The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether a small scale development amendment to the future land use map of the City of Jacksonville's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-750-E on February 25, 2020 (the Ordinance), is "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and Standing Petitioner Livingston is a Florida resident, who lives at 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Livingston appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Livingston is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioner Gopal is a Florida resident, who lives at 1535 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. Gopal appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance, and submitted comments and objections on the record. Gopal is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Right Size is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that conducts business in the City, and its corporate address is 1507 Alexandria Place North, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. The specific purpose of Right Size, as stated in its Articles of Incorporation filed February 11, 2020, is to support, protect and preserve the historic character and beauty of San Marco, a historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St. Johns River. Officers of Right Size appeared at the adoption hearings for the Ordinance and submitted comments and objections on the record. Right Size is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). Respondent City is a municipal corporation of the state of Florida and is responsible for enacting and amending its comprehensive plan in accordance with Florida law. The City provided timely notice to the parties and the process followed the provisions of the City's Ordinance Code and part II of chapter 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at 2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). The Property is located within the City's jurisdiction. Intervenor Harbert is an Alabama limited liability company, registered to do business in Florida. Harbert is an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment and currently has the Property under a purchase contract pending the effective adoption of the Ordinance. Harbert is an affected person and intervenor under section 163.3187(5)(a). Intervenor South Jax is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and is the owner of record of the Property that is the subject of the Ordinance. South Jax is also an applicant of record for the small scale development amendment. South Jax is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Property and Surrounding Parcels The Property occupies the majority of one block in the San Marco neighborhood of the City. It is bounded on the north by Alford Place, on the east by Mango Place, on the south by Mitchell Avenue, and on the west by Hendricks Avenue (State Road 13). Hendricks Avenue is classified as an arterial road. The Property is currently home to The South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church. The southern portion of the Property, comprising 1.89 acres, is currently designated Residential Professional Institutional (RPI) on the City's Future Land Use Map series (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The northern portion of the Property, comprising 0.98 acres, is currently designated Community/General Commercial (CGC) on the FLUM. The southern portion of the Property is currently zoned Commercial Residential Office (CRO) on the City's zoning map. The northern portion of the Property is zoned Commercial Community/General-1 (CCG-1) on the City's zoning map. The FLUM shows that the Property is currently in the City's Urban Development Area (UDA), and abuts the boundary line of the City's Urban Priority Development Area (UPDA) to the north. The parcel to the north of the Property was the subject of a small scale FLUM amendment in 2014 (Ordinance 2014-130-E). It is known as East San Marco, currently has a Comp Plan FLUM designation of CGC, and is in the UPDA that permits development of up to 60 residential units per acre (ru/acre). Ordinance 2014-130-E for East San Marco included a FLUE text change, i.e., a site specific policy/text change under section 163.3187(1)(b). FLUE Policy 3.1.26 exempts East San Marco from specified UPDA characteristics. The East San Marco property was recently rezoned from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to PUD (Ordinance 2019-799-E) for a mixed-use project known as the East San Marco development. The PUD provides that the maximum height for commercial buildings is 50 feet not including non- habitable space, and 48 feet for multifamily units. Located south of the Property across Mitchell Avenue are parcels developed for single family residential use and currently designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the FLUM. These properties are zoned Residential Low Density-60 (RLD-60) on the City's zoning map. Located east of the Property across Mango Place are parcels developed with a mix of single family residential and office uses and designated as a mix of CGC and RPI on the FLUM. These properties have a mix of zoning including CCG-1, Residential Medium Density-A (RMD-A), and Commercial Office (CO). Located west of the Property at Hendricks Avenue/San Marco Boulevard are parcels developed with multifamily, restaurant and retail commercial uses and designated as a mix of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and CGC on the FLUM. These properties are zoned RMD-D and CCG-1. Intervenors intend to develop the Property with a mixed-use project that will include 133 multifamily residential units and a parking garage. The existing church sanctuary will remain in use at the northeast corner of Hendricks Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. The Ordinance On August 27, 2019, Intervenors applied for a small scale development amendment proposing to change the Property from RPI and CGC to CGC, and to extend the UPDA to include the Property. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a companion rezoning application seeking to change the zoning on the Property from CRO and CCG-1 to PUD. The rezoning application was processed concurrent with the small scale development amendment application. The City's professional planning staff collected and reviewed data and information related to the small scale development amendment application, the Property, and the surrounding areas. The staff also conducted a site visit. The staff further sought review by, and received input from, a number of different City and state agencies and organizations regarding the proposed Ordinance. On October 28, 2019, the City held a citizens' information meeting to discuss the proposed Ordinance. The meeting was attended by approximately nine residents. After reviewing and analyzing the data and information gathered, City professional planning staff determined that the Ordinance was consistent with the Comp Plan and furthers the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comp Plan. The determination was memorialized in a staff report recommending approval of the Ordinance. The staff report was prepared for consideration by the City's Planning Commission prior to its regular meeting on January 23, 2020. At its January 23, 2020, meeting, the Planning Commission held an approximately two and one-half hour hearing on both the Ordinance and the PUD. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote. The staff report and the Planning Commission's recommendation were forwarded to the City Council's Land Use and Zoning (LUZ) Committee. The LUZ Committee held public hearings addressing the Ordinance on December 3, 2019; January 22, 2020; February 4, 2020; and February 19, 2020. Certain concerns were raised by citizens at public hearings both before and during the February 19, 2020, LUZ Committee meeting. In response, the LUZ Committee requested that Mr. Killingsworth draft a site specific policy/text amendment to adopt limitations on the number of residential units, the non-residential floor area permitted on the Property, and the maximum height of structures on the Property, with measurable criteria for determining the height of structures within the proposed use on the Property. During the February 19, 2020, public hearing, the LUZ Committee recommended addition of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a site specific policy/text amendment, which states: Multi-family residential uses shall be limited to 133 units. Non-residential floor area shall be limited to 96,000 square feet (garage, all floors) and 25,000 +/- square feet (existing church, all floors). To ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and to protect neighborhood scale and character through transition zones, bulk, massing, and height restrictions, new building height shall be limited to the calculated weighted average, not to exceed 35 feet, across the length of the development from Alford Place to Mitchell Avenue as follows: A sum of the height to the predominant roof line (ridge or parapet wall) of that portion of a building multiplied by the length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of that portion of a building divided by the overall length of permissible building within the minimum setback. After approximately six hours of testimony and discussion, the LUZ Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance with the site specific policy/text amendment. The City Council held public hearings to address the Ordinance on November 26, 2019; December 10, 2019; January 28, 2020; February 11, 2020; and February 25, 2020. After approximately five and a half hours of testimony and discussion, the City Council adopted the Ordinance on February 25, 2020, by a vote of 17 to one. There was significant citizen input regarding the Ordinance throughout the hearing process. This included emails and letters to City staff, to Planning Commissioners and City Council members, and submittal of verbal and written comments at the hearings. Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections Following their filing of the Petition and other stipulations mentioned above, Petitioners and Right Size jointly presented their case during the final hearing. They argued that the Ordinance was not "in compliance" because: (i) it created internal inconsistencies based upon Comp Plan Policies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it did not react to data in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance; and (iv) subsection (c) of FLUE Policy 4.4.16 related to height failed to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and land use regulations. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the primary underlying premise of Petitioners' and Right Size's challenge was that the Ordinance would allow a density in excess of 40 ru/acre and permit a height in excess of 35 feet. Internal Consistency In the Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, as modified by the Notice of Narrowing Issues for Hearing, Petitioners and Right Size identified specific policies in the Comp Plan, which they assert rendered the Ordinance inconsistent with the Comp Plan. FLUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e]xtensions of the Development Areas will be noted in each land use amendment where an extension is needed or requested concurrent with a Future Land Use Map Amendment. In addition, plan amendments shall meet the requirements as set forth in Policy 1.1.21 and 1.1.22." The definitional section of the FLUE explains that the City is divided into five tiers of Development Areas which include the UPDA and the UDA. These areas are depicted on the City's FLUM series and control "the density, development characteristics, and other variables within plan categories." The first sentence of Policy 1.1.20A affords applicants the ability to request an extension of a development area concurrent with a land use amendment application. Consistent with the policy, the small scale development amendment application included a request for an extension of the UPDA. The request was submitted concurrent with the request to designate the Property as CGC on the FLUM. The adopted Ordinance makes note of the extension of the UPDA as required by Policy 1.1.20A. The second sentence of Policy 1.1.20A requires that when an amendment application includes a request to extend a development area, the City must ensure consistency with Policies 1.1.21 and 1.1.22. The City's analysis is reflected in the staff report, which finds that the amendment application meets Policies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A, and 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any testimony regarding consistency with Policy 1.1.20A. Their expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that he was familiar with Policy 1.1.20A, but did not explain how or why the Ordinance was internally inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. Instead, Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis regarding Policy 1.1.21. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was inconsistent with Policy 1.1.20A. FLUE Policy 1.1.20B states: Expansion of the Development Areas shall result in development that would be compatible with its surroundings. When considering land areas to add to the Development Areas, after demonstrating that a need exists in accordance with Policy 1.1.21, inclusion of the following areas is discouraged; Preservation Project Lands Conservation Lands Agricultural Lands, except when development proposals include Master Planned Communities or developments within the Multi-Use Future Land Use Category, as defined in this element. The following areas are deemed generally appropriate for inclusion in Development Areas subject to conformance with Policy 1.1.21: Land contiguous with the Development Area and which would be a logical extension of an existing urban scale and/or has a functional relationship to development within the Development Area. Locations within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Locations within one-half mile of the existing or planned JTA RTS. Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Public water and sewer service exists within one-half mile of the site. Large Scale Multi-Use developments and Master Planned Communities which are designed to provide for the internal capture of daily trips for work, shopping and recreational activities. Low density residential development at locations up to three miles from the inward boundary of the preservation project lands. Inward is measured from that part of the preservation project lands closest to the existing Suburban Area such that the preservation lands serves to separate suburban from rural. The development shall be a logical extension of residential growth, which furthers the intent of the Preservation Project to provide passive recreation and low intensity land use buffers around protected areas. Such sites should be located within one- half mile of existing water and sewer, or within JEA plans for expansion. After the City makes a determination that there is a need for the expansion of a Development Area pursuant to Policy 1.1.21, the City next looks to see if the property is discouraged under Policy 1.1.20B. The subject Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms. Reed, explained that if the questions of need and discouraged lands are satisfactorily answered, the Policy then describes lands that are generally deemed appropriate for inclusion in a particular Development Area. The first question is whether the Property is contiguous to the UPDA and whether the extension is logical. The staff report notes that the Property is immediately adjacent to the UPDA to the north and that an extension of the boundary is logical because it permits an infill project. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga testified that the proposed extension of the UPDA to include the Property is also logical because there is a functional relationship to the proposed mixed-use development to the north. The next question is whether the Property is within one mile of a planned node with urban development characteristics. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that the Property is within a node which was confirmed by Mr. Atkins. The next criterion under Policy 1.1.20B is whether there are mass transit services available near the Property. The staff report notes that mass transit Routes 8 and 25 are available at the Property and this fact was confirmed by Ms. Reed. The fourth and fifth criteria under Policy 1.1.20B address whether there is sufficient water, sewer and other services available to serve the Property. The City requested information from various agencies and utilized the responses to analyze the impact of the Ordinance. The City sought confirmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority, Transportation Planning, the Duval County School Board, Florida Department of Transportation, and the Concurrency and Mobility Management System Office to determine whether the systems serving the Property, i.e. water, sewer, schools, and roads, had available capacity to serve the site if the UPDA was expanded to include the Property. All the agencies consulted responded that there was sufficient capacity available. In addition, Ms. Reed testified that the Ordinance met Policy 1.1.20B because there is capacity for water and sewer, there is transit available, the area is very walkable, and there is access to a lot of neighborhood services nearby. Ms. Reed and Ms. Haga persuasively testified that the Ordinance met the criteria for land deemed appropriate for inclusion in the UPDA as set forth in Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not offer any evidence regarding the consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B and their expert did not offer any opinions or otherwise discuss consistency of the Ordinance with Policy 1.1.20B. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.20B. FLUE Policy 1.1.21 requires the City to analyze need for all land use map amendments. The Policy states: Future amendments to the Future Land Use Map series (FLUMs) shall include consideration of their potential to further the goal of meeting or exceeding the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area and to allow for the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.5. The projected growth needs and population projections must be based on relevant and appropriate data which is collected pursuant to a professionally acceptable methodology. In considering the growth needs and the allocation of land, the City shall also evaluate land use need based on the characteristics and land development pattern of localized areas. Land use need identifiers include but may not be limited to, proximity to compatible uses, development scale, site limitations, and the likelihood of furthering growth management and mobility goals. Petitioners and Right Size stipulated that they did not object to a density on the Property of 40 ru/acre or 114 total units, but object to the additional 19 units permitted by the Ordinance. Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, testified that need to expand the UPDA to encompass the Property was not demonstrated, and that need for the "additional number of units" was not demonstrated. The City's experts, Ms. Reed and Mr. Killingsworth explained that Table L-20 of the FLUE identifies land use categories and their projected need at the end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 demonstrates that at the end of the planning horizon the RPI land use will be at 119 percent of need, while the CGC land use will be at 84 percent of need. This indicates a need for additional CGC designated lands by 2030, as well as an over-abundance of RPI-designated lands. Since the Ordinance includes a request to change existing RPI-designated lands to CGC, it addresses both the need to increase CGC-designated lands and to decrease RPI-designated lands. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Table L-20 was prepared by the City to comply with section 163.3177(6), which requires all local governments to project need and to assure that there is market availability to respond to such need. The Table, along with the underlying data and analysis used to support it, was reviewed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (n/k/a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and found to comply with state law. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that the City considered testimony by the San Marco Merchants Association, local residents, and the applicant presented during the hearings. The testimony demonstrates that the Ordinance would address current economic and housing needs in the area. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the testimony and Table L-20 demonstrate a need for the Ordinance to accommodate anticipated growth and the projected population of the area. With regard to the land use need identifiers of proximity, compatibility, and scale, Mr. Killingsworth testified that "compatibility" as defined in the FLUE "doesn't mean you have to have the same uses adjacent to each other, it doesn’t mean that you have to have the same density adjacent to each other." Instead it means that "those uses have to operate in conjunction with each other and there has to be [ ] some sense to the scale, the mass, and bulk of the structure." See Tr. at pg. 203, lines 11-17. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the City's analysis was that the Ordinance met the land use need identifiers, the limitations included in the site specific policy/text amendment were an additional way to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with regard to use, scale, and height. The CGC portion of the Property is currently permitted to be developed up to 40 ru/acre. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the Property to a total of 133 residential units (or approximately 46 ru/acre), which the City Council determined is compatible, particularly given the fact that the East San Marco property directly north of the Property can be developed with up to 60 ru/acre. The Comp Plan FLUE does not establish height limitations for any of the land use categories, including CGC and RPI. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the s ite specific policy/text amendment provides for standards related to height that are otherwise not in the FLUE. The East San Marco project to the north has a height limit of 50 feet, and the low density residential neighborhood to the south has a height limit of 35 feet. Mr. Killingsworth opined that the limitation in the site specific policy/text amendment, restricting the height on the Property to an average of 35 feet, allows for an appropriate transition between the uses to the north and the uses to the south, thus ensuring compatibility. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.21. FLUE Policy 1.1.22 states: "Future development orders, development permits and plan amendments shall maintain compact and compatible land use patterns, maintain an increasingly efficient urban service delivery system and discourage urban sprawl as described in the Development Areas and the Plan Category Descriptions of the Operative Provisions." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins testified that he did not review Policy 1.1.22. However, in an abundance of caution, the City and Intervenors presented evidence to establish that the Ordinance was consistent with Policy 1.1.22. Mr. Killingsworth pointed to the definition of compact development from the FLUE, which includes the efficient use of land primarily by increasing intensity, density, and reducing surface parking. He testified that the Ordinance accomplished these criteria. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the height averaging in the site specific policy/text amendment assisted with ensuring compatibility, and that the proposed development's mix of commercial, residential, and institutional uses on a small site met the definition of compact development. Ms. Reed testified that the Property is in an area with full urban services, has access to transit, and fronts on an arterial roadway. Furthermore, it promotes a compact and compatible land use pattern through redevelopment and infill. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22. Data and Analysis The parties agreed in the Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation that the facts remaining for adjudication with regard to "data and analysis" were exclusively related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16, the site specific policy/text amendment that addressed only building height. However, Petitioners' and Right Size's expert Mr. Atkins did not discuss data and analysis specifically related to subsection (c) of Policy 4.4.16. Mr. Atkins testified about data and analysis related to the Ordinance generally. The City addressed the data and analysis supporting the Ordinance, and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City considered data from professionally accepted sources and applied an analysis based on established procedures set forth in the Comp Plan. The process of data collection began with the submittal of the application, which included a survey, a legal description and an owner's affidavit. Mr. Killingsworth testified that chapter 640 of the City's Ordinance Code sets out the process by which FLUM amendment applications are processed and reviewed by the planning staff. Section 650.404(b) requires that the City hold a Citizens Information Meeting that allows receipt of additional data from the affected community. Ms. Reed explained that all amendments are evaluated based upon standards and methodologies established in the FLUE for the assessment of data and analysis, which includes public facilities, school impacts, population, and development impacts. The City planning staff collected background data for the initial analysis of the Ordinance. The background section of the staff report goes through an analysis of the characteristics of the site, including the location, acreage, and surrounding uses; describes the site in general; identifies the Council district; identifies the Planning District; and notes if there are any applicable vision plans. The City planning staff also did research on applications and amendments that have occurred in proximity to the Property. The background information is part of the data and analysis that the City used to determine whether the Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the City's policies. In addition, FLUE Policy 1.2.16 requires the City to assume maximum development potential when analyzing the impacts of amendments to the FLUM unless there is a site-specific policy limiting density or intensity. In this instance, the staff report was completed prior to the addition of the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance, which specifically limits the density and intensity permitted on the Property. The City's staff followed the guidelines of Policy 1.2.16 and utilized the maximum development potential for the Property in reviewing the application, i.e., 2.87 acres of CGC designated property in the UPDA. Ms. Reed testified that the site specific policy/text amendment "added parameters and limitations that were not there before, so it really lessened the impact based on what we analyzed versus what was ultimately approved." See Tr. at pg. 291, lines 8-17. Under Policy 1.2.16, the City developed a table entitled "Development Standards for Impact Assessment," which is used to collect and analyze specific impact data. The data gathered by the City for the table included the analyses provided by various advising agencies and entities. The data and analyses provided by the other agencies and entities are summarized in the table in the staff report. The table also includes a section where the City staff identifies and reviews other appropriate plans and studies. These plans and studies have not been adopted into the City's Comp Plan, but they are utilized as data and analysis when the planning staff reviews a FLUM amendment. The staff report identifies three plans applicable to the site, the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan, the North San Marco Action Plan, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Ms. Reed explained that the Ordinance was consistent with the Southeast Jacksonville Vision Plan which provides for new development along Hendricks Avenue compatible with existing neighborhoods. The staff report notes that design details can be addressed in the companion PUD rezoning application. Likewise, the staff report concludes that the Ordinance is generally consistent with the features of the North San Marco Action Plan and that design details would be handled through the PUD review and implementation. Finally, Ms. Reed explained that the City found that the Ordinance would achieve the Strategic Regional Policy Plan's goals of improving quality-of-life with appropriate infill and redevelopment and by providing diverse housing options. Additional evidence and testimony offered by the applicant and the citizens during the Planning Commission, LUZ Committee, and City Council hearings was collected and analyzed by the City prior to final action on the amendment application. The additional data and information gathered during the many different hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of the LUZ Committee to add the site specific policy/text amendment to the Ordinance. The site specific policy/text amendment limits the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that the site specific policy/text amendment was a direct result of the City's analysis of input from the public related to intensity, density, and compatibility. Ms. Reed testified that "all of these things were considered together as a whole in order to come up with a recommendation, both in the staff report and final approval by Council as amended." Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's response to that data and analysis was not appropriate. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) requires that a Comp Plan "establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations." Petitioners' and Right Size's expert, Mr. Atkins, opined that subsection (c) of the site specific policy/text amendment is "vague in its application and certainty in its outcome," in that "[t]here is no defined limit of what the height might be in violation of the requirements of section 163.3177(1)." Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE does not otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killingsworth. Mr. Killingsworth explained that the objective of the site specific policy/text amendment, as a whole, is to establish a maximum development potential or otherwise restrict development on the Property consistent with Objective 4.4 of the FLUE. The density limitations, combined with the height limitation, restrict the development potential on the Property. Mr. Killingsworth testified that subsection (c) represents a policy statement by the City Council that height should be no more than an average of 35 feet, and it provides guidance as to how the height is to be calculated, which will ultimately be implemented in the LDRs and the PUD. Subsection (c) provides more specificity regarding height than would otherwise be achieved through a Comp Plan land use category without a site specific policy/text amendment. Mr. Killingsworth also testified that although the height limitation in subsection (c) may not dictate that the higher heights should be on the northern portion of the Property and transition to the lower heights on the southern portion of the Property, the PUD and the development of the Property will need to comply with other parts of the Comp Plan that require a transition between uses. Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance does not guide future development decisions in a consistent manner, and does not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. Ultimate Findings Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance No. 2019-750-E "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 (eServed) Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-9066 (eServed) Emily Gardinier Pierce, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 100 Whetstone Place, Suite 200 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 (eServed) T.R. Hainline Jr., Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Jason R. Teal, Esquire Office of General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Paul M. Harden, Esquire The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 901 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Craig D. Feiser, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Trisha Bowles, Esquire City of Jacksonville Office of the General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5721 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact In June 1987, petitioner, Karl T. Christiansen, was an examinee on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Uniform National Examination for landscape architects. He had previously passed Sections 1 and 2 in the June, 1986 examination. The test is administered by the Office of Examination Services of the Department of Professional Regulation, and licensure is granted by respondent, Board of Landscape Architects. The examination in question is a uniform multi-state examination adopted for use in Florida. The questions are prepared by the Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The same organization also prepares a comprehensive Evaluation Guide for use by graders in scoring the test. All Florida graders must be professional landscape architects with at least five years' experience. In addition, they are given training by the Office of Examination Services before grading the examination. After the examination was completed by the candidates, all examinations, including that of Christiansen, were blind-graded by the graders using the Evaluation Guide as a tool. By notice dated October 23, 1987, petitioner was advised by the Office of Examination Services that he had received the following scores on Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the examination: Design Application 84.4 PASS Design Implementation 70.8 FAIL Florida Section 76.2 PASS On December 14, 1987, petitioner was given an opportunity to meet with Board representatives in Tallahassee and present objections concerning his score on Section 4 of the examination. Because of Christiansen's concerns, the Board regraded his examination a second time and raised his overall score from 70.8 to 72.4. This was still short of the 74.5 needed for passing. After being given the results of the second grading, petitioner requested a formal hearing. At hearing petitioner lodged objections to scores received on twenty- one questions in Subparts A, B and C of Section 4 of the examination. These objections are contained in joint composite exhibit 1 received in evidence. It was Christiansen's position that the graders had used subjective standards in evaluating his solutions, and that they had failed to take a sufficient amount of time to evaluate his answers. In addition, Christiansen contended that the examiners had failed to note a number of correct answers for which he was not given credit. Other than his own testimony, petitioner did not present any other evidence to support his contentions. Indeed, his own witness, a Fort Lauderdale landscape architect with thirty years experience, concluded that the Board was correct in failing Christiansen and that Christiansen had not demonstrated adequate competence on the examination to justify a passing grade. In support of its position, respondent presented an expert, Michael Oliver, a longtime registered landscape architect with three years experience in grading this type of examination. In preparation for the hearing, Oliver reviewed the examination, instruction booklet and grader's Evaluation Guide. He then regraded petitioner's examination and assigned it a score of 73.4, which was a failing grade. In doing so, Oliver assigned higher scores than did the previous two graders to certain questions but lower scores to others, for an overall average of 73.4. Through a detailed analysis, Oliver pointed out the infirmities in each of Christiansen's objections and why an overall failing grade was appropriate. It was demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that, where petitioner had not received the desired grade, he had misinterpreted the instructions, prepared unsafe designs, failed to satisfy all criteria, or gave incorrect answers. Therefore, petitioner's grade should not be changed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board denying petitioner's request to receive a passing grade on section 4 of the June, 1987 landscape architecture examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn all reside in the City of Cocoa (Cocoa or City). Petitioners Hendry both reside in Cocoa. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Act). Cocoa is located entirely within Brevard County, which is within the jurisdiction of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Regional Planning Council). The resident population of Cocoa is presently about 18,000 persons. The City encompasses over 4500 acres and abuts the Indian River, which is also identified as the Indian River Lagoon. Preparation of Proposed Plan By Ordinance 6-86, which was adopted on March 25, 1986, the Cocoa City Council designated the Cocoa Planning and Zoning Board as the local planning agency under the Act. The Planning and Zoning Board thereby became responsible for preparing the Cocoa comprehensive plan required by the Act (the Plan), conducting public hearings on the Plan, and recommending the Plan to City Council for adoption. In February, 1987, Cocoa entered into a contract with the Regional Planning Council for assistance in preparing the Plan. Pursuant to the contract, the Regional Planning Council drafted all elements of the Plan except the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which CH2M Hill prepared; the Wastewater Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which Camp, Dresser and McKee prepared; and the Solid Waste Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and related portions of the Capital Improvements Element, which the City prepared. On November 7, 1987, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement in the Florida Today newspaper announced that Cocoa had begun to prepare an update of its comprehensive plan in conformance with the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act. The advertisement stated that the preparation of the update "will have the effect of regulating the use of lands within the municipal limits of the City of Cocoa." The advertisement advised that copies of documents prepared during the updating process would be on file in the City's Community Improvement Department. The advertisement added that the public would be informed of public meetings through the news media and bulletins posted at City Hall. The Florida Today newspaper is a standard-sized newspaper of general paid circulation in Brevard County and of general interest and readership in Cocoa. The newspaper is published at least five times a week. All advertisements described herein appeared in the Florida Today newspaper and adequately identified the location of the advertised meeting or documents. On November 17, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on November 18, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On November 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Traffic Circulation and Recreation and Open Space Elements. On November 28, 1987, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 2, 1987, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing preliminary drafts of the Housing and Conservation Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On December 2, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Housing and Conservation Elements. There is some evidence to suggest that discussion of the Conservation Element was carried over to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on December 9, 1987. On January 9, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 2 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on January 13, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. The advertisement stated that copies of the relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. On January 13, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element and the Coastal Management Element. On February 25, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 5 3/4" classified-type advertisement announced meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board on March 9, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. and the City Council on March 22, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of hearing all interested persons on the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place, although the Planning and Zoning Board met on March 23, 1988, and discussed the Future Land Use, Intergovernmental, and "Capital Facilities" Elements, as well as the "Sanitary Sewer" Subelement of the Public Facilities Element. On March 28, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement described the planning process in the same manner as did the November 7 display advertisement. The March 28 advertisement announced that the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council would hold joint workshops on March 29, 30, and 31, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. to discuss "public facilities, coastal management, housing, transportation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, capital improvement and future land use elements." The advertisement stated that copies of relevant documents could be obtained from the Community Improvement Department. The record is unclear as to whether these meetings took place as scheduled, although, at minimum, it appears that the March 29 meeting took place. On April 23, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board commenced a special meeting with the following persons present: six members and the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board, four members of the City Council and the Mayor, the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, the Community Improvement Administrator, a City planner, and four representatives of the Regional Planning Council. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements of the Plan. The Future Land Use Element was unavailable, so the City Council postponed the discussion of this element until a later date. At the April 13 meeting, Rochelle Lawandales, the Community Improvement Administrator, stated that no formal action would be taken at the workshop, but that the Plan would go before the City Council on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. during a public hearing. At the conclusion of the April 26 hearing, the City Council would be expected to authorize staff to submit the Plan to DCA. The April 13 meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. On April 19, 1988, at 5:15 p.m., the Planning and Zoning Board began a special meeting with largely the same persons who attended the April 13 meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map. The discussion culminated in the consensus that the Planning and Zoning Board would recommend that the City Council transmit the Plan to DCA. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Transmittal of Proposed Plan to DCA On April 19, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement with a large-type headline appeared on page 5 of Section B of the newspaper. The advertisement, which was in the form prescribed by Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes, announced that the City Council proposed to change the use of land within the City and that on April 26, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the Plan proposed to be sent to DCA (Proposed Plan). The advertisement contained a large map of Cocoa with major street names indicated, listed the nine major elements of the Proposed Plan, and advised that interested persons could submit written comments or attend the public hearing to be heard regarding the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. The advertisement stated that the City Council would not give final approval to changes proposed at the hearing, which was described as part of the process designed to lead to the eventual adoption of the Plan. On April 26, 1988, the City Council conducted a public hearing. Following receipt of public comment, which was relatively limited, Mayor Dollye Robinson closed the public hearing, and the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 88-17, which authorizes the transmittal of the Proposed Plan to DCA. On May 1, 1988, DCA received the City of Cocoa-- Comprehensive Plan, which consists of two volumes. Volume I is Background Analysis. Volume II is Goals, Objectives, and Policies. DCA also received a document containing population estimates for Cocoa and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), dated April, 1988, assessing the performance of the Cocoa comprehensive plan adopted under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975. (The Proposed Plan and Plan are unrelated to the comprehensive plan assessed in the EAR.) On May 8, 1988, a 4 1/4" by 3" display advertisement announced that the Proposed Plan and supporting documentation were available for review at the public library and city hall. Proposed Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Policies General The Act requires that each comprehensive plan contain eight or nine major elements: Capital Improvements; Future Land Use; Traffic Circulation; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (identified as the Public Facilities Element in the Proposed Plan and Plan); Conservation; Recreation and Open Space; Housing; Intergovernmental Coordination; and, if applicable, Coastal Management. Each element comprises goals, objectives, and policies, which respectively represent long-term ends, criteria by which progress toward the goals can be measured, and programs and activities by which the goals are to be achieved. The goals, objectives, and policies in the Proposed Plan are largely carried over to the Plan. Future Land Use Element and Map The Proposed Plan contains two objectives under the Future Land Use Element. They are: Objective 1.1: Future growth and development will be managed through the preparation, adop- tion, implementation and enforcement of land development regulations. Objective 1.2: Future development and redevel- opment activities shall be directed in appro- priate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, consistent with sound planning principles, minimal natural constraints, and the goals, objectives, and policies provided in the . . . Plan. Policy 1.1 of the Future Land Use Element provides in part: The City will adopt land development regula- tions that shall contain specific and detailed provisions required to implement the . . . Plan and which: * * * Regulate the use of land and water consis- tent with this element and ensure the compati- bility of adjacent land uses and provide for open space; Protect the wetland areas identified in the conservation element and future land use element; Regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding and provide for drainage and stormwater management; * * * H) Provide that development orders and permits shall not be issued which would result in a reduction of the adopted level of service standards. The Future Land Use Map, which is part of the Proposed Plan, depicts eight land use categories: low-, medium-, and high-density residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, open space and recreational, and activity center. Policy 1.2 specifies a maximum density of seven units per acre for low- density residential and 15 units per acre for medium-density residential. The Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan depicts four large parcels as open space. These are north of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; south of Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1; north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road; and east of the north end of Range Road and west of the largest unincorporated enclave surrounded by the City. According to the two Existing Land Use Maps contained in the Background Analysis, which is described in Paragraphs 47-67 below, the four large parcels designated as open space on the Future Land Use Map are wetlands, except for a small strip that is probably a park and is described further in Paragraph 127 below. The four open spaces constitute nearly all of the existing wetlands in the City. Neither the Future Land Use Map in the Proposed Plan nor either of the Existing Land Use Maps in the Background Analysis depicts any historical resources. Housing Element The Housing Element of the Proposed Plan contains the following provisions with respect to historic properties: Objective 3.1.4: Housing designated histori- cally significant will continue to be preserved and protected, and the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will be maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.4: Assist owners of designated historically significant housing to apply for and utilize state and federal assistance programs. Policy 3.1.4.7: The City will aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. Public Facilities Element The Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan provides the following level of service standards for drainage: design storm event--five year frequency/24-hour duration event; on-site stormwater management--retention of first one inch of rainfall runoff or, with respect to drainage areas under 100 acres with under 80% impervious surface, retention of first one-half inch of runoff; stormwater quantity--no greater than pre-development stormwater runoff flow rates, quantities, peaks, and velocities; and stormwater quality--no degradation of existing water quality condition in receiving water bodies. The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Proposed Plan contains seven objectives. Three of the objectives focus upon floodplains and wetlands: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establish- ment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure that proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs. Several policies under Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 describe the data still needed by the City to determine its drainage needs and the means by which Cocoa intends to attain the overall goals of the subelement: Policy 4.3.2.5: Efforts will be undertaken to eliminate existing points of direct stormwater discharge into receiving surface waterbodies, where possible, based on the following procedure: engineering studies will be initiated for the purpose of identifying the comparative nonpoint pollution impacts of each direct discharge point, and determining relative priorities for corrective actions (or "retrofit" projects) to be undertaken, based on the extent of-- --adverse impacts on entire receiving waterbody --system retrofitting required to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts --projected benefits to be accomplished --overall implementation feasibility facility design studies will be initiated for those direct discharge points determined to have the highest priority. The estimated costs of individual corrective action projects will be included as components of the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.5.2: Drainage needs assessment investigations will be initiated for areas within the City which have been identified as experiencing flooding problems, for the purpose of identifying actions necessary to alleviate the problems. Policy 4.3.5.3: Based on the findings of the drainage needs assessment investigations, engineering studies will be initiated to develop solutions to the identified flooding problems, with the cost estimates being included in the Capital Improvements Program. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, with appropriate measures being taken to discourage development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.2: The City will review its land development and zoning ordinances, regulations and standards with the intent being to remove any requirements which might encourage develop- ment in wetland areas. Policies 4.3.7.1 and 4.3.7.2 promise an inventory of Cocoa's surface water management system followed by an engineering study of the system components to identify the extent of excess or deficient surface water flow or storage capacity. The final policy in this subelement states: Policy 4.3.7.9: Flood control for new develop- ment will be accomplished through the limita- tion of fill in the 100-year floodplain. In cases where there are no alternatives to fill in the floodplain, compensatory storage for such fill will be provided through excavation in adjacent upland areas (above the 100-year floodplain) of a volume equivalent to the loss of storage within the 100-year floodplain resulting from the placement of fill, where such compensatory storage can be accomplished in an environmentally sound and economically feasible manner. Coastal Management Element The Coastal Management Element of the Proposed Plan does not refer to coastal wetlands or historic resources. It does not contain any analysis of the effects on estuarine water quality of existing drainage systems and nonpoint source pollution such as that carried by stormwater runoff. Conservation Element The Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan contains nine subelements. Several of these subelements contain objectives or policies addressing wetlands, floodplains, and stormwater drainage. The Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Policy 6.4.2: Areas of natural habitat within the 100 year floodplain shall be given priority consideration in the identification of lands which address passive recreational demand and open space objectives. Policy 6.4.3: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.4.7: The City shall not approve any development which would significantly and adversely alter the ecological functions of freshwater wetlands or deepwater habitat. Ecological functions include: (a) provision of wildlife and fisheries habitat; (b) main- tenance of in-stream flows and lake levels during periods of high and/or low rainfall; (c) erosion control; and (d) water quality enhancement. The Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element provides: Objective 6.5: The City shall protect the ecological well being of the Indian River Lagoon from adverse activities or impacts, so as to maintain or enhance the abundance and diversity of estuarine habitat and species. Policy 6.5.2: The city shall establish site design standards and regulations for the control of stormwater runoff to insure the adequate treatment of stormwater from all new development or redevelopment prior to its discharge to surface waters. Policy 6.5.3: The City shall take steps to identify means for reducing the volume of untreated stormwater discharged to surface waters, and shall develop a program to take corrective action, to the greatest extent feasible. The Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Conservation Element contains similar provisions with respect to the control of stormwater runoff and development of corrective programs. The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element states: Objective 6.8: The City shall protect the flood storage and conveyance functions of the 100 year floodplain. Policy 6.8.1: In order to reduce the adverse consequences of floodplain development and simultaneously encourage the conservation of natural habitat, the City's Flood Damage Prevention ordinance shall be amended to discourage construction in the floodplain by requiring the provision of compensatory storage for fill placed within the floodplain. Policy 6.8.2: Developers shall be encouraged to incorporate those portions of sites which are within the 100 year floodplain as open space preservation. Policy 6.8.3: The City shall promote wetlands preservation and non-structural floodplain management by encouraging the use of isolated wetlands as detention areas, where such use is consistent with good engineering practice and does not significantly degrade the ecological value of wetlands. Pre-treatment of stormwater runoff by diversion of the "first flush" shall be required prior to discharge to wetland detention areas. Policy 6.8.4: The City shall encourage public and private agencies . . . in acquiring floodplains. Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Goal 7.2: Ensure the conservation of open space areas in the City to provide aesthe- tically pleasing buffer areas, to serve as wildlife habitats, to act as groundwater recharge areas, to give definition to the urban area, and to enhance and promote natural resources. Policy 7.2.1.2: Designate conservation areas within the City as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill objectives discussed in this element and the Conservation Element. Capital Improvements Element The Capital Improvements Element of the Proposed Plan provides: Objective 9.1: The Capital Improvements Element will establish adopted levels of service for public facilities and capital improvement projects which the City will undertake. The Five-Year Schedule of Improvements will identify projects which a) meet existing deficiencies; b) provide repair or replacement of existing facilities; [and] c) accommodate desired future growth. Objective 9.2: All land use decisions which impact the Capital Improvements Element or Future Land Use Element will be coordinated by the City Manager, or his designee, in conjunction with the City's Planning and Zoning Board, and approved by City Council. Objective 9.3: Annual review of the Capital Improvements Element will be included in the City's budget process. As part of this review the Finance Department shall be responsible for: (1) addressing the fiscal impact of capital improvement projects on revenue and expenditures, and (2) updating the fiscal assessment section of the Capital Improvements Element. Objective 9.4: Public facility improvements that are needed to support new growth will maintain adopted levels of service. Improve- ments to public facilities which result from the impact of new development will require equitable cost participation by the developer. Policy 9.4.1: The City Manager shall initiate impact analysis of proposed development projects to determine the impact of the development on the City's fiscal operations and LOS [i.e., levels of service] for public facilities. Objective 9.5: The City will not approve development which requires public facility improvements that exceed the City's ability to provide these in accordance with the adopted LOS standards. Policy 9.5.1: Before a development is approved, the City Manager or his designee will determine that any needed public facility improvements do not exceed the City's funding capacity. Policy 9.5.2: Development approved prior to the adoption of this Plan which requires improvements to public facilities will be included in the Five-Year Schedule of Improvements with a funding priority designation. The Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in the Proposed Plan includes only four projects: ongoing resurfacing and repair of roads, possible four-laning one specific road, expanding the wastewater treatment plant, and extensive, detailed work to the potable water system. I. Monitoring and Evaluation Provisions regarding Monitoring and Evaluation follow the goals, objectives, and policies in Volume II of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan. Concerning the public participation requirement, this section states in relevant part: In cases in which the proposed ordinance deals with more than five percent (5%) of the total land area of the municipality the council shall provide for public notice and hearings as follows: The council shall hold two (2) advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance. Both hearings shall be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday and the first shall be held approxi- mately seven (7) days after the day that the first advertisement is published. The second hearing shall be held approximately two (2) weeks after the first hearing and shall be advertised approximately five (5) days prior to the public hearing. The day, time and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing. [This section is virtually identical to the language contained in Section 163.3184(15)(c), Florida Statutes.] [This section allows notice by mailing instead of advertising.] (Laws of Fla., Ch. 59-1186, Art. V, Section 9; Ord. No. 4-80, Section, [sic] 4-8-80) Proposed Plan: Background Analysis Future Land Use Element and Map The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis explains the purpose of the Future Land Use Map: The future location and distribution of land use are shown on the Future Land Use map. This map identifies appropriate types of land uses if all vacant land were to be utilized within the ten year planning horizon. Once the Future Land Use map is adopted, all development regulations in effect subsequent to its adoption must be consistent with it. Land development regulations in particular, shall rely on the map for their rational basis. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, p. 1-3.) The Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis states that the existing land use in Cocoa in 1987 includes about 389 acres of wetlands, or 8.6%, out of a total of 4520 acres. (Future Land Use Element, Background Analysis, Table 1-2.) Public Facilities Element The Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis describes Cocoa's drainage as flowing equally into two waterbodies: the Indian River Lagoon on the east and the St. Johns River on the west. Of the five main drainage areas within Cocoa, three are part of the Indian River Lagoon Watershed and two are part of the St. Johns River Watershed. The map of Drainage Areas/Facilities, which is part of the Drainage Subelement, depicts each of the five drainage areas. Drainage Area III is bounded on the east by the high relict dune line just east of U.S. Route 1, on the west by Clearlake Road, on the south by Dixon Boulevard, and on the north by a low ridgeline in the vicinity of Industrial Park Road. Drainage Area III encompasses the wetlands bisected by Michigan Avenue, just west of U.S. Route 1. These wetlands, which are about 3000 feet from the Indian River, are part of a series of linear marshes running north-south and representing the "major repository" of stormwater drainage from contributing portions of Drainage Area The Background Analysis reports that these marshes function effectively as a surface water management area. Although on the landward side of the dune line, Drainage Area III is within the Indian River Lagoon Watershed because excess water in the area reverse flows into the lagoon during periods of very wet weather. According to the map of Vegetative Cover and Wildlife in the Background Analysis, seagrasses cover either the southeastern portion of the open space/wetlands south of Michigan Avenue or the adjacent land designated as medium-density residential. Noting historical encroachment on these wetlands, the Background Analysis concludes that continued encroachment will reduce the size of the storage capacity and increase the likelihood of outflow into the Indian River Lagoon. Drainage Area IV includes the wetlands found between the north end of Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. These wetlands, which drain into the St. Johns River, are the site of Little Mud Lake. According to the Water Quality Protection Subelement of the Background Analysis, Little Mud Lake is largely a willow marsh with little or no open water. What water remains is probably of poor quality. However, the Background Analysis observes that the lack of adequate water quality data for all waterbodies in the City is itself a problem. Drainage Area V includes the largest contiguous wetlands within the City, which is the area north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road. This area, which drains into the St. Johns River, surrounds Big Mud Lake, whose water quality is probably in poor condition, according to the Background Analysis. The Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis acknowledges that the surface drainage systems for Cocoa have not been comprehensively inventoried since June, 1968. However, Drainage Area III is known to contribute about 29% of the stormwater runoff-generated pollutant loadings from the City to the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City. Although the wetlands serve as natural treatment and storage units, "[t]he continued loss of wetland areas will result in a corresponding decline in the overall effectiveness of the remaining wetlands to remove pollutants." (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-30.) By way of comparison, Drainage III loads the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the City with more than double the poundage of suspended solids than does the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant in Cocoa. As to Drainage Area V, the Drainage Subelement warns that the salutary effect of Big Mud Lake, which serves as a natural treatment unit for stormwater pollutants, will be lost once the lake reaches its assimilative capacity to absorb or fix incoming loads of pollutants. According to the Water Quality Subelement of the Background Analysis, Big Mud Lake is probably eutrophic and "reduction of stormwater pollution . . . is probably the only means to restore [it]." (Water Quality Protection Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-62.) The Drainage Subelement concludes, however, that the impact of stormwater runoff-generated loadings is not expected to increase significantly and may even be reduced due to stormwater treatment requirements and stormwater retrofitting projects. However, existing stormwater treatment facilities serve only about 5.5% of the land area within the City, which depends heavily upon existing natural treatment systems for the management and control of stormwater problems. The Drainage Subelement offers 13 recommendations. Four of the first five recommendations suggest an inventory of existing stormwater drainage systems, evaluation of the effectiveness of current strategies, and projection of the impact of future growth on flow volumes. The fourth recommendation reads: Efforts should be undertaken to ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands in Drainage Areas #3, 4 and 5, with a priority being placed on the wetlands in Drainage Area #3. Applicable actions include modifications to existing zoning classifica- tions and provisions, land development regu- lations, stormwater, runoff treatment requirements, and other regulatory measures, as well as the possible acquisition of conservation or drainage easements in the wetland areas. (Drainage Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 4-37 and 4-38.) The Floodplain Management Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Background Analysis defines floodplains as those areas that become inundated by water on a recurring basis. The 100 year floodplain is an area that stands a 1% chance in any year that it will be subject to such inundation. The subelement notes that the addition of fill in the floodplains may raise flood elevations to an extent that flooding results to structures previously thought to be outside the floodplain. According to the Floodplain Management Subelement, 745 acres or 16% of the area of the City is located within the 100 year floodplain. Only 66 acres or about 9% of these floodplains are currently developed. Wetlands occupy 120 acres or 16.1% of the 100 year floodplain in the City. In assessing the future needs of Cocoa with respect to floodplains, the Floodplain Management Subelement expressly assumes that the "areas currently supporting open water or wetlands are clearly safe from development." (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-72.) This subelement concerns itself with the "several adverse consequences" of the development of the remaining 510 acres of undeveloped wetland upland within the 100 year floodplain. The Background Analysis warns that development within the 100 year floodplain "would be dependent upon the proper functioning of all drainage systems needed to overcome soils limitations" or else less severe storm events might result in recurrent flooding. Id. The Floodplains Subelement concludes that adverse consequences, such as flooding existing homes, can best be avoided by "limiting any development which requires the placement of fill" and encouraging the use of nonwetland upland floodplains as open space. Again concerning itself exclusively with nonwetland uplands within the 100 year floodplain, the subelement recommends "minimal development, such as very low density single family homes," to avoid future infrastructure problems due to flooding existing structures. (Floodplain Management Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-73.) Recreation and Open Space Element The Recreation and Open Space Element of the Background Analysis acknowledges that lands designated as open space may include wetlands. Conservation Element The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement of the Conservation Element describes the Indian River Lagoon as a tidal estuary, whose brackish waters are an important resource for commercial and recreational fishing. The subelement notes that considerable amounts of seagrass cover have been lost, presumably due to human-induced environmental changes. One of the causes of the loss of seagrasses, which are a crucial component in the ecological food web of the estuary, is the discharge of inadequately treated stormwater. The Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement concludes that the pollutant discharges, which include stormwater, must be "reversed" if the estuarine resources are to be "maintained." The subelement contains a recommendation that existing drainage systems be improved and projects feasible only through dredging and filling of wetlands be prohibited, except for projects of overriding public interest. (Fisheries and Estuarine Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 6-50.) Coastal Management Element The Coastal Resources Subelement of the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis defines the coastal area for the subelement as the entire City. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-5.) The subelement reports that shellfish were once harvested commercially through the entire Indian River Lagoon. However, due to the effects of urban and agricultural development, shellfish harvesting in the lagoonal waters adjacent to Cocoa is either restricted or prohibited. The subelement notes that the manatee, which is the only endangered mammal regularly inhabiting the Indian River, suffers from the loss of seagrasses, upon which the manatee grazes. The Coastal Resources Subelement states that the Indian River Lagoon receives little tidal flushing due to its distance from Sebastian Inlet. Thus, whatever pollutants are discharged into the lagoon remain indefinitely. In general, the water quality of the lagoon, according to one source cited in the Background Analysis, ranges from fair to poor. According to another source cited in the Background Analysis, the water quality is poor. The subelement reports that, by November, 1988, Cocoa was projected to complete the expansion of the Jerry Sellers wastewater treatment plant, whose effluent flows into the lagoon. The expansion was to increase the capacity of the plant by 80% of its present capacity. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-10.) The Coastal Resources Subelement discloses that the Indian River Lagoons Field Committee was commissioned in 1985 to assist in the preparation of an integrated management plan for the lagoon, which extends over 156 miles through five counties and 40 municipalities. One of the committee's general recommendations is that local governments should include in their comprehensive plans the committee's recommendations for floodplain and critical area protection. (Coastal Resources Subelement, Background Analysis, p. 5-34.) Objections, Recommendations, and Comments of DCA Findings of Other Agencies Upon receipt of the Proposed Plan and supporting documents, DCA distributed them to various state, regional, and local agencies for comment, as part of the intergovernmental review process mandated by Section 163.3184(4) and (5), Florida Statutes. The Act gives these agencies 45 days within which to send their comments to DCA, which has an additional 45 days within which to transmit its objections, recommendations, and comments (ORC) to the local government submitting the plan. In the present case, DCA received responses from the Divisions of State Lands and Resource Management of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Comprehensive Planning Division of Brevard County; Regional Planning Council; Bureau of Historic Preservation of the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State (the Department of State); Planning Department of the St. Johns River Water Management District (the Water Management District); Bureaus of Air Quality, Wastewater Management and Grants, Groundwater Protection, and Waste Planning and Regulation and Sections of Coastal Management and Drinking Water of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; and District 5-- Division of Planning and Programming of the Department of Transportation. DNR commented upon Policy 1.1.C, which as noted above in Paragraph 28 above provides that the City will adopt land development regulations to protect the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. DNR stated that the policy "needs to project a long-term land use program to insure the protection of natural resources." DNR objected that the Coastal Management Element "contains no goal or objective addressing the protection, conservation, or enhancement of remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, . . . wildlife habitat, or the maintenance or improvement of estuarine environmental quality." The Regional Planning Council reported that Objective 6.4 in the Conservation Element lacks policies addressing the need to protect upland habitat adjacent to regionally significant wetlands, as required by Policy 43.8 in the plan of the Regional Planning Council. In a letter signed by Secretary of State Jim Smith, the Department of State determined that the Proposed Plan was inconsistent with the historic preservation aspects of the state comprehensive plan and failed to meet the requirements of the Act "regarding the identification of known historical resources . . . and . . . establishment of policies, goals, and objectives for historic preservation." The Department of State stated that Objective 3.1.4 of the Housing Element, which is quoted in Paragraph 33 above, lacks a specific plan of action for achieving its stated goal of preserving housing designated as historically significant. The Department of State faulted the Coastal Management Element for its failure to mention historical structures or archaeological sites and the Future Land Use Element and Map for their omission of known historical resources. The Water Management District stated that the Proposed Plan is "deficient with respect to water-related goals, objectives and policies required by Chapter 9J-5." With respect to the Future Land Use Element, the Water Management District noted the absence of objectives to ensure the protection of natural resources and policies to provide for drainage and stormwater management. The Water Management District found several items missing from the Coastal Management Element. These items included an inventory of the effect of the future land uses on natural resources; objectives protecting coastal wetlands, resources, and habitats; objectives addressing estuarine environmental quality; policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands; and policies identifying techniques for the protection of the Indian River Lagoon. The Water Management District concluded that this element did not appear to follow the requirements of Chapter 9J-5 as closely as did the other elements of the Proposed Plan. The Water Management District also objected to the Conservation Element on the grounds that it lacked specificity for the protection of existing natural resources and time frames for the treatment of untreated stormwater discharges, fisheries, wildlife, and wildlife habitats. DER commented generally that the Proposed Plan "appears to have important weaknesses." Referring to the Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements, DER noted the need for a number of studies regarding drainage, but the absence of any funds allocated for this purpose. DER also commented generally that "much of the work that identified potential areas for conservation, such as mapping the areas subject to flooding and areas with poor soil suitability or wetlands, was not carefully incorporated into the Future Land Use Element." DER objected that the Future Land Use Element is not based upon analyses of the effect of development and redevelopment of flood-prone areas and the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land to determine its suitability for use. DER stated that the Future Land Use Element insufficiently analyzes the wetlands and floodplains identified elsewhere in the Proposed Plan. Findings of DCA General On August 5, 1988, DCA mailed to Cocoa the ORC, which contained 139 objections, the above-described objections and comments of the other state, regional, and local agencies, and general background information concerning the Act and the planning process. The ORC explains that objections relate to specific requirements of the Act or Chapter 9J-5. Each objection includes a recommendation of "one approach that might be taken" to address the objection. A comment is advisory in nature and does not form the basis of a determination of noncompliance. The ORC states that the City's public participation procedures are in violation of Rule 9J-5.004(2)(c) and (e). The objections states that the procedures lack provisions to assure that the public has opportunities to provide written comments and would receive responses to their comments. The ORC recommends that the City revise the procedures to include the necessary provisions. The ORC states that the format of the goals, objectives, and policies are in violation of Rules 9J-5.003(32), (57), and (64) and 9J-5.005(6). The objection states: Goals which do not state a long-term end towards which programs or activities are directed are not acceptable. Objectives which are not measurable, not supported by the data and analysis and are stated in an unspecific, tentative and/or conditional manner are unacceptable. Policies which are tentative or conditional, or do not describe the activities, programs and land development regulations which will implement the plan, are unacceptable. The accompanying recommendation adds: A goal must be written to state a long-term desired result [citation omitted]. Objectives must be written in a way that provides specific measurable intermediate ends that mark progress toward a goal [citation omitted]. A measure such as a quantity, percentage, etc. and a definite time period for its accomplishment should be included in the objectives. Policies answer the question of "how" by specifying the clearly defined actions (programs and activities) local governments will take to achieve each objective and ultimately the identified goal [citation omitted]. If desired, local governments may choose to assign the measurability to a policy . . .. [DCA] is primarily concerned that local governments provide the basis for assessing the effectiveness of their plan. When writing objectives and policies, avoid vague words and phrases (e.g., "adequate," "sufficient," "minimize," and "adverse impacts"), terms which nullify the strength of the statement (e.g., "consider" or "encourage"), or advisory words. "Should" implies an advisory statement which is inappropriate in an adopted portion of the plan. Using the term "shall" provides direction in implementing the plan and will make later evaluation and update of the plan an effective process. . . . The use of words like "ensure" and "encourage" leaves the what and how questions unanswered. [A]n objective cannot be phrased to "maintain or improve," one or the other actions might be set as an objective, but not both. Objectives and policies which are written using phrases such as "if needed," "whenever possible" and "where feasible and appropriate," or other vague words or phrases make the statements unacceptable because the conditional criteria making them specifically operational, have not been stated. 2. Future Land Use Element and Map Included in the background information accompanying the ORC is the following statement from DCA concerning the purpose of the future land use element: The purpose of the future land use element is the designation of future land use patterns as reflected in the goals, objectives and policies of all the comprehensive plan elements. Depicting the future land use patterns on the future land use map serves to (1) anticipate and resolve land use compatibility issues, and (2) provide the information necessary to determine the needed location and capacity of public facilities. (Major Issues--Local Government Comprehensive Planning, p. 3.) The ORC contains three objections and recommendations with respect to the data and four objections and recommendations with respect to the analysis contained in the Future Land Use Element of the Background Analysis. These objections cover the failure of both Existing Land Use Maps to depict natural and historic resources, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a)6. and 11. The ORC contains seven objections and recommendations with respect to the goals, objectives, and policies under the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan and three objections and a comment with respect to the Future Land Use Map. Two of the objections pertain to the two objectives of the Future Land Use Element. These objections, which are recited above in Paragraph 27, generally provide for the management of future growth through the implementation of unspecified land development regulations and require the direction of future development and redevelopment into appropriate areas as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. The ORC states that these objectives are unmeasurable and unsupported by the data and analysis in the Background Analysis, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.005(3)(b). Another objection is that the Future Land Use Element of the Proposed Plan lacks objectives addressing the requirements set forth in the following rules: Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)1.-8. These rules require, among other things, the coordination of future land uses with the appropriate topography, soil, conditions, and availability of facilities and services; and the protection of natural and historic resources. DCA also objects in the ORC to Policy 1.1, which is recited at Paragraph 28 above and calls for land development regulations protecting wetlands and regulating areas subject to flooding, among other items. The ORC states that Policy 1.1 fails to satisfy the definition of a policy set forth in Rule 9J-5.003(64) because it fails to specify how the programs and implementation activities would be conducted. The ORC asserts that Policy 1.1 is unsupported by the necessary data and analysis, in violation of Rules 9J-5.005(1)(a)6. and 10., 9J-5.005(1)((b)3. and 4., and 9J-5.005(2)(a). The missing data and analysis include: the uses of conservation and undeveloped land; the presence on existing land use maps of wetlands and floodplains; and the availability of any facilities and services, as identified in the Drainage Subelement, to serve existing land uses. The ORC states that the Future Land Use Element lacks policies addressing the requirements set forth in Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and 8. The former subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward providing facilities and services to meet locally established level of service standards concurrent with the impacts of development. The latter subsection requires a policy addressing implementation activities directed toward identifying, designating, and protecting historically significant properties. As to the Future Land Use Map, the ORC identifies deficiencies similar to those cited regarding the Future Land Use Element with respect to a lack of support by the data and analysis. The deficiencies in the data and analysis include the failure to show all required land use categories, including conservation and historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a); failure to show one land use category, the redevelopment area, that is described in the text; and omission of all required natural resources, such as floodplains and wetlands, which is in violation of Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). Noting that the legend on the Future Land Use Map states that the map is intended as an adjunct to the Plan, DCA comments that the legend should reflect that the map will be adopted as part of the Plan. 3. Housing Element One of the objections to the data underlying the Housing Element in the Background Analysis is that they do not include an inventory of historically significant housing listed in the Florida Master Site File, housing designated as historically significant by a City ordinance, or the location of the single house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All of this information is required by Rule 9J-5.010(1)(g). The ORC contains an objection to Objective 3.1.4, which is set forth in Paragraph 33 above. The ORC states that this objective, which promises the preservation of historically significant property, is unmeasurable. 4. Public Facilities Element The ORC sets forth six objections to the data and analysis underlying the Drainage Subelement of the Public Facilities Element of the Background Analysis. These objections point out the absence of data and analysis concerning the following items: the design capacity of the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)3.; the existing level of service standard provided by the drainage facilities, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(e)5.; and the projected facility capacity, including surpluses and deficiencies, for the second increment of the planning period, which information is required by Rule 9J-5.011(1)(f)3. The ORC states that Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are unmeasurable and, as to Objectives 4.3.6 and 4.3.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted in Paragraph 35 above, respectively deal with flood control, wetlands protection, and adequate surface water management facilities. The ORC is also critical of Policy 4.3.6.1, which is set forth in Paragraph 36 above and promises that the City will avoid infrastructure improvements that encourage wetlands development. DCA recommends that the Drainage Subelement show how the City will conduct the programs and implementing activities to avoid such infrastructure improvements. 5. Coastal Management Element Among the objections to the data underlying the Coastal Management Element of the Background Analysis is that the element lacks any inventory, analysis, or mapping of historic resources, which are required by Rule 9J- 5.012(2)(c). The ORC cites the failure of the Coastal Management Element to include policies addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1.-3., 8.-10., 13., and 14. These subsections require policies that, among other things, limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources; restore or enhance disturbed or degraded natural resources, including wetlands, estuaries, and drainage systems; regulate floodplains, stormwater management, and land use to reduce the risk of loss of human life and property as a result of natural hazards; protect historic resources by, among other things, identifying historic sites and establishing performance standards for the development and sensitive reuse of historic resources; and generally establish priorities for shoreline land uses. 6. Conservation Element The ORC contains an objection to Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement of the Conservation Element of the Proposed Plan. DCA finds this objective, which is cited in Paragraph 40 above and requires the protection of the Indian River Lagoon, to be unmeasurable and unspecific. The ORC states that the Conservation Element lacks policies to protect existing natural resources and designate environmentally sensitive lands for protection, which are required by Rule 9J-5.013(2)(c)7. and 9. 7. Capital Improvements Element The ORC notes one objection and recommendation to the data underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. The objection states: Because data and analysis requirements were missing in the Drainage . . . Subelement, capital improvement needs cannot be adequately evaluated. Capital improvement needs for [this subelement] cannot be assumed to be nonexistent. The ORC states seven objections and recommendations to the analysis underlying the Capital Improvements Element of the Background Analysis. These objections generally concern a lack of information about costs and revenues. The ORC contains objections to Objectives 9.1, 9.2, and 9.7 as unmeasurable and, with respect to Objectives 9.2 and 9.7, unspecific. These objectives, which are quoted at Paragraph 44 above, deal generally with funding capital improvements required by level of service standards. The ORC cites the absence of an objective addressing the requirements of Rule 9J-5.016(3)(b)5. This rule requires an objective showing the local government's ability to provide or require the provision of the needed improvements identified in the Plan's other elements. The rule also requires an objective showing the local government's ability to manage the land development process so that the public facility needs created by previously issued development orders do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund or require the funding of capital improvements. DCA also objects to numerous policies in the Capital Improvements Element on the grounds that they are not measurable. 