of office uses, and 43 acres of residential usage, consisting of 1,050 mid-rise apartments and 250 garden apartments, or a total of 1,300 residential units. The only new use introduced by either amendment is the 1,300 residential units. The maximum intensity on the CR property is not defined in the text of the Plan. However, FLUE policy 01.07.20 allows development on the 160 acres to a maximum intensity of 105 feet in height with 50 percent floor area coverage. This equates to an effective FAR of 5.0. All parties agree that a 5.0 FAR is unrealistic, and PPI never considered using that level of development. For this reason, the text amendment reduces the CR intensity to 0.31, which represents a far more reasonable and realistic development limitation. The amendment limits the maximum development within the South RAC to the following maximum FARs: 0.31 for commercial recreation use; 0.84 for office use; and 0.65 for commercial use. To the extent any portion of the 160 acres is re-designated as commercial or office, the amendment limits the maximum potential development on that acreage. Petitioner's Objections Petitioner's objections, broadly defined, are that the amendments are not in compliance because (a) they are not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis regarding transportation impacts; (b) they are internally inconsistent with four policies in the FLUE, one objective and two policies in the Transportation Element (TE), one policy in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE), and three policies in the Housing Element (HE); and (c) they are not supported by appropriate data and analysis regarding affordable housing. Data and Analysis -- Transportation Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on "relevant and appropriate data and analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment." In addition, "the future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: . . . [t]he availability of water supplies, public facilities and services." § 163.3177(6)(a)2.d., Fla. Stat. FLUM amendments must be based on an "analysis of the availability of facilities and services." § 163.3177(6)(a)8.a., Fla. Stat. Finally, "[w]here data is relevant to several elements, consistent data shall be used." § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat. Relying on the foregoing statutory requirements, Petitioner contends that the data and analysis regarding transportation impacts are inconsistent with the data and analysis supporting the TE and CIE; the various data and analysis supporting the amendments are not accurate and professionally acceptable because they underestimate impacts to transportation facilities by overstating the maximum development intensity of the property under the existing CR land use designation and do not identify the true impact of the amendments; and the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis demonstrating serious impacts to already failing roadways in the area. In broad terms, a traffic impact analysis identifies the potential traffic impacts of the plan amendments on the transportation system. In their analyses, the parties used very different assumptions as to the maximum development intensity under the existing land use designations on the PPI property. Each analysis compares the traffic generated at the maximum intensity permitted under the existing land uses to the traffic generated by the maximum density/intensity under the plan amendments. The City does not require that a particular methodology or set of assumptions be used in performing an analysis. This is because the methodologies and assumptions used in a traffic impact study may differ, and they are grounded in part on the expert's sound judgment, experience, and discretion. PPI submitted two traffic impact analyses, one in March 2010 and the second in October 2010. Because the City disagreed with PPI's pre-amendment assumptions in the first analysis and assumed a smaller development under the existing land uses, it recommended that an independent traffic engineer be hired to conduct a second analysis and verify the transportation impacts. Due to a lack of resources, the City does not conduct its own traffic analysis; instead, it typically defers to the traffic analysis conducted by the Planning Council or, in some cases, it may hire its own consultant. PPI's second analysis assumed a different mix of pre- amendment CR uses. Also, it used the County Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) latest model (the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure, a/k/a FSUTMS) for traffic distribution, which was not available until after the first analysis had been completed. The second analysis assumed that under existing land uses the 160 acres could be developed with a 15,000 seat racetrack (instead of a 5,625 seat facility); a 125,000 square- foot casino; a 400,000 square-foot amusement center; a 2,333 room hotel; 350,000 square feet of accessory retail; and a new 100,000 square-foot theme park. The analysis sought to represent the existing condition of the property as reflecting a reasonable amount of development which could actually be built on the property. While these assumed uses dramatically expand the existing development on the parcel, each is permitted under the CR category, and the intensities are substantially lower than those allowed under the FLUE limitations. The assumed pre-amendment development was compared with an assumed post-development condition of a 11,591 seat racetrack; a 96,561 square-foot casino; a 309,091 square-foot amusement center; a 1,750 room hotel; 270,455 square feet of accessory retail; and a 77,273 square-foot theme park. Thus, PPI's post-amendment assumptions represented a reduction in the pre-development conditions. The October study concluded that the plan amendments would generate 6,578 net new daily trips and 568 net new total afternoon peak-hour trips (i.e., trips during rush hour). It further concluded that a number of roadway segments would continue to operate at unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) F in the future no matter whether the amendments were approved or not. Notably, only State and County roadways were impacted, and those impacts have been further evaluated by the Planning Council through its own traffic impact study. To