8. Miscellaneous DCA objects in the ORC that the Proposed Plan lacks goals, objectives, and policies that further numerous policies of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan of the Regional Planning Council. Review of ORC and Adoption of Plan Review of ORC Within a few days after receiving the ORC from DCA, Cocoa forwarded the relevant portions of the Proposed Plan to the consultants who had prepared them for the preparation of responses and revisions. On or about August 31, Cocoa received the responses and revisions from the consultants. As noted in Paragraph 46 above, the procedures in effect at this time were those contained in Ordinance No. 4-80. On August 23, 1988, the City Council postponed until its next meeting consideration of a new ordinance establishing procedures for adopting amendments to the Proposed Plan. On August 31, 1988, a 1 1/4" by 8 1/4" classified-type advertisement announced a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board on September 14, 1988, at 5:15 p.m. for the purpose, among other things, of recommending to the City Council changes to the nine elements of the Proposed Plan. The advertisement stated that the City Council will consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board during its regularly scheduled meeting on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. The advertisement advised that the Plan documents, including the Future Land Use Map, were available for public inspection at the Community Improvement "Office." On September 1, 1988, a 6 1/2" by 10 1/2" display advertisement provided the same information as that contained in the advertisement published the prior day. The display advertisement stated: The City urges any citizen to review the Plan documents and submit written or oral comments at any time during the process. Such comments will be presented during the hearing along with response as appropriate. All citizens will be given the opportunity to review the documents, have legal notification, submit written or oral comments, and receive appropriate responses to items related to elements to be adopted by the City as the City's Comprehensive Plan. The display advertisement bore a large, boldface headline in block print, stating: "NOTICE OF CHANGE IN LAND USE." The advertisement contained a large map of the City. A 6 1/2" by 4" version of the same advertisement appeared elsewhere in the same edition of the newspaper. At the regular meeting of the City Council on September 13, 1988, Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, complained about the limited opportunities for public participation, in part caused by the lack of current information available to the public. In response, the City Council announced the dates of September 27 and October 4, 5, or 6 for the adoption hearings for the Plan. Richard Amari, the City Attorney, reminded everyone that the Act gives local governments only 60 days following the issuance of the ORC within which to adopt the Plan. He said that Cocoa was not trying to bypass public participation, but had to comply with the law. At the September 13 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 88-31, which became effective the same date. The resolution provides in relevant part: Section 1. The City will advertise pursuant to Florida State Statutes and Department of Community Affairs Rule 9J-5. Section 2. The City will post notices of its public hearings in City Hall, Library and Police Department regarding consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. The City will provide in its ads encouragement for written and oral comments by the public which written comment will be made part of the public record. Section 4. The City Manager or his designee will assure that responses to written comments received during the process will be given either at the public hearings as appropriate or written responses may be given upon request. Section 5. The plan documents are available for public inspection at City Hall in Rooms 208 & 202, and the Cocoa Public Library during normal business hours. Section 6. This Resolution shall govern activities engaged in by the Planning and Zoning Board acting as the Local Planning Agency during its public hearing on September 14, 1988, and continued from time to time; and by the City Council at its Public Hearing on September 27 as may be continued from time to time. On September 14, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public hearing concerning, among other items, the Plan. The scarcity of Plan documents, especially the Future Land Use Map, limited the amount of meaningful participation by members of the audience and, to a lesser extent, the Board. The Future Land Use Map is a color-coded document. A black and white photocopy of the map incompletely depicts the various land uses shown on the map. An ongoing problem through the planning process was that these color maps, which were prepared for the City by the Regional Planning Council, were not generally available to the public. However, during most if not all of the process, Ms. Lawandales maintained in the Community Improvement Department a large color map, which was generally current. Part of the problem was the City's inability or unwillingness to incur the cost and suffer the inconvenience of printing new maps every time that there was a change in the use assigned to a parcel. Such changes were frequent in the final weeks before adoption of the Plan. At the September 14 meeting, for instance, there was already a handwritten list of 20 numbered proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 of the proposed changes converts from open space to medium- density residential most of the southeast quarter of the open area located north of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1, which is part of the linear marsh wetlands within Drainage Area III. The September 14 meeting was a scene of some confusion due to the above-described documents. One Board member moved that the public be given at least those documents that the Board had. The motion failed. In part due to time constraints and limited staff resources, the Board decided instead to copy for the public only the maps and revisions and responses to the goals, objectives, and policies. The meeting adjourned by a 4-2 vote before considering the Future Land Use Map. Two Board members remained after the meeting to share their Future Land Use Maps with the audience. A few days later, City staff persons compiled a large notebook with a complete set of documents related to the Plan and distributed these notebooks to the members of the City Council. These documents consisted of the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan; the unrevised Background Analysis; the responses and revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies as a result of the ORC; the EAR; and possibly other documents. On September 18, 1988, a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" display advertisement announced three workshops and two public hearings to be held by the City Council. The workshops were set for September 19 at 7:00 p.m., September 20 at 5:00 p.m., and September 22 at 6:30 p.m. The first workshop would cover the Public Facilities, "Transportation" (i.e., Traffic Circulation), and Capital Improvements Elements. The second workshop would cover the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. The third workshop would cover the Future Land Use, Housing, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. The advertisement stated: "The general purpose of the workshops is to receive public comments and review the Comprehensive Plan." Some local residents were aware of the three workshops at least one day prior to the publication of the advertisement. The same advertisement announced that the public hearings would take place on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. The advertisement stated: The purpose of these hearings is to receive public comments and recommendations on a Comprehensive Plan, and to review and adopt an ordinance adopting the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the requirements of growth management and land development legislation adopted by the Florida Legislature in 1985 and 1986. On September 19, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Public Facilities, Traffic Circulation, and Capital Improvements Elements. Mayor Robinson acknowledged the receipt of a petition of residents from two subdivisions in opposition to changes to their neighborhoods by the Plan. Mayor Robinson informed the audience that the Future Land Use Map would be discussed at the September 22 meeting. The format of the September 19 workshop, as well as the two other workshops, was that City staff would first address an issue, followed, in order, by City Council members, Planning and Zoning Board members, and lastly the audience. City staffpersons at the September 19 workshop identified a list of 38 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. Item 10 from the September 14 list was renumbered as Item 7. Item 6 on the September 19 list encompasses what remained of the eastern half the open space north of Michigan Avenue. The recommendation is to designate this wetlands area commercial. The northern tip of the linear marsh wetlands area south of Michigan Avenue and west of U.S. Route 1 is proposed to be redesignated commercial in new Item 10. Item 11 proposes that the remainder of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium- density residential. The recommended changes appearing at the September 19 workshop substantially eliminate the two other open space/wetlands, as well. Item 33 recommends low-density residential for most of the southern half of the open space/wetlands located between Range Road and the largest unincorporated enclave within the City. Item 34 recommends medium-density residential for most of the northern half of the same open space/wetlands. According to the Soils Map contained in the Background Analysis, the northern portion of Little Mud Lake is in the medium-density residential area and the southern portion of the lake is in the low-density residential area. After these two changes, about one quarter of the original open space/wetlands between Range Road and the unincorporated enclave retains the originally proposed designation as open space. The remaining open space is an L-shaped strip immediately adjacent to the unincorporated area within the City. According to the Existing Land Use Map in the Background Analysis, the portion of the L-shaped strip running north-south is devoted to recreational uses, such as a park. Items 37 and 38 recommend the complete elimination of the largest open space/wetlands, which is located north and west of the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Range Road and is within Drainage Area IV. Item 37 proposes that nearly all of this open space/wetlands, including Big Mud Lake, be redesignated low-density residential. Item 38 proposes that the western portion of this open space/wetlands be redesignated medium-density residential. On September 20, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Coastal Management, Conservation, and Recreation and Open Space Elements. Discussion included the redesignation of the open space/wetlands in the vicinity of Michigan Avenue from open space to medium-density residential and commercial. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council agreed to add another parcel to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. On September 22, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council jointly conducted a workshop on the Housing, Future Land Use, and Intergovernmental Coordination Elements. Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, objected at this workshop to the Future Land Use Element, as well as other matters. Petitioner Houston herself spoke against the Future Land Use Map. A Future Land Use Map was present at this workshop. This map, reflecting the latest addition, showed 39 numbered areas marked in black. The numbers corresponded to the list of recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. The City Council authorized during the workshop the addition of two more proposed changes. The September 22 workshop marked the last involvement of the Planning and Zoning Board in the planning process. The Board never formally recommended the Plan and supporting documents to the City Council for adoption. However, by the end of the meeting, none of the Board members expressed any remaining objections to the Plan and supporting documents, and most if not all Board members had no serious objections to the Plan. A formal recommendation was therefore unnecessary. Adoption Hearings On September 23, 1988, a display advertisement nearly identical in size and content to that published on September 18 stated that the City Council would conduct public hearings on September 27, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. and October 4, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. on changes in the use of land within the City limits. A similar display advertisement on September 29, 1988, announced the October 4 public hearing. The City Council received a list of 41 proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map at the September 27 hearing and approved the addition of a another property, as well as unrelated revisions to the Wastewater Element. In a presentation to the City Council, Ms. Lawandales referred to a set of revisions to the Future Land Use Element. These revisions were not the same as those prepared by the Regional Planning Council. Ms. Lawandales referred in her presentation to a set of revisions that add only two short clauses to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element. At the October 4, 1988, public hearing, the City Council received written objections from Ms. Koons, on behalf of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn, in the form of an eight-page letter. Given the detail and scope of the letter and lack of time, the City Council and staff were justifiably unable to offer a response until after the hearing, which concluded with the adoption of the Plan. During the hearing, the City Council approved the addition of five more properties to the list of 42 recommended changes to the Future Land Use Map. At the conclusion of the October 4 hearing, the City Council adopted the Plan by adopting Ordinance No. 20-88, which in relevant part provides: Whereas, after months of careful review and a public hearing the Planning and Zoning Board sitting as the Local Planning Agency has recommended adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan in substantially the form presented; and Whereas, the City Council has received objections, recommendations, and comments from the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other agencies; and * * * Whereas, the City Council has made certain amendments in the proposed new Comprehensive Plan in light of [public comments], as well as the comments, recommendations, and objections of the [Regional Planning Council, DCA], and various other State agencies; * * * Now, therefore, be it enacted by the City Council of the City of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, that: Section 1. That Section 15-4 of the City Code of Cocoa is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 15-4 Adoption of Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan consists of the one (1) volume book entitled Comprehensive Plan--City of Cocoa, Volume II, April 1988, which Comprehensive Plan consists of (i) Goals, Objectives and Policies for nine (9) elements, including Future Land Use, Traffic Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and Open Space, Intergovernmental Coordination and Capital Improvements, (ii) Procedures of Monitoring and Evaluation, (iii) Requirements for Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan, and (iv) Population estimates and projections utilized as basis for the plan documents, plus the Evaluation and Appraisal Report dated April, 1988. Section 2. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is the City's Comprehensive Plan as referenced in Section 1 of this Ordinance, which Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted as the official comprehensive plan for and of the City. * * * Section 4. Ordinances and Resolutions in Conflict. All Ordinances or Resolutions or parts thereof that may be determined to be in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The City's Comprehensive Plan approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 11-80 of July 8, 1980, all as the same may have been amended from time to time, be and the same is hereby repealed. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council. Adopted by the Council of the City of Cocoa, in regular meeting assembled, on the 4th day of October, 1988. The ordinance is signed by Mayor Robinson, whose signature is attested by the City Clerk. The review and adoption proceedings ended with the October 4 hearing. At no time during these proceedings did Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. or Loula P. Hendry submit oral or written objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan. On or about August 13, 1988, Petitioner David P. Hendry, Sr. sent a letter dated July 31, 1988, to Cocoa and numerous other state and local officials. In the letter, he objected to a marina project that was under consideration. However, these comments did not constitute objections to the Plan or Proposed Plan, of which Petitioners Hendry were unaware until after it had been adopted by the City and determined to be in compliance by DCA. The Contents of the Plan General Besides the goals, objectives, and policies, the Plan consists of the EAR (described in Paragraphs 157-169), Resolution No. 88-31 (described in Paragraph 115), population data (described in Paragraph 170), a section entitled "Consistency of the Local Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan" (described in Paragraph 171), and a section entitled "Monitoring and Evaluation (described in Paragraph 46). The Plan is also supported by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 47-67 above. The City submitted revisions to the Background Analysis, portions of which are described in Paragraphs 172-180 below. Goals, Objectives, and Policies The goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan are those of the Proposed Plan, as revised by the City Council. The revisions are as follows: 47 changes to the Future Land Use Map, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; numerous revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Proposed Plan, as identified in Austin Exhibit 10; two revisions to the proposed Future Land Use Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4; and revisions to the Solid Waste and "Sanitary Sewer" (i.e., Wastewater) Subelements of the Public Facilities Element, as identified in Cocoa Exhibit 4. There are no other revisions, additions or deletions affecting the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan. The revisions described in Paragraph 181 below were never adopted by the City and are not part of the Plan. Responses, which are set forth in Austin Exhibit 10, are explanations offered by the City in response to objections and recommendations of DCA; responses do not contain any goals, objectives, or policies. Future Land Use Element and Map One response concerning the Future Land Use Element explains that objections in the ORC to missing data have been satisfied by a revision of the underlying data and analysis. However, as to objections with respect to the failure of the Future Land Use Map to depict conservation and natural resources, the response is that "no . . . conservation or historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." However, the revised analysis underlying the Future Land Use Element includes a map of the Cocoa Historic District. The response to the objection that the Future Land Use Map fails to show all required natural resources is: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element include revised Objectives 1.1 and 1.2, which are set forth in their proposed form in Paragraph 27 above. These revisions require that the City accomplish the tasks described in the two objectives within one year of Plan submittal. The revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element contain four new objectives. Objectives 1.3 and 1.4 respectively deal with the elimination by the year 2000 of blight and existing land uses that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use "Plan." Objective 1.5 states that within one year of Plan submittal all development activities "will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural and historic resources." Objective 1.6 states that within one year of Plan submission land development regulations will provide for the availability of sufficient land area for the siting of public facilities. The revisions contain several new policies. New Policy 1.1.3 allows the City to issue development orders only if the necessary public facilities, operating at the adopted levels of service, are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. New Policy 1.5.1 states that the City will identify its historical resources and maintain an updated file of historically significant properties. New Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect its cultural, historic, and archaeological resources by helping to educate the public of the value of such resources, considering the establishment of a historic district, and purchasing development rights to preserve historically significant properties. Revisions also clarify that open space/residential areas on the Future Land Use Map will be used for park, recreational, and ancillary uses, except as required for other public purposes. 2. Housing Element The City Council adopted several revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of the Housing Element. Objective 3.1.4, which in its original form is set forth in Paragraph 33 above, is revised to provide that the quality of existing homes and neighborhoods will, at a minimum, be maintained, rather than maintained or improved. Policy 3.1.4.7, which is also set forth in Paragraph 33, is revised to add that the City will perform an annual review of historically significant housing units in order, as previously provided, to aid in the identification of historically significant housing and structures. 3. Public Facilities Element Objectives 4.3.5, 4.3.6, and 4.3.7 are revised as follows with the new language underlined: Objective 4.3.5: To reduce existing flooding problems and to prevent additional flooding problems from being created as a result of future development through actions identified in needs assessments and engineering studies, with the actions being undertaken on a priority basis as determined in the engineering studies, with individual prioritized actions being initiated no later than one year following the completion of the engineering studies, consistent with the schedule of actions contained in the Comprehensive Improvements Plan [sic]. Objective 4.3.6: To ensure the protection and preservation of existing wetlands as viable components of the City's surface water management systems, to include the establishment or maintenance of desirable hydroperiods, water quality conditions, and natural ecosystems applicable ordinances (including design criteria and standards) will be submitted for adoption consideration no later than October 1, 1990, with final adoption within one year following the initial submittal. Objective 4.3.7: To ensure the proper and adequate surface water management facilities are provided in response to identified needs existing deficiencies and needs will be determined, cost and time requirements of corrective actions will be identified, and alternative sources of revenue will be evaluated, with the above information being compiled into a Surface Water Management Plan for the entire City and any external service areas by October 1, 1995. The revision of another objective reiterates the intention of the City to perform engineering studies in the future to gain information necessary to drainage planning: Objective 4.3.2: To protect, preserve or improve the quality of surface drainage waters being discharged from existing and future drainage systems in the City so that such discharges do not contribute to the degradation of water quality conditions in receiving waterbodies or prevent the improvement of degraded conditions, and promote the continuance or establishment of healthy, balanced natural environments through the implementation of ordinances, engineering studies, inspection programs, and coordinative actions with regulatory agencies, with such activities being initiated no later than October 1, 1992. Revisions to several policies show an increasing recognition of the need to plan for drainage and the role of wetlands in such a plan: Policy 4.3.2.6: Proposed development plans will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that new development does not adversely impact surrounding properties by altering drainage patterns and water storage capabilities so that increased volumes of water are discharged onto the properties or that surface drainage flows from the properties are not impeded or retarded so as to create or contribute to flooding or diminished land usage, unless such lands have been purchased or designated by the City for surface water storage purposes. Policy 4.3.4.3: The City will actively participate in the preparation and implementa- tion of applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans being undertaken by the [Water Management District] which will [replacing "would"] involve or include land areas in the City or waterbodies affected by drainage from the City. Policy 4.3.6.1: Public infrastructure improvements that encourage the development of wetlands will be avoided except in the case of overriding public interest, for the purpose of protecting and preserving wetland areas with appropriate measures such as ordinances and development standards being used [replacing "taken"] to control [replacing "discourage"] development in affected wetland areas. Policy 4.3.6.3: The City will review its existing land development design criteria, and revise if necessary, to provide for and encourage the incorporation of existing wetlands into land development plans for the use of "free services" offered by the natural areas provided that: --intrinsic natural wetland values, functions and hydroperiods are not adversely affected, --the wetland is maintained in its natural condition, and --the wetland is protected from future development. 4. Coastal Management Element The revisions add a new goal, objective, and policies that provide: Goal 5.3: The natural resources of the City's coastal area shall be preserved, protected or enhanced to provide the highest possible environmental quality for recreation and the propagation of fisheries and wildlife. Objective 5.3.1: The City shall protect, and restore where necessary, the following natural resources and environmental attributes within its control: air quality, endangered species and their habitat, native vegetation and wildlife, fisheries and estuarine habitat, water quality, and floodplains. New Policy 5.3.1.1 incorporates Objectives 6.1 and 6.2-6.9 and the policies thereunder. The revisions contain another new objective and policies under the new goal described above. Policy 5.3.2.3 states that the City will conform its plan and development criteria to the guidelines set forth in yet-to-be identified resource protection plans to the extent "legally permissible." Policy 5.3.2.4 states that the City shall notify the Resources Council of East Florida and the Indian River Aquatic Preserve of all proposed activities that the City Council considers will directly affect the coastal zone, including changes in stormwater discharge, vegetation removal, or dredge and fill operations. 5. Conservation Element Objective 6.5 of the Fisheries and Estuarine Habitat Subelement, which is quoted in its original form in Paragraph 40 above, is revised as follows: Objective 6.5: By 1993, the abundance and diversity of submerged aquatic vegetation and fish species found in the City's lakes, and in the Indian River within the zone between the Cocoa shoreline and the Intracoastal Waterway, shall be as great, or greater, than they were in 1988. The City cites eight policies under Objectives 6.4 and 6.8 in response to the objection that the Proposed Plan lacks policies addressing the protection of existing natural resources and designating for protection environmentally sensitive land. 6. Recreation and Open Space Element The revisions to the Recreation and Open Space Element contain a new objective concerning open space: Objective 7.2.1: Within one year of Plan submittal the land development regulations will include provisions for addressing the open space needs of the City. 7. Capital Improvements Element The revisions to the Capital Improvements Element include requirements that the City satisfy the requirements of Objectives 9.1 and 9.2, which are set forth in Paragraph 44 above, by 1989 and 1990, respectively. The City revised Objective 9.1 to require, by 1989, the incorporation of levels of service standards into land development regulations. Also, the City added the following language to Objective 9.5, which is quoted in its original form at Paragraph 44 above: "Public Facility needs created by development orders issued prior to Plan adoption will not exceed the ability of the City to fund or provide needed capital improvements." Evaluation and Appraisal Report The EAR, which is referenced in Paragraph 24 above, evaluates the success of an earlier, unrelated comprehensive plan previously adopted by the City. The EAR begins with an introductory section commenting about the area and problems facing the City. The introduction notes that the City has significant undeveloped lands, especially in the northwest section of Cocoa. A large part of these lands is the single open space/wetlands north of Michigan Avenue and west of Range Road. The EAR states: "Much of the land is not developable due to natural constraints; however, primary residential growth will occur in this area in the future." The introduction also recognizes that "drainage is still a major concern" due to the "extensive amount of new development and alteration of some natural drainage systems, as well as continued drainage problems from older development." Among the solutions noted in the introduction are the requirement of retention and detention areas in new developments. Concerning conservation and protection of the coastal zone, the introduction states: The City of Cocoa has continued to seek to protect the integrity of the flood hazard areas as significant development has not occurred in these areas as of this date. Maintaining these areas for natural functions, it will decrease the possibility of flooding and associated problems during heavy cycles of rain. This also adds to the water quality of the area. The major portion of the EAR is devoted to an evaluation of the success of the prior comprehensive plan. Several relevant portions of this self-assessment, which was updated on September 27, 1988, are set forth in the following paragraphs. Objective 2 under Open Space was to "develop flood plain controls which will allow for the protection of some open space around Cocoa's lakes and low areas in the event of development." The result: not accomplished. Objectives 2 and 3 under the Conservation/Coastal Element were to use the City's water retention ordinance to control surface drainage from new developments and continue to make needed drainage improvements. The results: the first objective was accomplished and the second objective was not accomplished as of April, 1988. However, as to the second objective, as of September 27, 1988, "a drainage improvement program has been initiated." Objective 3 under the Land and Vegetation Resources was to control the amount of filling that could occur in new development to ensure proper drainage in surrounding areas. The result: not accomplished in April, 1988, and partly accomplished by September 27, 1988. Objective 1 under Drainage was to develop a citywide Master Drainage Plan with priorities and cost estimates for drainage improvements needed in Cocoa. The result: not accomplished. Objective 3 under Drainage was to control activities in flood prone areas in an effort to prevent a detrimental impact on areawide drainage patterns. The result: not accomplished. Objective 4 was to encourage, as feasible, the use of natural filtration, detention, and retention to reduce runoff-associated drainage problems. The result: accomplished. Objective 11 under Intergovernmental Coordination was to adhere to statewide plans and programs designed to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of areawide drainage patterns. Result: not accomplished. Miscellaneous The Plan includes the population history and estimates that had been provided with the transmittal of the Proposed Plan in April, 1988. This document is included in Cocoa Exhibit 4. The Plan includes the Consistency of the Local Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan that had been provided in April, 1988, at the end of the City of Cocoa--Comprehensive Plan, Volume II . This document is a cross-index between provisions of the Plan and the state comprehensive plan. Background Analysis In reply to objections and recommendations in the ORC pertaining to the Background Analysis, the City supplemented its data and analysis through revisions. Shortly after the Plan had been adopted and transmitted, the City sent to DCA the revisions to the data and analysis and responses to the objections and recommendations concerning data and analysis. Future Land Use Element and Map In response to the objection that the data omitted conservation uses and historic resources, the City states that there are "no conservation uses" and supplies a map depicting existing historic resources. Elaborating upon the historic resources, the City mentions a survey of historic structures that took place in November, 1987. The resulting list of 72 structures is depicted on a map, which is included in the response and entitled, "Cocoa Historic District." An inventory of the properties is included. In a narrative response to an objection to the absence of an analysis of the need for redevelopment, the City describes its earlier redevelopment efforts, which include the adoption of a redevelopment plan, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes. Noting the objectives of the redevelopment plan as to the elimination of slums and blighted conditions, the narrative concludes: "These goals should be retained and reiterated in the goals, objectives and policies section of the Comprehensive Plan." 2. Housing Element The revised Background Analysis contains a long narrative concerning housing. At the end, the City states that it should take "appropriate measures" to preserve and protect the Porcher House, which is the only structure in the City listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and maintain the quality of older neighborhoods in order to preserve other potentially significant property. 3. Drainage Subelement Responding to an objection that the data and analysis fail to include the capacity allocated to meet the City's drainage needs for the ten-year planning horizon, the City added the following language: However, information is not currently available for future allocation and usage during the ten-year planning period. The available information is insufficient to accurately determine the proportion of design capacities currently being used to handle runoff and groundwater flows in the drainage system components. 4. Capital Improvements Element Elaborating upon its earlier responses to the objections to the Drainage Subelement of the Background Analysis, the City states that "[t]here are no planned capital improvements for the drainage system." The City refers to attached materials in response to numerous objections to the omission from the analysis of future revenue and expenditures available for needed capital improvements. However, such material was not included with the revisions and responses. 5. Coastal Management Element The glossary added to the Background Analysis by the revisions reiterates the statement in the original Background Analysis, noted at Paragraph 65 above, that the coastal area for the Coastal Resources Subelement is the entire City. (The reference to "Rockledge" is a typographical error; the Regional Planning Council, which drafted the Background Analysis and revisions, was working at the same time on the Rockledge comprehensive plan.) (Responses to DCA Comments, p. 12-6.) 6. Miscellaneous In responding to objections to the data and analysis concerning the consistency of the Plan with the plan of the Regional Planning Council, the City cites a new Objective 6.3 with new Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9. These items, which generally deal with ensuring the persistence through 1998 of the 1990- level distribution and abundance of endangered and threatened species and their habitats in the City, were neither considered nor adopted by the City Council. Objective 6.3 and Policies 6.3.1-6.3.5 and 6.4.9 are therefore not part of the Plan. Determination of Compliance by DCA After receiving the Plan and supporting documents shortly after October 4, 1988, DCA analyzed the revisions and responses in light of the 139 objections and recommendations contained in the ORC. At the conclusion of the analysis, DCA found that 28 of the revisions and responses were inadequate. These findings are set forth in the Preliminary Findings on the Cocoa Comprehensive Plan, which is dated November 16, 1988. On November 26, 1988, DCA published, by way of a 10 1/2" by 6 1/2" advertisement, its Notice of Intent to Find the City of Cocoa Comprehensive Plan in Compliance. The advertisement complies with the statutory requirements. Ultimate Findings as to Public Participation The public participated in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible. The City Council adopted procedures to provide effective public participation, including notice to real property owners of all official action affecting the use of their property. Any deficiency in the procedures is immaterial. The Planning and Zoning Board duly discharged its responsibilities as the local planning agency under the Act. The City Council and Planning and Zoning Board amply advertised their many public hearings and provided reasonable opportunity for written comments and open discussion. Comments from the public appear to have received fair consideration. The City disseminated proposals and other information as broadly as possible, although certain materials were available at times only to staff and not the City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or public. The City was confronted with a substantial task involving the identification, consideration, and resolution of complex technical and legal questions. The City prudently delegated much of the work to City staff and outside consultants. The Act generates severe time pressures, especially on the local government, which has only 60 days to digest the ORC and adopt a plan. Once the City received the ORC, about half of the 60 days was spent by the staff and outside consultants in drafting proposed revisions and responses. Neither City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could realistically commence public meetings until the members had reviewed the work of the consultants and staff. Critical land use decisions such as those involved in the adoption of a comprehensive plan are politically sensitive. The land use decisions in this case generated considerable controversy in the community. Members of the City Council or the Planning and Zoning Board could not reasonably be expected to commence public meetings before they were aware of what revisions and responses were being proposed by their experts. The greatest shortcoming in the public participation process involved the ongoing proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map and the inability or unwillingness of the City to disseminate in a timely manner updated maps reflecting these proposed changes. Broader and more timely dissemination of the proposed changes would have facilitated more careful consideration of the effects of redesignating the uses of large parcels of land. However, the real target of the frustrations expressed with the public participation process is with the resulting land use decisions, not the process itself. Even in light of the shortcomings with respect to the revisions to the Future Land Use Map, the public participated in the process to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances described above. Ultimate Findings as to Consistency Drainage, Wetlands, and Floodplains Internal Consistency The Plan is internally inconsistent with respect to drainage, wetlands, and floodplains. These inconsistencies render the Plan inconsistent in the related matters of protecting the estuarine waters of the Indian River Lagoon; fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitat; and general water quality. In general, the inconsistencies result from the conflict between Plan provisions protecting wetlands, restricting floodplain development, and ensuring adequate drainage, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the elimination of nearly all of the existing open space/wetlands from, and the failure to depict wetlands as a natural resource on, the Future Land Use Map. Many Plan provisions assure the protection of wetlands, adequacy of drainage, and restriction of development in the floodplains, as well as the protection of the estuarine waters of the Indian River, various habitats, and general water quality. For instance, Policy 1.1.B protects the wetlands identified in the Conservation and Future Land Use Elements. Objective 1.5 requires that development activities will be consistent with and supportive of the Plan's objectives for protecting natural resources. Objective 4.3.6 promises ordinances to ensure the protection of wetlands. Policy 4.3.6.1 restricts public infrastructure funds that encourage the development of the wetlands. Goal 5.3 and Objective 5.3.1 provide for the protection and restoration of estuarine habitats and floodplains. Policy 6.4.7 prohibits any development that significantly and adversely alters the function of the wetlands. Objective 6.5 requires that the condition of the Indian River, in terms of its ability to support numbers and types of aquatic vegetation and fish, be maintained or improved between now and 1993. Policy 6.5.3 requires that the City take steps to reduce the volume of untreated stormwater. Objective 6.8 ensures the protection of the flood storage and conveyance capacities of the 100 year floodplain. However, the protection guaranteed wetlands, floodplains, and drainage is contradicted by the treatment of wetlands in The Future Land Use Map. The map is a critical component of the Plan. According to both Objective 1.2 and the Background Analysis, the Future Land Use Map will provide the rationale for all future land use decisions when the City implements the Plan with land development regulations. The Future Land Use Map is at least as important as goals, objectives, or policies in setting the course for future development and redevelopment in Cocoa. The Future Land Use Map subordinates all but a small section of the wetlands in the City to residential and commercial land uses. The City could have extended effective protection to the wetlands by reserving them a place in Cocoa's future. First, the City could have shown them as a natural resource on the Future Land Use Map. Second, the City could have shown them as a conservation land use on the Future Land Use Map. The failure to take these steps was not inadvertent. The ORC pointed out both of these omissions. In the Proposed Plan, the City chose to designate the wetlands as open space, which provided some protection. Even so, DCA objected to the omission of a conservation land use category from the Future Land Use Map, as required by Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a). The City's response: "No . . . conservation . . .land use categories are applicable for the city." DCA also objected to the failure to show on the Future Land Use Map all required natural resources, which include wetlands under Rule 9J-5.006(4)(b). The City's response, which betrays a failure to comprehend the difference between a land use category and a natural resource: "Wetlands are not a designated future land use." These "explanations" are hardly consistent with overall protection of the wetlands or, specifically, with such provisions as are contained in Policy 7.2.1.2, which provides that the City will "[d]esignate conservation areas . . . as part of the future land use map in order to preserve open space and fulfill . . . [Conservation Element] objectives." As the Future Land Use Map presently stands, the City will soon adopt land development regulations consistent with the use of nearly all of its wetlands for low- and medium-density residential and commercial purposes. Following the adoption of these land development regulations, it will be too late to protect the wetlands as a system, which is how they function in providing drainage, habitat, and water filtration. Absent designation as a conservation area or open space, the wetlands can be preserved, at most, as isolated, poorly functioning remnants carved out of large-scale development plans. Wetlands are vital to the efforts of the City in the areas of drainage, flood control, and water quality. Two factors exacerbate the above- described inconsistencies in the Plan. First, the drainage system suffers from known deficiencies, and, at the same time, the City has failed to achieve certain significant objectives of its prior comprehensive plan with respect to drainage, flood control, and nonpoint sources of water pollution, such as stormwater runoff. Second, the data are inadequate concerning the City's drainage needs and capacity, as well as the precise role of the wetlands as to drainage and conservation. Although eliminating open space/wetlands as a land use category and declining to depict wetlands and floodplains as a natural resource, the City acknowledges several significant shortcomings in its drainage system and efforts to protect floodplains and wetlands. The City has failed to accomplish goals of earlier comprehensive plans to adopt a citywide Master Drainage Plan and obtain cost estimates for drainage improvements. It has even failed to adhere to statewide plans to control nonpoint sources of water pollution and prevent alteration of drainage patterns. A drainage improvement program, initiated between April and October, 1988, begins on an inauspicious note with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map. There are signs that the natural drainage system offered by local waterbodies and wetlands may be reaching or exceeding its capacity. There is clear evidence of at least isolated failures of vital parts of the natural drainage system. For example, Big Mud Lake has been exploited to its limit as a receptacle for untreated stormwater and is probably eutrophic. Suffering from untreated stormwater runoff, the Indian River has lost the vitality needed to maintain a harvestable shellfish population. The water quality of both of these waterbodies is not good. It is difficult to correlate Plan provisions protecting wetlands, ensuring adequate drainage, and preserving water quality with the nonrecognition of wetlands in the Future Land Use Map, especially in view of the City's admitted lack of knowledge concerning the needs and capacities of its drainage system. Besides repeated references in the Background Analysis to a lack of data concerning important aspects of the drainage system, the goals, objectives, and policies reflect the need for considerably more information in this area. For instance, Objectives 4.3.2 and 4.3.5 identify "needs assessments," "engineering studies," and "inspection programs" with respect to flooding and drainage that will be conducted in the future. Objective 4.3.7 ties in this work with the promise of the preparation of a surface water management plan, by October 1, 1995, to determine "existing deficiencies and needs," "cost and time requirements of corrective actions," and "sources of revenue." Policies 4.3.2.5, 4.3.5.2, 4.3.5.3, 4.3.7.1, and 4.3.7.2 also promise engineering studies to take place in the future in order to gather more information concerning drainage and the effect of stormwater on receiving waterbodies. The Background Analysis notes that no complete inventory of the drainage system has taken place for 20 years. The City requires these studies in order to determine what to do about a deficient drainage system for which no improvements are presently planned. Objective 4.3.7 acknowledges that the City has not included any improvements to its drainage or stormwater management systems for at least the initial five-year planning timeframe covered by the Plan. The Five Year Schedule of Improvements reflects no such expenditures, and the Background Analysis states that no such expenditures are planned for the next five years. As a result of the elimination of the open space/wetlands, many provisions concerning drainage and floodplain are no longer supported by the data and analysis in material respects. The data reveal the critical role of the wetlands and 100 year floodplain in the present performance of the drainage system. However, as noted above, the data also reveal that insufficient information is presently available upon which to justify the residential and commercial development of the wetlands, especially in the face of ongoing development in the 100 year floodplain. The broad promises of adequate drainage, floodplain protection, and maintenance or enhancement of the estuarine waters of the Indian River are inconsistent with the elimination of nearly all of the open space/wetlands from the Future Land Use Map and even the presence of significant development of wetlands and vacant floodplains. Under the circumstances, the Plan is internally inconsistent in its treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains and, as a result of these inconsistencies, in its treatment of estuarine waters, the above-described habitats, and general water quality. The elimination from the Future Land Use Map of the open spaces hosting nearly all of the wetlands, coupled with the refusal to designate the wetlands and floodplains as natural resources on the map, are not merely inconsistent but mutually exclusive with Plan provisions protecting the above-named resources and ensuring adequate drainage. These Plan provisions lack support by the data and analysis contained in the Background Analysis. Under these conditions and in view of the failure of the City to allocate funds for improvements in the drainage system, including stormwater runoff, the Plan also lacks economic feasibility with respect to drainage and stormwater treatment. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Several "issues" identified in the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains. Each of these issues contains a goal, background summary, and policies. Issue 38 of the regional plan deals with the protection of water resources. After acknowledging that stormwater runoff may be the largest surface water quality problem facing the region, Policies 38.3 and 38.5 urge local governments to divert the "first flush" of stormwater to retention facilities. The policies recommend that the local governments employ the most efficient and cost-effective pollutant control techniques available and wet detention facilities, including isolated wetlands. The goal of Issue 39 is to reduce dependence on structural means of floodplain management and optimize maintenance of water-dependent natural systems. The regional plan states that wetlands assimilate nutrients and trap sediment from stormwater, as well as physically retard the movement of surface water. Policy 39.7 advises that "[n]atural, isolated wetlands should be incorporated in surface water management systems as detention facilities, where . . . practical and appropriate, as an alternative to filling or excavating such wetlands." Policy 39.8 adds: "Floodplains which are relatively undisturbed should be protected and preserved " The goal of Issue 40 is the protection and preservation of the region's coastal areas. The regional plan defines the "coastal zone" as "within the watersheds of coastal estuaries," including the Indian River. The background summary recognizes the adverse effects of stormwater runoff on the Indian River, which is one of two major estuaries draining the region's coastal zone. These effects include the introduction of fresh water, which kills sensitive aquatic organisms like clams and oysters, and heavy metals and other pollutants. Policy 40.1 states in part: Proposed activities which would destroy or degrade the function of coastal wetlands . . . should not be permitted except where such activities are clearly in the public interest and there is no practical alternative which reduces or avoids impacts to wetlands. The redesignation of the four open spaces and the elimination of wetlands as a future land use is inconsistent with Policy 40.1. The use of the advisory word "should" in Policies 38.3, 38.5, 39.7, and 39.8 militates against a finding of inconsistency based upon a small number of specific provisions containing little more than recommendations. On balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of water resources, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(8)(b), Florida Statutes: 2. Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentive for their conservation. 4. Protect and use natural water systems in lieu of structural alternatives and restore modified systems. 8. Encourage the development of a strict floodplain management program by state and local governments designed to preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features. 10. Protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state. 12. Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated . . . stormwater runoff into the waters of the state. Under the category of natural systems and recreational lands, the state plan includes the following policies at Section 187.201(10)(b), Florida Statutes: Conserve . . . wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values. 7. Protect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value. The above-cited policies are clear and specific. On balance, the Plan's treatment of wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, as well as estuarine waters, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation habitats, and water quality, is inconsistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. On balance, the Plan is incompatible with and fails to further the state plan. The Plan is therefore inconsistent with the state plan. Historic Resources Internal Consistency The Plan is internally consistent with respect to historic resources. No material inconsistency exists with respect to the identification and protection afforded historic resources by the Plan. All relevant provisions of the Plan are oriented toward the protection of historic resources. Objective 3.1.4 promises the protection and preservation of historically significant housing. Policy 3.1.4.7 states that the City will identify historically significant housing and structures annually. Policy 1.5.3 provides that the City will protect historic resources by the education of the public, consideration of the establishment of an historic district, and purchase of development rights. Objective 1.5 states that in one year all development must be consistent with the Plan's objectives for the protection of historic resources. The above-described objectives and policies are supported by the data and analysis. As revised, the Background Analysis contains a map entitled the Cocoa historic district and an inventory of the 72 properties depicted on the map. Rule 9J-5.006(4)(a)10., Florida Administrative Code, requires the inclusion in the Future Land Use Map of historically significant properties meriting protection and the boundaries of any historic district. In the responses to the ORC, the City states that "no . . . historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city." There is some conflict between the acknowledgement of an historic district and claim that no historic resource land use categories are applicable for the city. However, on balance, the inconsistency is immaterial. Unlike the situation with respect to wetlands, drainage, and floodplains, the Plan provisions protecting historic resources can be carried out without the designation of an historic district on the Future Land Use Map. 2. Consistency with the Regional Plan Two "issues" of the plan of the Regional Planning Council are devoted to historic resources. Issue 61 concerns access to cultural and historical resources. Issue 62 concerns the development of cultural and historical programs. Policy 61.1 states that historical resources "shall" be properly identified and evaluated and "should" be protected and preserved. Policy 61.3 states that local governments should adhere to the requirements of the Act regarding the inclusion of known historically sensitive resources in existing and future land use maps and the treatment of historical resources in the coastal management element, where applicable. Policy 61.5 provides that the local government "shall," "to the maximum practical extent," avoid or reduce adverse impacts of adjacent land uses on historical sites listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places. Policy 62.5 states that historic resources listed or eligible for listing on the Florida Master Site File or National Register of Historic Places "shall be taken into consideration" in all capital improvement projects. The Plan could have gone farther to promote the preservation of historic resources, especially from the adverse impact of nearby development and redevelopment. The most obvious way in which to achieve this goal would be through the designation of an historic land use category. However, on balance, the Plan is not inconsistent with the policies of the regional plan. 3. Consistency with the State Plan Under the category of cultural and historical resources, the state plan includes the following policies under Section 187.201(19)(b), Florida Statutes: 3. Ensure the identification, evaluation, and protection of archaeological folk heritage and historic resources properties of the state's diverse ethnic population. Encourage the rehabilitation and sensitive, adaptive use of historic properties through technical assistance and economic incentive programs. Ensure that historic resources are taken into consideration in the planning of all capital programs and projects at all level of government and that such programs and projects are carried out in a manner which recognizes the preservation of historic resources. The Plan's treatment of historic resources is consistent with the above-described policies of the state plan. Redevelopment Plan The omission of the redevelopment plan earlier adopted by the City, the failure to describe in the Plan redevelopment programs, activities, and land development regulations, and the exclusion from the Coastal Management Element of a redevelopment component did not render the Plan inconsistent internally or with the regional or state plans.
Conclusions Jurisdiction 86 Standing 88 The Act 91 Public Participation 91 Elements Required of All Plans 94 General 94 Future Land Use Element and Map 96 Public Facilities Element 97 Conservation Element 99 Housing Element 100 Capital Improvements Element 100 Coastal Management Element 101 Miscellaneous Elements 104 Determination of Noncompliance 105 General 105 Wetlands, Drainage, and Floodplains 106 Historic Resources 108 Remedial Action 108 RECOMMENDATION 108