mitigate these impacts, the revised study identified various improvements or modifications to the three affected segments, Racetrack Road east of Powerline Road, Racetrack Road east of Southwest 23rd Avenue, and Powerline Road north of McNab Road. These modifications were accepted as adequate mitigation by the City. Although Petitioner questioned whether the proposed mitigation could be enforced without being incorporated into the Plan, the City takes the position that PPI's representations are enforceable. If additional mitigation is required, PPI has agreed that this can be provided during the permit stage. After receiving PPI's second impact analysis, the City noted that it was "more detailed" than the City's abbreviated analysis performed after PPI's first study; it agreed with PPI's use of FARs for each land use category (as recommended by the DCA) to determine the maximum development that could occur; it agreed that the accepted analysis "shows a lower net increase in the demand for public facilities and services than the City's analysis"; and it concluded that "the project can meet all applicable concurrency requirements." By then, the City was also aware that the County had adopted PPI's companion amendments, and the Planning Council, with the MPO's technical assistance, had made its own evaluation of traffic impacts before amending its own Plan. The Planning Council used a different methodology to analyze traffic impacts for CR land use amendments. Unlike PPI, the Planning Council's analysis did not assume the maximum development potential in either the before or after condition. Rather, it converted the acreage of uses in the before and after conditions by assuming a development potential of 10,000 square feet per acre for all non-residential uses, which equals a 0.23 FAR. It also assumed that the only new use would be the addition of 1,300 new residential units. The Planning Council analysis concluded that the amendments would add 305 afternoon peak-hour trips to the regional roadway network, or fewer than that found in PPI's study. The County further concluded that the net increase in trips would not significantly impact the two major roadways in the area, Powerline Road and Atlantic Boulevard, and that they would continue to operate at LOS F even if the amendments were not approved. Under current Planning Council review standards, any impact that is less than three percent of the capacity of a roadway is considered insignificant. There were no impacts that exceeded this threshold. The Planning Council's traffic impact analysis and supporting data are a part of the data and analysis supporting the City's amendments. Petitioner contends that PPI's second traffic study is flawed in several respects. One concern is that the assumptions made by PPI in determining the pre- and post-amendment conditions on its property "significantly overestimate the development in the pre-approval condition," and therefore "grossly underestimate the net increase in traffic." Using different assumptions, Petitioner's expert prepared his own traffic impact analysis which substantially reduces the pre- amendment maximum development on the property. In all, Petitioner's expert prepared 11 different scenarios, some showing no impacts at all, but he eventually decided to use the tenth version, which is probably the most favorable to his position. The permitted uses under the City's CR category are extremely broad and mimic the permitted uses under the "very, very broad" CR category in the County's Plan. Petitioner's expert opined that because the CR land use is so "ill-defined," the "best indicator" of what could be built in the before condition "appeared to be the plat." A plat is a development permit approved by, and recorded with, the County. It normally reflects what a property owner intends to build on his property at the time the plat is approved or in the very near future. The County then uses the plat to determine the amount of impact fees to be paid by the owner. Because it can be amended at any time, usually when a land use amendment is being processed or when more development is contemplated, a plat is not used to determine the maximum potential development capacity on a parcel. Notably, PPI could easily file an application for approval of a new plat on the CR land showing exactly what it assumed in pre-amendment conditions. The existing plats themselves were not made a part of the record. By using recorded plats for his entire analysis, including the CR land, which he admitted was "a little unusual," Petitioner's expert significantly reduced the amount of development in a pre-amendment condition, increased the difference between pre- and post-amendment traffic, and created more post-amendment traffic impacts on the road network. However, this assumption is contrary to the plats' intended use, it does not represent a parcel's true development potential, and at best it produces results that are no more reasonable than the results presented by PPI. The City's Future Conditions Analysis (FCA) makes up a part of the narrative portion of the TE and forecasts future travel demands, land use growth, and traffic operations within the City. The FCA was "developed to be consistent with the MPO travel demand process and incorporates the [MPO's] analysis, findings and recommendations as appropriate for the City." Jt. Ex. 1, TE, p. 60. Petitioner contends that PPI failed to coordinate with the MPO data and analysis (specifically the LOS standards and traffic volumes), incorporated by reference into the TE, when it prepared its pre-amendment conditions. Thus, she argues that the amendments are inconsistent with the data and analysis supporting the TE (and by implication the CIE), and it results in far more traffic in the existing condition than the MPO model assumes. See § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat. The Planning Council traffic impact study is a part of the data and analysis supporting the City amendments. In performing their pre-amendment analyses, both the Planning Council and MPO reviewed the same MPO "analysis, findings, and recommendations" that are incorporated by reference into the City's Plan. Notably, the Planning Council's analysis concluded that the additional traffic generated by the difference between the assumed pre- and