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Community Affairs determine that the Plan is not in compliance and, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, submit this Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of an appropriate final order. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1989. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-6338GM AND 89-0291GM Treatment Accorded the Proposed Findings of Petitioners Austin, Houston, and Dorn 1-16 Adopted. 17 Adopted in substance. However, Ms. Lawandales maintained in her office a color-coded map through much, if not all, of the planning process. 18-19 Rejected as subordinate. 20-21 Adopted. Rejected to the extent that the finding suggests that the Planning and Zoning Board did not intend that the City Council adopt the Plan. Although the Planning and Zoning Board did not formally recommend adoption by the City Council, the Board intended that the City Council adopt the Plan. Adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. First four sentences adopted or adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. 26-27 Adopted in substance. 28-30 Rejected as subordinate. 31-33 Adopted in substance. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. 38-40 Rejected as irrelevant. 41 Rejected as subordinate. 42-43 Adopted. 44-46 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Adopted in substance. 49-51 Rejected as irrelevant. 52 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 53-54 Rejected as recitation of testimony. 55 Adopted. 56-58 Rejected as irrelevant, except that the proposed finding that DCA found the Plan to be in compliance after using a balancing test is adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 61-62 Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 65-66 Rejected as irrelevant. 67-69 and 71 Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not finding of fact. 72-83 Rejected as irrelevant and against the greater weight of the evidence. 84-86 Rejected as irrelevant. Specific objectives and policies are insufficiently specific and, in certain respects, various Plan provisions represent nothing more than an intent to plan at a later date. However, such deficiencies must be evaluated in the context of all of the provisions of the entire Plan. After doing so, the only places at which the lack of specificity and deferral of planning are generate unlawful inconsistencies have been described in the recommended order. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance except that last sentence of Paragraph 91 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 92-93 Rejected as irrelevant. 94 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 95-98 Rejected as irrelevant. 99 and 111 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 100-110 and 112 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence. 113 Rejected as not finding of fact as to the expertise of the witness. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence as to the inconsistency in the Plan's treatment of historic resources. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioners Hendry There are no rulings on the proposed findings of Petitioners Hendry due to the fact that it has been determined that they lack standing. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DCA 1-4 Adopted. 5-18 Rejected as legal argument. 19-40 Adopted. 41 Rejected as irrelevant. 42-56 Adopted. 57 First sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence adopted. 58-69 Adopted. 70 Adopted in substance. 71-72 Adopted. 73 First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 74-75 Adopted in substance. Adopted. Rejected as legal argument. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Cocoa I-IV Adopted or adopted in substance. Adopted except that Paragraphs B and C are rejected as legal argument. Adopted except that Paragraphs B.5, B.7, B.13, and B.14 are rejected as irrelevant and Paragraph B.8.f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Adopted or adopted in substance except that Paragraph G is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Judith E. Koons Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 1149 Lake Drive, Suite 201 Cocoa, FL 32922 David P. Hendry, pro se 17 Riverside Drive, #2 Cocoa, FL 32922 David J. Russ, Senior Attorney Rhoda P. Glasco, Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Bradly Roger Bettin Amari, Theriac, Roberts & Runyons 96 Willard Street, Suite 302 Cocoa, FL 32922 Thomas G. Pelham Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Laurence Keesey General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDERS ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION OMEGA AUSTIN, BEATRICE HOUSTON, and MARY DORN, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-6338GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. / DAVID P. HENDRY, SR. and LOULA P. HENDRY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 89-31 DOAH CASE NO. 88-0291GM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS and CITY OF COCOA, Respondents. /
The Issue The issue is whether a Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan, known as Apoxsee,2 was adopted in 1981. In 1989, the County adopted a revised and updated version of that Plan. The current Plan was adopted in 1997 and is based on an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) approved by the County on February 20, 1996. After a lengthy process which began several years earlier, included input from all segments of the community, and involved thousands of hours of community service, on February 28, 2002, the County submitted to the Department a package of amendments comprised of an overlay system (with associated goals, objectives, and policies) based on fifty- year projections of growth. The amendments were in response to Future Land Use Policy 4.7 which mandated the preparation of a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, which had served as an urban growth boundary in the County since the mid-1970s. Through the overlays, the amendments generally established areas in the County for the location of villages, hamlets, greenways, and conservation subdivisions. On May 10, 2002, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). In response to the ORC, on July 10, 2002, the County enacted Ordinance No. 2001-76, which included various changes to the earlier amendment package and generally established six geographic overlay areas in the County, called Resource Management Areas (RMAs), with associated goals, objectives, and policies in the Future Land Use Chapter. The RMAs include an Urban/Suburban RMA, an Economic Development RMA, a Rural Heritage/Estate RMA, a Village/Estate/Open Space RMA, a Greenway RMA, and an Agriculture/Reserve RMA. The amendments are more commonly known as Sarasota 2050. The revised amendment package was transmitted to the Department on July 24, 2002. On September 5, 2002, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to find the amendments in compliance. On September 26, 2002, Manasota-88, Compton, and Ayech (and four large landowners who subsequently voluntarily dismissed their Petitions) filed their Petitions challenging the new amendments. In their Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Manasota-88 and Compton contend that the amendments are not in compliance for the following reasons: vagueness and uncertainties of policies; an inconsistent, absent or flawed population demand and urban capacity allocation methodology; inconsistent planning time frames; overallocation of urban capacity; urban sprawl; failure to coordinate future land uses with planned, adequate and financially feasible facilities and services; failure to protect wetlands, wildlife and other natural resources; failure to meet requirements for multimodal and area-wide concurrency standards; failure to provide affordable housing; land use incompatibility of land uses and conditions; indefinite mixed uses and standards; lack of intergovernmental coordination; and inadequate opportunities for public participation the Amendment is internally inconsistent within itself and with other provisions of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, is not supported by appropriate data and analysis and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the Strategic Regional Policy [P]lan of the Southwest Regional Planning Council. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ayech has relied on the same grounds as Manasota-88 and Compton (except for the allegation that the amendments lack intergovernmental coordination). In addition, she has added an allegation that the amendments fail to adequately plan "for hurricane evacuation." The Parties The Department is the state planning agency responsible for review and approval of comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto. The County adopted the amendments being challenged here. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that Petitioners either reside, own property, or own or operate a business within the County, and that they made comments, objections, or recommendations to the County prior to the adoption of the Amendment. These stipulated facts establish that Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to initiate this action. Given the above stipulation, there was no testimony presented by Manasota-88 describing that organization's activities or purpose, or by Compton individually. As to Ayech, however, she is a resident of the County who lives on a 5-acre farm in the "Old Miakka" area east of Interstate 75, zoned OUE, which is designated as a rural classification under the Plan. The activities on her farm are regulated through County zoning ordinances. The Amendment Generally Under the current Plan, the County uses a number of growth management strategies including, but not limited to: an urban services area (USA) boundary; a minimum residential capacity "trigger" mechanism, that is, a minimum dwelling unit capacity of 133 percent of housing demand projected for a ten- year plan period following each EAR, to determine when the USA boundary may need to be moved; a future urban area; and concurrency requirements. Outside the USA, development is generally limited to no greater than one residential unit per five acres in rural designated areas or one unit per two acres in semi-rural areas. The current Plan also includes a Capital Improvement Element incorporating a five-year and a twenty-plus-year planning period. The five-year list of infrastructure projects is costed and prioritized. In the twenty-plus-year list, infrastructure projects are listed in alphabetical order by type of facility and are not costed or prioritized. The construction of infrastructure projects is implemented through an annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with projects generally being moved between the twenty-plus-year time frame and the five-year time frame and then into the CIP. All of the County's future urban capacity outside the USA and the majority of capacity remaining inside the USA are in the southern part of the County (south of Preymore Street extended, and south of Sarasota Square Mall). As the northern part of the County's urban capacity nears buildout, the County has experienced considerable market pressure to create more urban designated land in the northern part of the County and/or to convert undeveloped rural land into large lot, ranchette subdivisions. Because of the foregoing conditions, and the requirement in Future Land Use Policy 4.1.7 that it prepare a year 2050 plan for areas east of Interstate 75, the County began seeking ways to encourage what it considers to be a "more livable, sustainable form of development." This led to the adoption of Sarasota 2050. As noted above, Sarasota 2050 consists of six geographic overlay areas in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), called RMAs, with associated goals, objectives, and policies. As described in the Plan, the purpose and objective of the Amendment is as follows: The Sarasota County Resource Management Area (RMA) Goal, Objectives and Policies are designed as a supplement to the Future Land Use Chapter of Apoxsee. The RMAs function as an overlay to the adopted Future Land Use Map and do not affect any rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or the Land Development Regulations of Sarasota County or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that Policy TDR 2.2 shall apply to land located within the Rural/Heritage Estate, Village/ Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. To accomplish this purpose and objective, the RMAs and their associated policies are expressly designed to preserve and strengthen existing communities; provide for a variety of land uses and lifestyles to support diverse ages, incomes, and family sizes; preserve environmental systems; direct population growth away from floodplains; avoid urban sprawl; reduce automobile trips; create efficiency in planning and provision of infrastructure; provide County central utilities; conserve water and energy; allocate development costs appropriately; preserve rural character, including opportunities for agriculture; and balance jobs and housing. The Amendment creates an optional, alternative land use policy program in the Plan. To take advantage of the benefits and incentives of this alternative program, a property owner must be bound by the terms and conditions in the goal, objectives, and policies. Policy RMA1.1 explains it this way: The additional development opportunities afforded by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies are provided on the condition that they are implemented and can be enforced as an entire package. For example, the densities and intensities of land use made available by the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies may not be approved for use outside the policy framework and implementing regulatory framework set forth herein. Policy RMA1.3 expresses the Amendment’s optional, alternative relationship to the existing Plan as follows: The Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall not affect the existing rights of property owners to develop their property as permitted under the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Development Regulations or previously approved development orders; provided, however, that TDR 2.2 [relating to transfer of development rights] shall apply to land located within the Rural Heritage/ Estate, Village/Open Space, Greenway and Agricultural Reserve RMAs where an increase in residential density is sought. If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. Therefore, if a landowner chooses to pursue the alternative development opportunities, he essentially forfeits his current development rights and accepts the terms and conditions of Sarasota 2050. The RMAs The RMAs were drawn in a series of overlays to the FLUM based on the unique characteristics of different areas of the County, and they result in apportioning the entire County into six RMAs. They are designed to identify, maintain, and enhance the diversity of urban and rural land uses in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Urban/Suburban RMA is an overlay of the USA and is comparable to the growth and development pattern defined by the Plan. Policies for this RMA call for neighborhood planning, providing resources for infrastructure, and encouraging development (or urban infill) in a portion of the Future USA identified in the Amendment as the Settlement Area. The Economic Development RMA consists of land inside the USA that is located along existing commercial corridors and at the interchanges of Interstate 75. In this RMA, the policies in the Amendment provide for facilitating economic development and redevelopment by preparing critical area plans, encouraging mixed uses, providing for multi-modal transportation opportunities, creating land development regulations to encourage economic development, and providing more innovative level of service standards that are in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Greenway RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are of special environmental value or are important for environmental connectivity. Generally, the Greenway RMA is comprised of public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, existing preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands adjacent to the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow- ways and wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Priority Protection Program (ESLPPP), and lands deemed to be of high ecological value. This RMA is accompanied by a map depicting the general location of the features sought to be protected. The Rural/Heritage Estate Resource Management RMA consists of lands outside the USA that are presently rural and very low density residential in character and development and are planned to remain in that form. In other words, the RMA's focus is on protecting the existing rural character of this area. To accomplish this objective, and to discourage inefficient use of land in the area, the Amendment contains policies that will create and implement neighborhood plans focusing on strategies and measures to preserve the historic rural character of the RMA. It also provides incentives to encourage the protection of agricultural uses and natural resources through measures such as the creation of land development regulations for a Conservation Subdivision form of use and development in the area. The Agricultural Reserve RMA is made up of the existing agricultural areas in the eastern and southeastern portions of the County. The Amendment contains policies that call for the amendment of the County’s Zoning and Land Development Regulations to support, preserve, protect, and encourage agricultural and ranching uses and activities in the area. Finally, the Village/Open Space RMA is the centerpiece of the RMA program. It consists of land outside the USA that is planned to be the location of mixed-use developments called Villages and Hamlets. The Village/Open Space RMA is primarily the area where the increment of growth and development associated with the longer, 2050 planning horizon will be accommodated. Villages and Hamlets are form-specific, using connected neighborhoods as basic structural units that form compact, mixed-use, master-planned communities. Neighborhoods provide for a broad range and variety of housing types to accommodate a wide range of family sizes and incomes. Neighborhoods are characterized by a fully connected system of streets and roads that encourage alternative means of transportation such as walking, bicycle, or transit. Permanently dedicated open space is also an important element of the neighborhood form. Neighborhoods are to be designed so that a majority of the housing units are within walking distance of a Neighborhood Center and are collectively served by Village Centers. Village Centers are characterized by being internally designed to the surrounding neighborhoods and provide mixed uses. They are designed specifically to serve the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental use and service needs of the residents of the Village. Densities and intensities in Village Centers are higher than in neighborhoods to achieve a critical mass capable of serving as the economic nucleus of the Village. Villages must be surrounded by large expanses of open space to protect the character of the rural landscape and to provide a noticeable separation between Villages and rural areas. Hamlets are intended to be designed as collections of rural homes and lots clustered together around crossroads that may include small-scale commercial developments with up to 20,000 square feet of space, as well as civic buildings or shared amenities. Each Hamlet is required to have a public/civic focal point, such as a public park. By clustering and focusing development and population in the Village and Hamlet forms, less land is needed to accommodate the projected population and more land is devoted to open space. The Village/Open Space RMA is an overlay and includes FLUM designations. According to the Amendment, the designations become effective if and when a development master plan for a Village or Hamlet is approved for the property. The Urban/Suburban, Agricultural Reserve, Rural Heritage/Estate, Greenway, and Economic Development RMAs are overlays only and do not include or affect FLUM designations. For these five RMAs, the FLUM designation controls land use, and any changes in use that could be made by using the overlay policies of the Amendment that are not consistent with the land's future land use designation would require a land use redesignation amendment to the Plan before such use could be allowed. Data and analysis in support of the amendment The County did an extensive collection and review of data in connection with the Amendment. In addition to its own data, data on wetlands, soils, habitats, water supplies, and drainage with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) were reviewed. Data from the BEBR were used in deriving population and housing demand forecasts for the 2050 planning period. Transportation system modeling was performed using data from the local Metropolitan Planning Agency (MPA). The MPA uses the Florida State Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS), which is commonly used throughout the State for transportation modeling and planning purposes. Expert technical assistance was also provided by various consulting firms, including the Urban Land Institute, Analytica, Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., Urban Strategies, Inc., Duany-Plater-Zyberk, Glatting Jackson, Fishkind & Associates, Stansbury Resolutions by Design, and Kumpe & Associates. In addition, the Urban Land Institute prepared a comprehensive report on the benefits of moving towards new urbanist and smart growth forms east of Interstate 75 and a build-out 2050 planning horizon. Finally, topical reports were prepared on each of the RMAs, as well as on public participation, financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality, market analysis, and infrastructure analysis. In sum, the data gathered, analyzed, and used by the County were the best available data; the analyses were done in a professionally acceptable manner; and for reasons more fully explained below, the County reacted appropriately to such data. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners have raised a wide range of objections to the Amendment, including a lack of data and analyses to support many parts of the Amendment; flawed or professionally unacceptable population and housing projections; a lack of need; the encouragement of urban sprawl; a lack of coordination between the future land uses associated with the Amendment and the availability of capital facilities; a flawed transportation model; a lack of meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines; internal inconsistency; a failure to protect natural resources; a lack of economic feasibility and fiscal neutrality; and inadequate public participation and intergovernmental coordination. Use of a 50-year planning horizon Petitioners first contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because it has a fifty-year planning time frame rather than a five or ten-year time frame, and because it does not have the same time frame as the Plan itself. Section 163.3177(5)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan must include at least two planning periods, one covering at least the first 5-year period occurring after the plan's adoption and one covering at least a 10-year period." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(4). However, nothing in the statute or rule prohibits a plan from containing more than two planning horizons, or for an amendment to add an additional fifty-year planning period. Therefore, the objection is without merit. Population and housing need projections For a fifty-year plan, the County had to undertake an independent analysis and projection of future population in the County. In doing so, the County extrapolated from BEBR medium range 2030 projections and calculated a need for 82,000 new homes over the 2050 period. Examining building permit trends over the prior ten years, the County calculated a high- end projection of 110,000 new homes. The County developed two sets of estimates since it is reasonable and appropriate to use more than one approach to produce a range of future projections. The County based its planning on the lower number, but also assessed water needs relative to the higher number. The data and sources used by the County in making the population and housing need projections are data and sources commonly used by local governments in making such projections. The County's expert demographer, Dr. Fishkind, independently evaluated the methodologies used by the County and pointed out that the projections came from the BEBR mid- range population projections for the County and that, over the years, these projections have been shown to be reliably accurate. The projections were then extended by linear extrapolation and converted to a housing demand in a series of steps which conformed with good planning practices. The projections were also double-checked by looking at the projected levels of building permits based on historical trends in the previous ten years' time. These two sets of calculations were fairly consistent given the lengthy time frame and the inherent difficulty in making long-range forecasts. Dr. Fishkind also found the extrapolation from 2030 to 2050 using a linear approach to be appropriate. This is because medium-term population projections are linear, and extrapolation under this approach is both reasonable and proper. Likewise, Dr. Fishkind concluded that comparing the projections to the projected level of building permits based on historical trends is also a reasonable and acceptable methodology and offers another perspective. Manasota-88's and Compton's expert demographer, Dr. Smith, disagreed that the County’s methodology was professionally acceptable and opined instead that the mid- range 2050 housing need was 76,800 units. He evidently accepted the BEBR mid-range extrapolation done by the County for the year-round resident population of the County through 2050, but disagreed on the number of people associated with the functional population of the County. To calculate the actual number of persons in the County and the number of homes necessary to accommodate those persons, it is necessary to add the persons who reside in the County year-round (the "resident population") to the number of people who live in the County for only a portion of the year (the "seasonal population"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.005(2)(e)("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") The BEBR projections are based on only the resident population. The County’s demographer assigned a 20 percent multiplier to the resident population to account for the seasonal population. This multiplier has been in the Plan for many years, and it has been used by the County (with the Department's approval) in calculating seasonal population for comprehensive planning purposes since at least 1982. Rather than use a 20 percent multiplier, Dr. Smith extrapolated the seasonal population trend between the 1990 census and the 2000 census and arrived at a different number for total county housing demand. Even so, based on the fifty- year time frame of the Amendment, the 2050 housing demand number estimated by Dr. Smith (76,800 units) is for all practical purposes identical to the number projected by the County (82,000). Indeed, Dr. Fishkind opined that there is no statistically significant difference between the County's and Dr. Smith's projections. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area." The "need" issue is also a factor to be considered in an urban sprawl analysis. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The County's evidence established that the allocation ratio of housing supply to housing need associated with the best-case scenario, that is, a buildout of existing areas and the maximum possible number of units being approved in the Villages, was nearly 1:1. Adding the total number of remaining potential dwelling units in the County at the time of the Amendment, the total amount of potential supply for the 2050 period was 82,500 units. This ratio is more conservative than the ratios found in other comprehensive plans determined to be in compliance by the Department. In those plans, the ratios tend to be much greater than 1:1. Petitioners objected to the amount of allocation, but offered no independent allocation ratio that should have been followed. Instead, Manasota-88's and Compton's expert undertook an independent calculation of potential units which resulted in a number of units in excess of 100,000 for the next twenty years. However, the witness was not capable of recalling, defending, or explaining these calculations on cross-examination, and therefore they have been given very little weight. Moreover, the witness clearly did not factor the transfer of density units or the limitations associated with the transfer of such units required by the policies in the Amendment for assembling units in the Villages. Given these considerations, it is at least fairly debatable that Sarasota 2050 is based on relevant and appropriate population and housing need projections that were prepared in a professionally acceptable manner using professionally acceptable methodologies. Land use suitability Petitioners next contend that the identification of the RMAs is not based on adequate data and analyses of land use suitability. In this regard, Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that future land use plans be based, in part, on surveys, studies, and data regarding "the character of undeveloped land." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(2), which sets forth the factors that are to be evaluated when formulating future land use designations. The Amendment was based upon a land use suitability analysis which considered soils, wetlands, vegetation, and archeological sites. There is appropriate data and analyses in the record related to such topics as "vegetation and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The data were collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner, and the identification of the RMAs reacts appropriately to that data and analyses. The County's evidence demonstrated that the locations chosen for the particular RMAs are appropriate both as to location and suitability for development. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment is supported by adequate data and analyses establishing land use suitability. Urban sprawl and need Petitioners further contend that the Amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5), and that it is not supported by an appropriate demonstration of need. Need is, of course, a component of the overall goal of planning to avoid urban sprawl. The emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County tends toward large-lot development. Here, the RMA concept offers a mixture of uses and requires an overall residential density range of three to six units per net developable Village acre, whereas most of the same residential areas of the County presently appear to have residential densities of one unit per five acres or one unit per ten acres. If the Villages (and Hamlets) are developed according to Plan, they will be a more desirable and useful tool to fight this large-lot land use pattern of current development and constitute an effective anti-urban sprawl alternative. Petitioners also allege that the Amendment will allow urban sprawl for essentially three reasons: first, there is no "need" for the RMA plan; second, there are insufficient guarantees that any future Village or Hamlet will actually be built as a Village or similar new urbanist-type development; and third, the Amendment will result in accelerated and unchecked growth in the County. The more persuasive evidence showed that none of these concerns are justified, or that the concerns are beyond fair debate. The Amendment is crafted with a level of detail to ensure that a specific new urbanist form of development occurs on land designated as Village/Open Space land use. (The "new urbanistic form" of development is characterized by walkable neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing for a range of ages and family sizes; provide civic, commercial, and office opportunities; and facilitate open space and conservation of natural environments.) The compact, mixed-use land use pattern of the Villages and Hamlets is regarded as Urban Villages, a development form designed and recognized as a tool to combat urban sprawl. "New town" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.003(80) as follows: "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. . The Village/Open Space RMA is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, that is, the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development. Urban Villages referenced in the Rule are also a category and development form expressly recognized to combat urban sprawl. The Village/Open Space RMA policies include the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, and the density or intensity of each use. Villages must include a mix of uses, as well as a range of housing types capable of accommodating a broad range of family sizes and incomes. The non-residential uses in the Village, such as commercial, office, public/civic, educational, and recreational uses, must be capable of providing for most of the daily and weekly retail, office, civic, and governmental needs of the residents, and must be phased concurrently with the residential development of the Village. The policies set the minimum and maximum size for any Village development. Other policies establish standards for the minimum open space outside the developed area in the Village. The minimum density of a Village is three dwelling units per acre, the maximum density is six dwelling units per acre, and the target density is five dwelling units per acre. An adequate mix of non-residential uses must be phased with each phase or subphase of development. The maximum amount of commercial space in Neighborhood Centers is 20,000 square feet. Village Centers can be no more than 100 acres, the maximum amount of commercial space is 300,000 square feet, and the minimum size is 50,000 square feet. The Town Center may have between 150,000 and 425,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Villages must have sufficient amounts of non-residential space to satisfy the daily and weekly needs of the residents for such uses. Percentage minimums and maximums for the land area associated with uses in Village Centers and the Town Center are also expressed in the policies. Hamlets have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per acre and a minimum density of .4 dwelling unit per acre. The maximum amount of commercial space allowed in a Hamlet is 10,000 square feet. The number of potential dwelling units in the Village/Open Space RMA is limited to the total number of acres of land in the Village/Open Space and Greenway RMAs that are capable of transferring development rights. Calculations in the data and analyses submitted to the Department, as well as testimony at the hearing, set this number at 47,000-47,500 units once lands designated for public acquisition under the County’s ESLPPP are properly subtracted. To take advantage of the Village option and the allowable densities associated with Villages, property owners in the Village/Open Space RMA must assemble units above those allowed by the Plan's FLUM designation by acquiring and transferring development rights from the open space, the associated greenbelt and Greenway, the Village Master Plan, and other properties outside the Village. The means and strategy by which transfer sending and receiving areas are identified and density credits are acquired are specified in the Amendment. There are three village areas (South, Central, and North) in the Village/Open Space RMA, and the amendment limits the number of Villages that may be approved in each of the areas. In the South and Central Village areas, a second village cannot be approved for fifteen years after the first village is approved. The amount of village development in the South Village must also be phased to the construction of an interchange at Interstate 75 and Central Sarasota Parkway. In the North Village area, only one village may be approved. In addition, to further limit the amount and rate of approvals and development of Villages, village rezonings and master plans cannot be approved if the approval would cause the potential dwelling unit capacity for urban residential development within the unincorporated county to exceed 150 percent of the forecasted housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period. To evaluate the housing demand for the subsequent twenty-year period, among other things, Policy VOS2.1(a)2. sets forth the following items to be considered in determining housing demand: Housing demand shall be calculated by the County and shall consider the medium range population projections of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Sarasota County, projected growth in the Municipalities and residential building permit activity in the Municipalities and unincorporated County. Petitioners contend that Policy VOS2.1 is an illegal population methodology. However, the County established that the Policy merely sets forth factors to be considered and does not express a specific methodology. The County’s position is consistent with the language in the policy. Petitioners also contend that the policy is vague and ambiguous because the outcome of the application of the factors is not ordained (since weights are not assigned to each factor), and because building permit activity is not a valid or proper factor to consider in making housing demand projections. The evidence establishes, however, that the factors are all proper criteria to consider in making housing projections, and that a fixed assignment of weights for each item would be inappropriate. In fact, even though Manasota- 88's and Compton's demographer stated that building permit activity is not an appropriate factor to consider, he has written articles that state just the opposite. The County also established that Sumter County (in central Florida) had examined and used building permit activity in projecting population in connection with their comprehensive plan, and had done so after consulting with BEBR and receiving confirmation that this factor was appropriate. That building permit activity demonstrated that population projections and housing demand were higher in Sumter County than BEBR was projecting at the time, and that Sumter County’s own projections were more accurate than BEBR's projections. Petitioners essentially claim that the County should only use BEBR's medium range projections in calculating future housing needs. However, the evidence does not support this contention. Future housing need is determined by dividing future population by average household size. Because BEBR's medium population projections for a county include all municipalities in the county, they must always be modified to reflect the unincorporated county. Moreover, BEBR's projections are the result of a methodology that first extrapolates for counties, but then adjusts upward or downward to match the state population projection. A projection based on this medium range projection, but adjusted by local data, local information, and local trends, is a more accurate indicator of population, and therefore housing need, than simply the BEBR county-wide medium range projection. At the same time, future conditions are fluid rather than static, and the clear objective of Policy VOS2.1 is to project housing demand as accurately as possible. Assigning fixed weights to each factor would not account for changing conditions and data at particular points in time and would be more likely to lead to inaccurate projections. As specified in Policy VOS2.1, the factors can properly serve as checks or balances on the accuracy of the projections. Given that the clear intent of Policy VOS2.1 is to limit housing capacity and supply, accurately determining the housing demand is the object of the policy, and it is evident that the factors should be flexibly applied rather than fixed as to value, weight, or significance. There is also persuasive evidence that the RMA amendments can be reasonably expected to improve the Plan by providing an anti-sprawl alternative. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) directly addresses this situation in the following manner: If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. (emphasis added) Petitioners did not offer persuasive evidence to refute the fact that the RMAs would improve the existing development pattern in the County. While Petitioners alleged that the Amendment allows for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development, the evidence shows, for example, that the County's current development pattern in the USA has an overall residential density between two and three units per acre. The Rural Heritage/Estate and Agricultural Reserve RMAs may maintain or reduce the existing density found in the Plan by the transfer of development rights. The three to six dwelling units per net developable residential acre required for Village development in the Village/Open Space RMA, coupled with the Amendment's specific policies directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl land use form. They also provide a density of focused development that diminishes, rather than exacerbates, the existing potential for sprawl found in the Plan. In reaching his opinions on urban sprawl, Manasota- 88's and Compton's expert indicated that he only assessed the question of sprawl in light of the thirteen primary indicators of sprawl identified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g). Unlike that limited analysis, the County's and the Department's witnesses considered the sprawl question under all of the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and concluded that the Amendment did not violate the urban sprawl prohibition. As they correctly observed, there are other portions of the law that are critically relevant to the analysis of sprawl in the context of this Amendment. Urban villages described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.003(80) are a category and development form expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) recognizes urban villages and new towns as two "innovative and flexible" ways in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the Village form contained in the Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. The types and mix of land uses in the amendment are consistent with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the Amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the County and serves to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. It is also beyond fair debate that the Amendment describes an innovative and flexible planning and development strategy that is expressly encouraged and recognized by Section 163.3177(11), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l) as a means to avoid and prevent sprawl. Natural resource protection and wetlands impacts Petitioners next allege that the Amendment fails to protect natural resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. and 9J-5.013(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (b). At a minimum, by providing for a Greenway area, clustering of development, large open space requirements, wildlife crossings, floodplain preservation and protection, greenbelts and buffers, transfers of development rights placing higher value on natural resources, best management practices, and the encouragement of development in the RMA pattern, the RMA plan creates a level of natural resource protection greater than the County’s existing Plan. Though Petitioners disagreed with the extent and breadth of the protections afforded by the Amendment, they could only point to one area where protections may not be as significant as in the Plan: wetland impacts in Villages where the Village Center is involved. On this issue, Policy VOS1.5 provides that: The County recognizes that prevention of urban sprawl and the creation of compact, mixed-use development support an important public purpose. Therefore, the approval of a Master Development Plan for a Village may permit impacts to wetlands within the Village Center itself only when it is determined that the proposed wetland impact is unavoidable to achieve this public purpose and only the minimum wetland impact is proposed. Such approval does not eliminate the need to comply with the other wetland mitigation requirements of the Environmental Technical Manual of the Land Development Regulations, including the requirement for suitable mitigation. The Board of County Commissioners will review such proposals on a case-by-case basis as part of the Master Development Plan review process. Contrary to Petitioners' claims, the Policy does not encourage wetland destruction. Impacts to wetlands with appropriate mitigation are allowed under this policy only when the impact is "unavoidable" and "the minimum impact is proposed." The term "unavoidable impact" is not an ambiguous term in the area of wetland regulation. It is not unbridled in the context of the policy, nor is it ambiguous when properly viewed in the context of the overriding concern of the amendment to "preserve environmental systems." The term "unavoidable impact" is used and has application and meaning in other wetland regulatory programs, such as the federal Clean Water Act and the regulations implementing that law. Regulations based on "unavoidable impacts," both in this policy as well as in the state and federal regulations, can be applied in a lawfully meaningful way. Considering the policies regarding environmental systems, habitats, wildlife, and their protection, especially when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan, the Amendment as a whole reacts appropriately to the data and can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The Greenway RMA was based on data and analyses that generated a series of environmental resource overlays, that when completed, comprised the Greenway RMA. The overlays layered public lands, rivers and connected wetlands, preservation lands, ecologically valuable lands associated with the Myakka River system, named creeks and flow-ways, wetlands connected to such creeks and flow-ways, lands listed as environmentally sensitive under the County’s ESLPPP, lands deemed to be of high ecological value, and appropriate connections. The evidence establishes that the staff and consultants reviewed and consulted a wide range of professionally appropriate resources in analyzing and designating the Greenway RMA. Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Greenway RMA is inadequate in the sense that the RMA does not include all appropriate areas of the County. This claim was based on testimony that the Greenway did not include certain areas west and south of Interstate 75 in the Urban/Suburban and Economic Development RMAs, as well as a few conservation habitats (preserve areas) set aside by Development of Regional Impacts or restricted by conservation easements. However, the preserve areas and conservation easement properties will be preserved and maintained in the same fashion as the Greenway, so for all practical purposes their non-inclusion in the Greenway is not significant. The area located south of Interstate 75 was found to be the Myakka State Forest, which is in the planning jurisdiction of the City of North Port. Manasota-88's and Compton's witness (an employee of the FFWCC) also advocated a slightly different greenway plan for fish and wildlife resources, which he considered to be a better alternative than the one selected by the County. The witness conceded, however, that his alternative was only one of several alternative plans that the County could properly consider. In this regard, the County’s Greenway RMA reacts to data on a number of factors, only one of which is fish and wildlife. One important factor disregarded by the witness was the influence of private property rights on the designation of areas as greenway. While the FFWCC does not factor the rights of property owners in its identification of greenways, it is certainly reasonable and prudent for the County to do so. This is because the County’s regulatory actions may be the subject of takings claims and damages, and its planning actions are expected to avoid such occurrences. See § 163.3161(9), Fla. Stat. Petitioners also alleged that the lack of specific inclusion of the term "A-E Flood Zone" in the Greenway designation criteria of Policy GS1.1 does not properly react to the data and analyses provided in the Greenway Final Support Document. (That policy enumerates the component parts of the Greenway RMA.) Any such omission is insignificant, however, because in the Greenway RMA areas, the A-E Flood Zone and the areas associated with the other criteria already in Policy GS1.1 are 90 percent coterminous. In addition, when an application for a master plan for a Village is filed, the master plan must specifically identify and protect flood plain areas. At the same time, through fine tuning, the development review process, the open space requirements, and the negotiation of the planned unit development master plan, the remaining 10 percent of the A-E Flood Zone will be protected like a greenway. Greenway crossings The Greenway RMA is designed in part to provide habitat and corridors for movement of wildlife. In the initial drafts of the Amendment, future road crossings of the Greenway were located to minimize the amount of Greenway traversed by roads. After further review by the County, and consultation with a FFWCC representative, the number of crossings was reduced to eleven. The road crossings in the Amendment are not great in length, nor do they bisect wide expanses of the Greenway. All of the proposed crossings traverse the Greenway in areas where the Greenway is relatively narrow. Of the eleven crossings in the Greenway, three crossings presently exist, and these crossings will gain greater protection for wildlife through the design requirements of Policy GS2.4 than they would under the current Plan. Petitioners also expressed concerns with the wording of Policy GS2.4 and contended that the policy was not specific enough with regard to how wildlife would be protected at the crossings. The policy provides that Crossings of the Greenway RMA by roads or utilities are discouraged. When necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry, however, transportation corridors within the Greenway RMA shall be designed as limited access facilities that include multi-use trails and prohibit non- emergency stopping except at designated scenic viewpoints. Roadway and associated utility corridors shall be designed to have minimal adverse impacts to the environment, including provisions for wildlife crossings based on accepted standards and including consideration of appropriate speed limits. Accordingly, under the policy, wildlife crossings must be designed to facilitate minimal adverse impacts on wildlife, and such designs must be "based on accepted standards." While Petitioners contended that what is required by "accepted standards" is vague and ambiguous, the County established that this language, taken individually or in the context of the policies of the Amendment, is specific and clear enough to establish that a crossing must be properly and professionally designed for the target species that can be expected to cross the Greenway at the particular location. It was also appropriate to design the crossing at the time of the construction of the crossing to best react to the species that will be expected to cross. Although Petitioners disagreed that the policy was acceptable, their witness agreed that it is essential to know what species are inhabiting a particular area before one can design a wildlife crossing that will protect the wildlife using the crossing. He further acknowledged that he typically designs crossings for the largest traveling species that his data indicates will cross the roadway. In deciding where to locate roads, as well as how they should be designed, crossings for wildlife are not the only matter with which the local government must be concerned. Indeed, if it were, presumably there would likely be no roads, or certainly far fewer places where automobiles could travel. To reflect legitimate planning, and to reasonably react to the data gathered by the local government, the County’s road network should reflect recognition of the data and an effort to balance the need for roads with the impacts of them on wildlife. The Amendment achieves this purpose. In summary, Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the crossings of the Greenway do not react appropriately to the data and analyses, or that the policies of the crossings are so inadequate as to violate the statute or rule. Transportation planning Manasota-88 and Compton next contend that the data and analyses for the transportation planning omit trips, overstate the potential intensity and density of land uses, and understate trips captured in the Villages. The transportation plan was based on use of the FSUTMS, a model recommended by the State and widely used by transportation planners for trip generation and modeling for comprehensive plan purposes. In developing the transportation plan, the County relied upon resources from the Highway Capacity Manual, the Transportation Research Board, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. It also reviewed the data and analyses based on the modeling performed in September 2001 in the Infrastructure Corridor Plan, an earlier transportation plan used by the County. To ensure that the 2001 model was still appropriate for the Amendment, the County conducted further review and analyses and determined that the modeling was reasonable for use in connection with the Amendment even though the intensity of development eventually provided for in the Villages was less than had been analyzed in the model. The evidence supports a finding that the data was the best available, and that they were evaluated in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence further shows that the Amendment identifies transportation system needs, and that the Amendment provides for transportation capital facilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. Transportation network modeling was performed for the County both with and without the 2050 Amendment. Based on the modeling, a table of road improvements needed to support the Amendment was made a part of the Amendment as Table RMA-1. Because the modeling factored more residential and non- residential development than was ultimately authorized by the Amendment, the identification of the level of transportation impacts was conservative, as were the improvements that would be needed. Manasota-88 and Compton correctly point out that the improvements contained in the Amendment are not funded for construction. Even so, this is not a defect in the Amendment because the improvements are not needed unless property owners choose to avail themselves of the 2050 options; if they do, they will be required to build the improvements themselves under the fiscal neutrality provisions of the Amendment. Further, the County’s CIP process moves improvements from the five-to-fifteen year horizon to the five-year CIP as the need arises. Thus, as development proposals for Villages or Hamlets are received and approved in the areas east of I-75, specific improvements would be identified and provided for in the development order, or could be placed in the County’s appropriate CIPs, as needed. The improvements necessary under the Amendment can be accommodated in the County’s normal capital improvements planning, and the transportation system associated with the Amendment can be coordinated with development under the Amendment in a manner that will assure that the impacts of development on the transportation system are addressed. It is noted that the Amendment requires additional transportation impact and improvement analysis at the time of master plan submittal and prior to approval of that plan. Accordingly, the Amendment satisfies the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 for transportation planning. The County used the best available data and reacted to that data in a professionally appropriate way and to the extent necessary as indicated by the data. As noted above, the transportation impacts and needs were conservatively projected, and the County was likely planning for more facilities than would be needed. It is beyond fair debate that the Amendment is supported by data and analyses. Utilities Manasota-88 and Compton also contend that the Amendment is not in compliance because the policies relating to capital facilities are not supported by data and analyses, and that there is a lack of available capital facilities to meet the demand. The County analyzed data on water supplies and demands and central wastewater facilities needs under the Amendment. The data on water supplies and demands were the best available data and included the District water supply plan as well as the County's water supply master plan. The data were analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner and the conclusions reached and incorporated into the Amendment are supported by the analyses. The utilities system for water and wastewater has been coordinated in the Amendment with the County’s CIP in a manner that will ensure that impacts on the utilities are addressed. The County established that there are more than adequate permittable sources of potable water to serve the needs associated with the Amendment, and that the needed capital facilities for water and wastewater can reasonably be provided through the policies of the Amendment. The evidence showed that the Amendment provides for capital facilities for utilities in a timely and financially feasible manner. The total water needs for the County through the year 2050 cannot be permitted at this time because the District, which is the permitting state agency, does not issue permits for periods greater than twenty years. Also, there must be a demonstrated demand for the resources within a 20- year time frame before a permit will issue. Nonetheless, the County is part of a multi-jurisdictional alliance that is planning for long-term water supplies and permitting well into the future. It has also merged its stormwater, utilities, and natural resources activities to integrate their goals, policies, and objectives for long-term water supply and conservation purposes. No specific CIP for water or wastewater supplies and facilities was adopted in the Amendment. The County currently has water and wastewater plans in its Capital Improvement Element that will accommodate growth and development under the land use policies of the Plan. From the list contained in the Capital Improvement Element an improvement schedule is developed, as well as a more specific five-year CIP. Only the latter, five-year program identifies funding and construction of projects, and the only projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element are projects that the County must fund and construct. Because of the optional nature of the Amendment, supplies and facilities needed for its implementation will only be capable of being defined if and when development under the Amendment is requested. At that time, the specific capital facility needs for the development can be assessed and provided for, and they can be made a part of the County’s normal capital facilities planning under the Plan's Capital Facilities Chapter and its related policies. Policy VOS 2.1 conditions approval of Village development on demonstrating the availability and permitability of water and other public facilities and services to serve the development. Further, the Amendment provides for timing and phasing of both Villages and development in Villages to assure that capital facilities planning, permitting, and construction are gradual and can be accommodated in the County's typical capital improvement plan programs. Most importantly, the fiscal neutrality policies of the Amendment assure that the County will not bear financial responsibility for the provision of water or the construction of water and wastewater capital facilities in the Village/Open Space RMA. Supplies and facilities are the responsibility of the developers of the Villages and Hamlets that will be served. Additionally, Policy VOS3.6 requires that all irrigation in the Village/Open Space RMA (which therefore would include Villages and Hamlets) cannot be by wells or potable water sources and shall be by non-potable water sources such as stormwater and reuse water. The supplies and improvements that will be associated with the optional development allowed by the Amendment have been coordinated with the Plan and can be accommodated in the County's normal capital improvement planning. Through the policies in the Amendment, the water and wastewater facility impacts of the Amendment are addressed. Indeed, due to the fiscal neutrality policies in the Amendment, the County now has a financial tool that will make it easier to fund and provide water and wastewater facilities than it currently has under the Plan. Finally, to ensure that capital facilities are properly programmed and planned, the Amendment also contains Policy VOS2.2, which provides in pertinent part: To ensure efficient planning for public infrastructure, the County shall annually monitor the actual growth within Sarasota County, including development within the Village/Open Space RMA, and adopt any necessary amendments to APOXSEE in conjunction with the update of the Capital Improvements Program. It is beyond fair debate that the capital facilities provisions within the Amendment are supported by adequate data and analyses, and that they are otherwise in compliance. Financial feasibility and fiscal neutrality The Capital Improvement Element identifies facilities for which a local government has financial responsibility, and for which adopted levels of service are required, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. Manasota-88 and Compton challenge the "financial feasibility" of the Amendment. As noted above, there is significant data and analyses of existing and future public facility needs. The data collection and analyses were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. The evidence shows that as part of its analyses, the County conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Village development and determined that Village and Hamlet development can be fiscally neutral and financially feasible. Dr. Fishkind also opined that, based upon his review of the Amendment, it is financially feasible as required by the Act. Policy VOS2.9 of the Amendment provides in part: Each Village and each Hamlet development within the Village/Open Space RMA shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the levels of service standards adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or fiscally beneficial to Sarasota County Government, the School Board, and residents outside that development. The intent of Fiscal Neutrality is that the costs of additional local government services and infrastructure that are built or provided for the Villages or Hamlets shall be funded by properties within the approved Villages and Hamlets. Policies VOS2.1, VOS2.4, and VOS2.9 provide that facility capacity and fiscal neutrality must be demonstrated, and that a Fiscal Neutrality Plan and Procedure for Monitoring Fiscal Neutrality must be approved at the time of the master plan and again for each phase of development. In addition, under Policy VOS2.9, an applicant's fiscal neutrality analysis and plan must be reviewed and approved by independent economic advisors retained by the County. Monitoring of fiscal neutrality is also provided for in Policy VOS2.2. Finally, Policy VOS2.10 identifies community development districts as the preferred financing technique for infrastructure needs associated with Villages and Hamlets. The evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the policies in the Amendment will result in a system of regulations that will ensure that fiscal neutrality will be accomplished. Internal inconsistencies Manasota-88 and Compton further contend that there are inconsistencies between certain policies of the Amendment and other provisions in the Plan. If the policies do not conflict with other provisions of the Plan, they are considered to be coordinated, related, and consistent. Conflict between the Amendment and the Plan is avoided by inclusion of the following language in Policy RMA1.3: If a property owner chooses to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Sarasota 2050 RMA, then to the extent that there may be a conflict between the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies and the other Goal[s], Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE, the Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies shall take precedence. The other Goals, Objectives and Policies of APOXSEE including, but not limited to, those which relate to concurrency management and environmental protection shall continue to be effective after the adoption of these Resource Management Area Goal, Objectives and Policies. As to this Policy, Manasota-88's and Compton's claim is really nothing more than a preference that the Plan policies should also have been amended at the same time to expressly state that where there was a conflict between themselves and the new Amendment policies, the new Amendment would apply. Such a stylistic difference does not amount to the Amendment's not being in compliance. Therefore, it is fairly debatable that the Amendment is internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Public participation and intergovernmental coordination Petitioners next contend that there was inadequate public participation during the adoption of the Amendment as well as a lack of coordination with other governmental bodies. Ayech also asserted that there were inadequate procedures adopted by the County which resulted in less than full participation by the public. However, public participation is not a proper consideration in an in-compliance determination. In addition, the County has adopted all required procedures to ensure public participation in the amendment process. The County had numerous meetings with the municipalities in the County, the Council of Governments (of which the County is a member), and meetings and correspondence by and between the respective professional staffs of those local governments. The County also met with the Hospital Board and the School Board. The evidence is overwhelming that the County provided an adequate level of intergovernmental coordination. Regional and state comprehensive plans Petitioners have alleged violations of the state and regional policy plans. On this issue, Michael D. McDaniel, State Initiatives Administrator for the Department, established that the Amendment was not in inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. His testimony was not impeached or refuted. Petitioners' claim that the Amendment is not consistent with the regional policy plan is based only on a report prepared by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) at the Amendment’s transmittal stage. There was no evidence (by SWFRPC representatives or others) that the report raised actual inconsistencies with the SWFRPC regional policy plan, nor was any evidence presented that the SWFRPC has found the amendment, as adopted, to be inconsistent with its regional plan. There was no persuasive evidence that the Amendment is either in conflict with, or fails to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies in, either the state or regional policy plan. Other objections Finally, all other objections raised by Petitioners and not specifically discussed herein have been considered and found to be without merit. County's Request for Attorney's Fees and Sanctions On April 5, 2004, the County filed a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions Pursuant to F.S. § 120.595 (Motion). The Motion is directed primarily against Ayech and contends that her "claims and evidence were without foundation or relevance," and that her "participation in the proceeding was 'primarily to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose.'" The Motion also alleges that Manasota-88 and Compton "participated in this proceeding with an intent to harass and delay the Amendment from taking effect." Replies in opposition to the Motion were filed by Petitioners on April 12, 2004. The record shows that Ayech aligned herself (in terms of issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation) with Manasota-88 and Compton. While her evidentiary presentation was remarkably short (in contrast to the other Petitioners and the County), virtually all of the issues identified in the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation were addressed in some fashion or another by one of Petitioners' witnesses, or through Petitioners' cross-examination of opposing witnesses. Even though every issue has been resolved in favor of Respondents (and therefore found to be either fairly debatable or beyond fair debate), the undersigned cannot find from the record that the issues were so irrelevant or without some evidentiary foundation as to fall to the level of constituting frivolous claims. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose.
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 Sarasota County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-76 on July 10, 2002, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lincoln A. Herreid, was, at all times material hereto, licensed to practice land surveying in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3015. At issue in these proceedings are three surveys, which Respondent admits he performed, signed and sealed, to wit: A survey of the real property located at 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida; a survey of a portion of the real property located in Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Dade County, Florida; and, a survey of the real property located at 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 9 East Lucy Street Survey On December 17, 1983, Respondent signed and sealed a Sketch of Survey" for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hays Subdivision, Plat Book 55, Page 53, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, commonly known as 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. The Lucy Street property is rectangular in shape, and abuts streets on its north, east and west sides. The survey shows only one angle and no bearings, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection of a street or right-of-way, and fails to reflect whether any monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. The evidence establishes that no monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. Respondent avers that no monument was set because debris, composed of paints and chemicals, preempted the area and precluded the setting of a monument. However, no offset witness point was set, nor did the survey reflect why a monument had not been set. Florida Fruitland Company Subdivision Survey On February 24, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Waiver of Plat," a survey of a portion of Tract 21, Section 15, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, of Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Plat Book 2, Page 17, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. The Waiver of Plat shows only one angle and no bearings, indicates the four corners of the property by "Pipe," without reference to whether the pipe was set or found, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection or right-of- way, fails to reference the source documents for the legal description of the property, and fails to provide vertical datum and benchmark descriptions. Further, the survey incorrectly positioned the property, reflected inaccurate boundary measurements, and established an incorrect elevation. The property, which is the subject of the Waiver of Plat, is rectangular in shape, zoned commercial (no side set- backs required), and its front (the northern boundary of the property) abuts Northwest 70th Street, between N.W. 82nd Avenue and N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The evidence establishes that the north/south dimensions of the property, as reflected by Respondent's survey, were overstated by 2.1' on the west boundary line, and 2.01' on the east boundary line. Although Respondent correctly depicted the correct distances of the east/west property line, the positioning of that line in relation to the fractional line was in error by .12', and the northwest and northeast corner placements were in error by .24' and .20', respectively. The elevation established by Respondent's survey was in error by one foot. 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue Survey On June 13, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Sketch of Survey," for Lot 17, Block 6, Addition J., South Miami Heights, Plat Book 68, Page 74, Public Records of Dade County, Florida commonly known as 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. The Sketch of Survey reflects only one angle and no bearings, and failed to set a monument or offset witness point for the northeast corner of the property.
Findings Of Fact Richard Berry, an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect, was administered the Landscape Architecture License Examination in June, 1987. This exam is a standardized national test which is prepared by the Council Of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and administered through the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. Part of the examination requires the implementation of design knowledge through practical application. Mr. Berry's score on the design implementation portion of the exam was not sufficient to constitute a passing score. A weighted score of 75 on each portion is required to pass the examination. Mr. Berry passed all other portions of the examination. Upon initially receiving the failing score, Mr. Berry requested an informal review of the grading, which resulted in an upward adjustment of his score. However the score was still insufficient to raise the score to a passing level. The remaining disagreement centered on five items in the practical examination. The items were related to architectural drawings submitted by the Petitioner as required by question four of the design implementation portion of the exam. The items were as follows: 4b(2) drawing of wood deck attachment detail to wall 4b(4) drawing of concrete sidewalk grade wall detail 4b(5) drawing of metal fence detail 4b(6) qualities/quantities of materials listed 4c(2,3) drawing of deck detail At the hearing, Mr. Berry discussed the relevant exam questions and clearly articulated why he believed his responses were entitled to credit in addition to what had originally been given by the examination graders. The Department's expert witness, Mr. Buchannan, indicated that he had rescored Mr. Berry's exam responses in accordance with the "Examination Evaluation Guide" issued by the Council of Landscape Architectural Examination Boards. Mr. Buchannan testified that one point of additional credit should have been given for Mr. Berry's response on the item 4b(2) and one point of additional credit should be given for the response on item 4b(6) of the design implementation portion of the exam. No additional points were to be credited to the responses on the three remaining items. Juan Trujillo, examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation testified as to the effect of the additional points. According to his testimony, the additional credit would provide Mr. Berry with, a raw score of 71.5, which equates to a weighted score of 74.5. The weighted score is rounded up by the Department to a grade of 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture, granting to Petitioner, if otherwise qualified, licensure as a landscape architect. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1376 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are accepted as modified in the Recommended Older. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Berry, pro se 6588 Southeast 78th Avenue Keystone Heights, Florida 32656 William Leffler, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Ard, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Landscape Architects 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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 The Petitioner was an applicant for licensure as a landscape architect in the State of Florida, and he took the licensure examination on June 14th and 15th, 1982. The Petitioner passed one part of this examination, Landscape Architecture Design, with a score of 75, but he failed History of Landscape Architecture, Professional Practice, and Design Implementation. The only part of the exam the Petitioner challenges is Design Implementation for which he received a final grade of 73. His initial Score was 69, but after a review and reevaluation of his designs by the consultant, points were added to his score which brought it up to 73. A score of 75 is required in order to pass the examination. The landscape architecture examination is a national examination, developed and administered by CLARB, Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards. The Design Implementation section of the exam is approximately 50 percent of the examination, and is graded by a team of landscape architect experts who have been trained by CLARB in a one-day seminar regarding their responsibilities and evaluation standards. There is always a minimum of two evaluators for each examination. Candidates are identified only by a candidate number, which maintains their anonymity. CLARB utilizes a statistical process to measure the differences among evaluators to eliminate the very hard graders and the very easy ones. In order to arrive at a raw score, CLARB collects all of the examination grades from the entire nation and determines a median score. This is utilized to calculate a coefficient for each individual state that determines the value of each point. The Petitioner was graded on three separate drawings. These drawings were graded by the evaluators for the State of Florida and Petitioner was given a grade of 69. The Petitioner reviewed his examination and made objections to the score given on drawings 1 and 2. These drawings and the Scores given were reviewed by the consultant. addition, the consultant reviewed each one of the scoring items on all three drawings to ensure proper grading Professional judgment must be utilized in grading these examinations, because they are landscape architecture drawings; therefore, the evaluators are professional landscape architecture experts, as is the Department's consultant. The Petitioner's drawings did not meet the Standards set by CLARB for minimal competency in the area of landscape architecture. For example, he did not place elevation figures in proper places, he failed to indicate grades where they were poised to be indicated, he did not show proper contours, and he did not clearly preserve all trees as required by the examination guidelines. Certain grading criteria in the Design examination where cumulative, in that each level must have been completed before the next level could be attained. This resulted in low grades for the Petitioner on some of the criteria. The Petitioner's drawings showed a lack of minimal competency, in that he was not clear and precise in the location of grades and contours, and left vague areas that could be misinterpreted by contractors or surveyors. The Petitioner's testimony consisted largely in going over the parts of the drawings in question, and pointing out areas where he contended more credit should have been given. However, insufficient real evidence, as opposed to the opinion of the Petitioner, was presented to support a finding of fact that his examination score should be upgraded more than was already done. The Petitioner's expert witness had been the Petitioner's employer for two years and, although he supported the Petitioner's contentions that the score on his drawings should be upgraded, the Petitioner's expert had no prior experience in the grading of examinations. Thus, his conclusions were unpersuasive, and have not been found as facts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Augustus A. Perna, Jr., for licensure as a landscape architect be denied, based on his failure to achieve a passing grade on the June, 1982, examination. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 27th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27 day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus A. Perna 6850 S. W. 40th Street Miami, Florida 33155 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Herbert Coons, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Landscape Architecture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether DER properly asserts jurisdiction over the site in question, and whether Petitioner (Vatalaro) is entitled to a permit to fill that site.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in 1986, Billie Vatalaro purchased approximately eleven acres within an approximately 20-acre wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse in east Orange County, Florida. Approximately five acres of the Vatalaro parcel are in the lake itself. In June 1987, personnel from Orange County's planning department and environmental protection department visited the site in response to reports of illegal filling. Correspondence ensued, and meetings were held among Mrs. Vatalaro and her sons and the staff from Orange County. In the meantime, some activity on the site continued, including clearing of trees and vegetation and sometime in January 1988, Mrs. Vatalaro obtained from the Orange County building department building permits and septic tank permits for two houses on approximately 1/2 acre of the property. In early February 1988, the Orange County Environmental Protection Department requested the involvement of DER. Jurisdiction Pamela Thomas is an environmental specialist with DER in the Orlando office. She first visited the site on February 8, 1988, with DER's enforcement officer, a staff person from Orange County, Mrs. Vatalaro, and Mrs. Vatalaro's sons, Russ and Ron Vatalaro. She performed a jurisdictional determination on the occasion of that visit, and returned for subsequent visits on July 20, 1988 and February 22, 1989. Jurisdictional determinations were made pursuant to Rule 17-4.022 F.A.C. (Since renumbered as 17-3.022). This required locating the water body of the state, Lake Rouse, and a determination of whether there is a connection of the water body to the adjacent wetlands. The vegetation is then examined to determine whether canopy, sub-canopy or ground cover will be analyzed. Within the rule are two tests, one used when submerged species predominate, the other used when the wetland vegetation is more transitional. Ms. Thomas located Lake Rouse and found no berms or other barriers between the lake and the wetlands. She also performed transects, visually sampling segments of the area and determined there was continuity between the lake and landward to the site in question. She found a full mature canopy in the uncleared area and loblolly bay, a submerged species, dominated. This area, between the lake and cleared site met the first ("A") test in Rule 17-4.022, F.A.C. The submerged plus transitional species were greater than 50 percent of the vegetation, the submerged species was greater than 10 percent and exceeded the upland species present. Because a portion of the area had been cleared, it was necessary to attempt to reconstruct what vegetation had existed prior to clearing. The cleared area included tall spindly pine trees spaced to indicate that other trees had been growing between them. The pine trees which did not have fill next to them were sitting on hummocks, a common phenomena in wetlands. Within the disturbed area Ms. Thomas found two bore holes where previous soil borings had been done. She and the DER enforcement officer determined by examining those holes that substantial fill had been placed in the cleared area. Root mat was more than ten inches below the surface and water was standing in the bottom of the holes. In order to reconstruct what vegetation had been present in the cleared area, Ms. Thomas completed a series of three feet by ten feet visual transects fanning out into the thicket from the cleared area. The dominant species were Ioblolly bay (gordonia), sweet bay and dahoon, all submerged species. It was apparent that the predominance of trees that had been removed were submerged species, mainly Ioblolly bays. As reconstructed, the biomass in a transect would have been greater than the sum of the biomass of the pine trees. This reconstruction was further validated on subsequent visits to the site when juvenile loblolly bay trees were found seeded and thriving in the disturbed area, but no pine seedlings were found, even though there was adequate time for that to occur. DER staff also viewed aerial photographs provided by the Valataros, taken in 1984, prior to major clearing and in 1987, after the clearing. The photographs are on a scale of 1 to 300 and do not indicate a drastic change in the area that would reflect that the cleared area had been mostly pine trees. The photographs are not of such quality that a conclusive determination can be made on them alone. David Kriz is an area resource soil scientist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. He visited the site with representatives of DER and Mrs. Vatalaro on July 20, 1988, at the request of DER. He performed three soil borings, the first in an area of bay trees outside the area cleared for the house. This boring revealed Samsula muck, a hydric soil, indicative of being saturated or flooded. The second boring was taken within the area designated for the house pad. This yielded about fifteen inches of fill, then St. Johns soil, an organic sandy layer, which can be hydric if inundated for more than thirty days in a year. It was impossible to determine whether this specimen was hydric, because this surface had been disturbed and filled. The third boring was taken just off the pad, but still in the cleared area. It yielded about nine inches of sandy fill and Samsula muck below, similar to the first boring, and clearly a hydric soil. St. Johns fine sand also appears on the site in a USDA soil conservation map of Orange County. The map is a good guide, but cannot be relied upon without ground tests in specific sites as the scale on the map is 1 to 20,000. Although distinct soil zones are indicated, in fact there are transitional areas between soil types in the zones, which means that in a transitional zone there may be either wet or dry areas. It would be virtually impossible to determine the soil type prevalent in Mrs. Vatalaro's cleared half acre, without the borings. DER properly concluded that it has jurisdiction over the site. Petitioner's expert, William Dennis, concedes that most of the Vatalaro property is within DER's jurisdiction, including a substantial portion of the cleared area, most notably the 43 by 100 foot cleared finger extending south from the cleared area designated for the house. In performing his jurisdictional analysis, Dr. Dennis concentrated on the cleared area. He did not complete transects. He counted and measured trees, and with the aid of a compass, sited them on a chart, received in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit #13. Within the cleared area he found a predominance of pines, and upland species (71%) and some submerged and transitional species (4.8% and 24.2%, respectively). This, he concluded, failed the jurisdictional test described in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Dennis also examined the aerial photographs and determined there was a vegetation break extending approximately 30 feet into the thicket from the northwest corner of the cleared area. He counted and measured trees in that area and found 14.8% submerged species, 35.4% transitional species, and 49.8% upland species. That area failed the jurisdictional "A" test because the submerged species did not outnumber the upland species present. Extrapolating from this finding, he concluded that the upper part of the cleared area designated for placement of the house, is outside of DER's jurisdiction. This conclusion is unreliable. The aerial photographs, particularly the pre-clearance photographs from 1984, are not crisp and clear. It is also possible that in looking at an aerial photograph, the tallest trees, the pines, would overshadow the other species which are also four inches or greater in diameter breast height (DBH) and are, therefore, equally significant. Rule 17.4.022(1)(c), F.A.C. provides that belt transects be used when the line demarcating the landward extent of waters of the state cannot be determined visually or by photo interpretation. DER, but not Mr. Dennis, relied on belt transects. Rule 17.4.022(I)(d), F.A.C. provides that other methods may be used as long as the department and applicant both agree in writing, to the method used. DER did not agree with Dr. Dennis' method. Counting trees in an area that has been disturbed is not a reliable means of establishing what existed prior to clearance when substantial evidence suggests that the clearing left the pines but eliminated the predominant submerged and transitional species. Section 403.8171(5), F.S. provides a "back-stop" to the vegetative jurisdictional determination by providing that "...in no case shall [the landward extent of the waters of the state] extend above the elevation of the 1- in-10-year recurring flood event or the area of the land with standing or flowing water for more than 30 consecutive days per year calculated on an average annual basis, whichever is more landward." The petition in this proceeding raised the issue of the jurisdictional backstop but the application and evidence at a hearing fails to include sufficient information to substantiate that this alternative applies. Generally, a study would be required, and the applicant has not provided such. The Merits of the Application The wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse, within which the Vatalaro property is located, comprises approximately 20 acres. It is the only mature forested wetland of its quality within a large region of east Orange County. This wetland provides a filtration function contributing to the water quality of Lake Rouse and to the waters of the region. The Lake Rouse wetland also provides flood abatement capacity via its soil and plants. The effects of the loss of this capacity in other severely impacted wetlands along the State Road 50 corridor have become evident. The altered areas are no longer able to provide water holding capacities. Wildlife which are residents of the area and which use the area as a stopover will be impacted by alteration of the habitat which they currently rely upon for food, cover, nesting and resting. Examples of those wildlife are ducks and other birds, raccoons, deer and opossums. Even though the proposed project will comprise only 1/2 to 3/4 an acre of the wetland, the impact is significant considering the unique quality of the wetland. Dr. Dennis agrees that alteration of the site would change the habitat value of the area and would impact the functions of the wetlands. He argues, however, that the effects of this project are minimal compared to the development which has already occurred in surrounding areas. Although the applicant has a building and septic tank permit and a Corps of Engineers permit, the regulations for those permits are not the same as the balancing criteria which DER must consider. The Orange County Planning and Environmental Protection Departments recommend denial of the project. No evidence was presented with regard to mitigation proposed or agreed to by the applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application for fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael D. Jones, Esquire 996 Westwood Square Suite 4 Oviedo, Florida 32765 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