post-amendment conditions would not cause significant impacts on the regional transportation network. Testimony presented by the City and PPI established that all relevant portions of the City Plan were reviewed for consistency, and unless a provision was found to have some significance, no reference to that provision was made in the traffic impact analysis, application, or staff report. Even if PPI's traffic impact study does not overtly state that PPI coordinated with the MPO data and analysis before making its pre-amendment assumptions, the Planning Council data and analysis are sufficient to show that the required review and coordination were made. The City reacted appropriately to the data. Petitioner's expert also leveled criticisms regarding the following aspects of PPI's traffic impact study: the level of internal trip capture; by-pass capture; and pedestrian access internal to the site, i.e., walking to a site. Petitioner did not prove that the assumptions supporting those aspects of the study were unreasonable. Petitioner has failed to establish beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis regarding transportation impacts, or that they are inconsistent with other data and analysis supporting the Plan. Affordable Housing Petitioner contends that affordable housing was not addressed by PPI or the City, and PPI failed to provide any data and analysis with regard to various affordable housing requirements in the City's Plan. Given these omissions, she contends that the City did not react appropriately by approving the amendments. The application contains a section relating to affordable housing. While PPI referred to HE policies 05.03.02, 05.08.02, and 05.08.05 and County Land Use Plan policy 1.07.07, no explanation was given as to how the amendments conform to these provisions. Policy 1.07.07 provides a number of ways to meet the affordable housing policies, methods, or programs to achieve and/or maintain a sufficient supply of affordable housing. One option is that when a plan amendment adds more than 100 residential dwelling units, an applicant must agree to either provide 15 percent of the proposed residential units in the project for affordable housing or make a contribution of $750.00 per residential unit, to be paid to the local government when building permits are issued. To comply with this requirement, an applicant must provide the County a declaration of restrictive covenants. As explained at hearing, rather than undertaking a detailed analysis of its HE policies when reviewing land use amendments, the City routinely follows the dictates of policy 1.07.07 and allows an applicant to "buy out" its affordable housing obligation. It then uses the money for one of the City's housing programs, either to subsidize the demand side, or the existing supply of affordable housing. The City already has an ample supply of affordable housing, and it prefers that developers buy out their obligations since the cash can be used more effectively to achieve HE goals, objectives, and policies. This process was followed here, and the City allowed PPI to "buy-out [its obligation] at $750.00 x 100 percent of the units." In doing so, it relied on PPI's declaration of restricted covenants provided to the County, the fact that an in-lieu fee would best meet its affordable housing needs, and its expectation that the money would then be used to support one of its housing programs. This information (data) was available to the City and was in existence at the time the amendments were adopted, it was presented at final hearing, and it is sufficient to support the amendments. See § 163.3177(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are not supported by adequate data and analysis regarding affordable housing or that the City did not react appropriately to that data. Internal Inconsistency Section 163.3177(2) requires that the "elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent." Petitioner contends that the amendments are inconsistent with four FLUE policies; one TE objective and two TE policies; one CIE policy; and three HE policies. Petitioner also argues that the amendments are inconsistent with FLUE section 3.02K, which establishes criteria that must be met in order for a property to qualify for a RAC designation. Among other criteria, FLUE subsection 3.02K.4 requires that a RAC "provide direct access to existing or proposed airports, ports, and rail mass transportation facilities." It is undisputed that the property is bounded on its east side by the CSX railroad tracks. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) uses those tracks to operate a rail mass transportation facility known as Tri-Rail between Palm Beach and Dade Counties. Through its Board of Directors, the RTA has established station stops at various points on its route; there is, however, no station stop adjacent to PPI's property. Because the property sits adjacent to the railroad tracks, it is eligible to be considered for a station stop. At any time, but logically after this challenge is concluded and development begins, PPI and the City can submit a formal joint proposal for a station stop. Also, PPI can offer inducements to the RTA, such as dedicating land for a station stop and assisting in its funding. In addition, the RTA currently provides a shuttle service, which can easily transport PPI patrons to the station stop. These considerations support a finding that the property has "direct access" to the Tri-Rail, as contemplated by the FLUE. Petitioner contends, however, that in order to have direct access, PPI must have a binding commitment from the RTA to build a station stop before the amendment is approved. This narrow interpretation has been rejected as not being as or more reasonable than the City's interpretation of its Plan. Petitioner next contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with HE policies 05.01.05, 05.03.02, and 05.08.01. In general terms, the first policy requires that the City promote affordable housing; the second requires that the City support public and private sector efforts to create and preserve affordable housing for very-low, low, and moderate- income groups in areas designated for residential land use for future and current residents; and the third policy requires the City to "consider the ability of the proposal to provide affordable housing" and allows restrictive covenants to be used as a tool to meet those needs. PPI's execution of a restrictive covenant to buy out its obligation for affordable housing, and the City's use of those funds to provide affordable housing in the manner as it sees fit, are sufficient to achieve consistency with the requirements that the City promote and support affordable housing, and that it allow restrictive covenants to be used as a tool to meet those needs. Petitioner also contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with CIE policy 13.03.02, which requires that the City provide infrastructure necessary to maintain the LOS standards concurrent with the impact of development. The traffic impact analyses performed by PPI and the Planning Council demonstrate that the amendments will not significantly impact the regional transportation network. To the extent any adverse impacts may occur, PPI has agreed to mitigate those impacts. Petitioner contends that the amendments conflict with TE objective 02.02.00 and policies 02.02.05 and 02.07.02. The objective requires that the City coordinate the transportation system with the uses shown on the FLUM to ensure that adequate transportation services are provided. The first policy requires that the City continue supporting a system that allows development to occur in concurrence with the FLUM and consistent with the established LOS standards. The second policy requires that the City review future land use amendments in concert with maintenance of the adopted LOS standards. For the reasons previously found, the plan amendments are not internally inconsistent with the objective or policies. Finally, Petitioner contends that the amendments are internally inconsistent with FLUE policies 01.01.01, 01.01.02, 01.01.03, and 01.01.05. These policies require that the City adopt and maintain services based on LOS standards; review all proposals for development using the adopted LOS standards; phase development concurrent with the availability of infrastructure; and review proposals for new development to identify the cumulative impacts of the development on public services and facilities. For the reasons previously stated, the plan amendments do not conflict with these policies. Petitioner failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendments are internally inconsistent with objectives or policies in the FLUE, HE, CIE, and TE.
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 Amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2011-24 and 2011-25 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2013, 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 19th day of June, 2013.
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.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the pleadings and evidence, including the stipulation by counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent, Marion County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. In this case, the County has adopted an amendment to its comprehensive plan, which is the subject of the dispute. Petitioners, Henry and Betty Prominski, are residents of Marion County and own a 16.5 acre tract of land on the southeast bank of Lake Weir in the southeastern portion of the County. The property is more commonly known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Until April 1994, the land was classified in the urban expansion category, which allows up to four residential units per acre. The County adopted its comprehensive plan in January 1992. After the plan was determined by the DCA to be not in compliance, the County eventually adopted certain remedial amendments on April 7, 1994, one of which changed the land use designation on petitioners' property from urban expansion to urban reserve. Under the new classification, only one residential unit per ten acres is allowed. A cumulative notice of intent to find the plan and remedial amendments in compliance was issued by the DCA on May 30, 1994. During the foregoing process, petitioners timely submitted oral or written objections to the County concerning the plan amendment, and thus they are affected persons within the meaning of the law. On September 14, 1994, the County, through its Staff Vesting Committee, issued Vesting Order No. 94-14, which granted petitioners' application for vesting determination on Orangewood Shores Subdivision. Among other things, the order determined that "the applicant has vested rights to complete the development (known as Orangewood Shores Subdivision) without aggregation of lots providing the applicant continues development activity in good faith." In this regard, petitioners have represented that they intend to "continue development activity in good faith," and they do not intend to vacate their plat. They also recognize that their land is vested from the plan amendment. Despite the lack of any viable issues regarding the development of their property, for the sake of "principle" only, they still wish to contest the de facto reclassification of their property. The foregoing language in the Vesting Order means that petitioners have vested rights to complete the development of their land notwithstanding the change of land use designation from urban expansion to urban reserve. The parties also agree that the effect of the Vesting Order is to vest the property from the comprehensive plan and the restrictions of the urban reserve area. Therefore, within the narrow context of the petition, the thrust of which is that the plan amendment prevents the subdivision's development, the issues raised therein are no longer viable, and petitioners do not have a cognizable interest in the outcome of this proceeding. The controversy is accordingly deemed to be moot.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition in this case on the ground the issues raised therein are moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 21st day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry J. Prominski, Esquire Post Office Box 540 Weirsdale, Florida 32195-0540 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas D. MacNamara, Esquire 601 Southeast 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-2690 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325-A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
