The Issue Whether the proposed amendment to the St. Johns County 2015 Future Land Use Map (FLUM), adopted by Ordinance No. 2002-31, is "in compliance" with the relevant provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part, II, Florida Statutes. A second issue raised by St. Johns County (County) and The Estuaries Limited Liability Company (Estuaries) is whether, if the proposed amendment is not "in compliance," it is nevertheless valid and authorized pursuant to Chapter 70, Florida Statutes, the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Julie Parker, resides in St. Augustine, Florida, less than one and one-half miles from the proposed project site. Parker also owns other property in St. Johns County. Parker submitted oral comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM Amendment and Ordinance No. 2002-31. The parties agreed that Parker has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The County proceeded with the evaluation and appraisal report process in 1997 and 1998. This process ultimately resulted in the adoption of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and Adopted EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment in May 2000 (May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment), which was subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department and found "in compliance." Estuaries owns the 9.99 acres (the Property) that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment. Estuaries also owns approximately 8.5 acres outside, adjacent to, and west of the Property. The 8.5 acres are subject to a Conservation Easement, which prohibits any development activity thereon. (The total contiguous land owned by Estuaries is approximately 18.5 acres.) The parties stipulated that the legal description of the Property attached to Ordinance No. 2002-31 contains less than 10 acres. Estuaries submitted comments to the County at the adoption hearing on May 28, 2002, regarding the FLUM amendment. Estuaries has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. The Property The Property is part of a larger tract owned by Estuaries, i.e., approximately 9.9 acres out of a total tract of approximately 18.5 acres. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on Anastasia Island, a barrier island, which extends from the St. Augustine Inlet to the Matanzas Inlet. According to the 2000 Census, there are approximately 12,000 dwelling units on Anastasia Island. This includes condominium units and single-family units. The approximately 18.5-acre site is also located in the Coastal High Hazard Area under the County May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. The Property is part of Butler Beach (bordering the Atlantic Ocean), which is an historic area because it was settled in the early 1900's by black citizens and provided them with access to the beach, which was previously unavailable. However, no historic structures or uses have occurred on the Property. The entire 18.5 acre tract is located on the south side of Riverside Boulevard. The Property is located approximately 300 feet west of Highway A1A South (A1A runs north and south). The Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River are west and adjacent to the 18.5 acres. The Estuaries site is also located adjacent to the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). The Property is vacant, partially wooded, and also consists of undeveloped wetlands. Of the 9.99 acres, approximately 6.7 acres are uplands and developable, and 3.29 acres are wetlands. As noted, the remaining approximately 8.5 acres of the Estuaries' property, and to the west of the Property, is subject to a Conservation Easement in favor of the County. The properties adjacent to the Property include the following: Single-family residential units are located along and on the north side Riverside Boulevard. The existing FLUM designations for this area are Residential Coastal Density A and C, with the existing zoning of open rural (OR). (Residential Coastal Density C permits 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre.) The Intracoastal portion of Butler State Park is to the south of the Property, with a FLUM designation of parks and open space and existing zoning of OR and is not in a conservation area. To the east of the Property is a utility substation site, Butler Avenue, various commercial uses, Island House Rentals or Condominiums (three-story oceanfront condominiums), and the Mary Street Runway. There is another condominium called Creston House, directly south of the Butler Park (ocean portion) area (distinguished from the Butler State Park), consisting of three stories. (Butler Park and Creston House are located east of A1A and southeast of the Estuaries property.) The existing FLUM designations are Coastal Residential Coastal Density A and C, and have existing zoning designations of Residential General (RG)-1 and Commercial General (CG). There are no Residential Density D FLUM land use designations in the contiguous area. In short, the Property is proximate to a state park, a densely developed area comprised of small residential lots of 25 by 100 feet lots, and the two three-story condominiums, which were built prior to the adoption of the County's 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County's Comprehensive Plan and EAR-Based Amendments On September 14, 1990, the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan-1990-2005, with amendments (the 1990 Plan). Under the 1990 Plan, the Property was assigned a Residential Coastal-A land use designation under the existing FLUM, which meant that residential development was restricted to no more than one residential unit per upland (non-wetland jurisdictional) acre. Under this designation, approximately seven units could have been built on the Property. The zoning on the Property was and is RG-1. According to the County, at least as of a June 11, 1999, letter from the County's principal planner, Timothy W. Brown, A.I.C.P., to Kevin M. Davenport, P.E., the total units which would be allowed on the Property were 116 multi-family units, derived after making a detailed density calculation based in part on using 40 percent of the wetlands used for the density calculation. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Plan Amendment, with supporting data and analysis, which the Department of Community Affairs found to be "in compliance." As required by Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, this would have included data and analysis for the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of these plan amendments. This is part of the data and analysis which supports the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment continued the Residential Coastal A land use designation of the Property, which allows 0.4 to 1.0 units per acre. (Residential Coastal B allows 2.0 units per acre; Residential Coastal C allows 2.0 to 4.0 units per acre; and Residential Coastal D allows 4.0 to 8.0 units per acre.) The Residential Coastal A designation authorizes residential and non-residential uses, such as schools, public service facilities, police, fire, and neighborhood commercial. Restaurants and banks without drive-thru facilities, gasoline pumps, and professional office buildings are examples of neighborhood commercial uses. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment does not limit the lot size, subject to limitations on, for example, impervious surface ratios, which do not change regardless of whether the land use designation is Residential Coastal A or D. Also, any development would also have to comply with the textural provisions of the May 2000 EAR- Based Plan Amendment, including the coastal and conservation elements. The Circuit Court Litigation There are many documents in this case which pertain to the litigation between Estuaries and the County. The civil action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, in and for St. Johns County, Florida, and styled The Estuaries Limited Liability Company v. St. Johns County, Florida, Case No. CA-00271. On February 11, 2000, Estuaries filed a Complaint against the County "relating to certain representations made by the County in connection with the development of certain real property located south of St. Augustine Beach in St. Johns County, Florida." A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 30, 2001. Estuaries claimed that County staff made representations to Estuaries, which resulted in Estuaries having a vested right to develop its Property up to a maximum of 116 multi-family residential units. (The County took the position that Estuaries could build no more than 25 units on the Property.) Estuaries claimed that it had vested rights based upon a claim of equitable estoppel against the County. (One of Estuaries' claims was brought pursuant to the Bert Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, Chapter 70, Florida Statutes.)1 After discovery and the denial of motions for summary judgment, the parties entered into a "Settlement Agreement and Complete Release" (Settlement Agreement). The "General Terms of Settlement" in the Settlement Agreement provided in part: Estuaries shall prepare and file an application to amend the future land use map of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan to amend the designation of only that portion of the Property such that Estuaries may build 56 multi-family residential units on the Property and such that the amendment be a "Small-scale Amendment" as defined by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act. Estuaries agrees on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns to build not more than 56 units on the Property. County will waive or pay the application fee and will expedite its processing. The parties will forthwith prepare and submit to the Court a joint motion for the approval of this Agreement pursuant to the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Rights Protection Act, §70.001(4)(d)2. During the review and consideration of the amendment application, the County will expeditiously process the Estuaries' revised construction plans and, in connection therewith, the construction codes in effect as of November 13, 2001 (to the extent the County may do so without violating county, state or federal law), the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land Development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply. In all other respects, the revised construction plans shall comply with all other Comprehensive Plan and County ordinances and regulations. On or about November 16, 2001, counsel for the parties signed a Joint Motion, requesting the circuit court to approve the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 70.001(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes. On November 16, 2001, Circuit Judge John Michael Traynor, entered an "Order Approving Settlement Agreement pursuant to Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act." Judge Traynor stated in part: The central issue in this litigation has been the number of dwelling units that would be permitted on the Property. The issues in the case are legally complex and, although the credibility of the testimony and authenticity of the exhibits expected to be introduced was not expected to be substantially in dispute or challenged, the meaning of the testimony and the meaning and inferences to be drawn from such evidence was very much in dispute. The issues included the extent of vested rights, the extent to which estoppel may be applied to the County, contractual liability, and potential liability under the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act . . . and the relief requested included the request for a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to build up to 116 dwelling units on the Property and damages against the County. Judge Traynor also "Ordered and Adjudged," in part: Pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(a) & (c) and applicable law, this Court finds that proper notice of a Bert Harris Act claim was timely provided to the County, and other governmental entities, and the County did make a written settlement offer to the Plaintiff, in accordance with the Bert Harris Act, that was accepted by Plaintiff. Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c) permits, inter alia, for an adjustment of land development provisions controlling the development of a plaintiff's property; increases or modifications in the density, intensity, or use of areas of development; the transfer of development rights; conditioning the amount of development or use permitted; issuance of a development order, a variance, special exceptions, or other extraordinary relief; and such other actions specified in the statute. While the parties may dispute whether an amendment is necessary to the County's Comprehensive Plan, the parties have agreed that the Plaintiff shall submit a small-scale amendment to the County for consideration and approval pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; without waiver of either party's rights to contest and defend the necessity of submitting such an amendment, in light of this Court's approval of the settlement agreement pursuant to the Bert Harris Act and applicable law. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release is fair, reasonable and adequate; is in the best interests of the parties and protects the public interest served by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. . .; and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the County's regulatory efforts from inordinately burdening the Property with regard to density, impact on public services, the environment and the public health, safety and welfare of the community and the rights of individuals to reasonably utilize their property and to rely on the representations of government, taking into consideration the risks that both parties had in this litigation. This litigation has been ongoing for more than 18 months, and substantial discovery and record has been presented to the Court that provides ample basis for this Court's approval of this settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate and appropriate under the Bert Harris Act. There is no evidence before the Court that would suggest that the proposed settlement is the result of any collusion among the parties or their counsel. In fact, the record is to the contrary, whereby counsel on both sides have aggressively and zealously pursued the interests of their respective clients. . . . Judge Traynor directed the parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement, "subject to the right of the public to comment at an appropriate public hearing pertaining to the above referenced small scale amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and shall cooperate to accomplish in good faith the responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement and Complete Release." There is no evidence that Judge Traynor's Order has been rescinded or otherwise modified. There is no statutory authority to collaterally attack Judge Traynor's Order in this proceeding nor is there any authority which provides that this Order can be ignored. Also, this is not the appropriate proceeding to determine whether Estuaries has, in fact, vested rights. Accordingly, Judge Traynor's Order, approving the Settlement Agreement, is accepted as binding authority. The Small Scale Development Application In compliance with Judge Traynor's Order and the Settlement Agreement, on March 26, 2002, Estuaries filed a "Small Scale Amendment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Form" with the County. Estuaries requested a change in the Property's FLUM designation from Residential Coastal A, Zoning RG-1 to Residential Coastal D, Zoning RG-1. Estuaries represented, in part, that the Property consisted of 9.99 acres of vacant land, including 3.2 acres of wetlands and approximately 6.7 acres of developable land (uplands) "which will be developed into a 56 unit Multi-Family Condominium." County staff reviewed the application and recommended approval. As part of the agenda item for consideration by the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, County staff, in light of the criterion of "Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan, State Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Florida Regional Policy Plan," stated: "[t]he approved Settlement Agreement was filed pursuant to Chapter 70.001." With respect to "Impacts on Public Facilities and Services," County staff stated: "The project has received a Certificate of Concurrency addressing the impacts on transportation, water, sewer, recreation, drainage, solid waste and mass transit. The Certificate of Concurrency is based on impacts of 84 multi-family dwelling units. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the project contains 56 multi-family dwelling units. St. Johns County provides central water and sewer." With respect to "Compatibility with Surrounding Area," County staff stated: "The area is developed with a mixture of residential, commercial, park (Butler Park), and vacant land of various zoning." According to Mr. Scott Clem, the County's Director of Growth Management Services, County staff felt that there were adequate public facilities for a 56-unit project, because Estuaries had previously demonstrated that facilities were available for an 84-unit project. However, County staff expressly noted in the Planning Department Staff Report submitted to the Planning and Zoning Agency that "[t]here are no development plans included in the Application. However, all site engineering, drainage and required infrastructure improvements will be reviewed pursuant to the Development Review Process to ensure that the development complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and permitting requirements. No permits shall authorize development prior to compliance with all applicable regulations." At this point in time, County staff were "analyzing the potential for 56 units to be on the property. It was a site specific analysis at that point." On April 18, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Agency unanimously recommended approval of the FLUM amendment. After a properly noticed public hearing, on May 28, 2002, the County approved the FLUM Amendment in Ordinance 2002- 31. In Ordinance 2002-31, the County approved the FLUM Amendment at issue, which changed the FLUM land use classification of the Property from Residential Coastal A to Residential Coastal D. Ordinance 2002-31 also provided: "The Land Uses allowed by this Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height." The Challenge Parker filed an Amended Petition challenging the lack of data and analysis to support the FLUM Amendment; challenging the increase in density of the Property located in a Coastal High Hazard Area; challenging the internal consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment; challenging the decision by the County to process the application as a small scale development amendment; and challenging the failure to provide Parker with adequate notice of a clear point of entry to challenge Ordinance No. 2002-31. Notice The County provided notice, by newspaper, of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 28, 2002. Before this meeting, a sign was placed on the Property, providing notice of the meeting. Parker personally attended the May 28, 2002, meeting and addressed the Commission regarding the FLUM Amendment. Ordinance No. 2002-31 provided: "This ordinance shall take effect 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, this ordinance shall not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted small scale amendment is in compliance." This Ordinance does not advise a person of the right to challenge the Ordinance pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Uniform Rules of Procedure, or Section 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This type of notice is not required for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law. Does the FLUM Amendment, covering 9.99 acres, involve a "use" of 10 acres or fewer, pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes? "A small scale development amendment may be adopted only [if] [t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes.2 In the Amended Petition and in her Prehearing Stipulation, Parker contends that the "use," which is the subject of the FLUM Amendment, relates to more than the 9.99 acre parcel and, therefore, the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment defined in Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker contended that because the FLUM Amendment authorizes a maximum of 56 residential units to be developed on the Property, and the maximum density under the Residential Coastal D and RG-1 zoning designations is 42.12 units, using the on-site wetlands density bonus, that Estuaries "must be using the off-site wetlands that are contained within the 18.5 acre parcel to obtain the density credit necessary to reach 56 units for the site under" the FLUM Amendment. The 56 residential unit maximum was the product of the circuit court litigation and Settlement Agreement, as approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences between the County and Estuaries regarding the maximum residential density which could be authorized on the Property. Parker also contended that because Estuaries may use a proposed lift station owned by the County off-site, that this causes the proposed "use" of the Property to exceed 10 acres. It appears that at some prior time in the "vesting rights" chronology of events, Magnolia S Corporation, in order to downscale the project, agreed to sell a 40' by 80' parcel to the County, located adjacent to the Property and in the northeast portion, to expand the existing County lift station on Riverside Boulevard. There is a lift station adjacent to the Property that serves as "a repump station that serves the development along Riverside [Boulevard] west of the lift station and serves all the development in St. Johns County on the island south of Riverside Boulevard." It is proposed that sewage effluent from development on the Property would be deposited on site and then pumped into an adjacent force main which eventually ends up in the station. According to Mr. Kevin Davenport, Estuaries' civil engineer, "56 units added to that pump station would be extremely miniscule in the overall amount of sewage that goes through it." Thus, Estuaries anticipates having their own on-site lift station, which "would be pumped through a pipe to the Riverside right-of- way, where it would connect to an existing county-owned pipe which currently goes to the lift station." Mr. Clem stated that "[u]tilities are very commonly done off site where water or sewer distribution or transmission lines are constructed to the site." This would include the use of off- site lift stations. However, the proposed use of the lift station does not necessarily compel the conclusion that the FLUM Amendment exceeds 9.99 acres. If this were so, any proposed use of any off-site utilities would cause a pro rata calculation and increase of the size of the site providing the service, then be added to the 9.99 acres. This is not a reasonable construction of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also claimed that when the Estuaries granted the County a Conservation Easement for the approximately 8.5 acres (out of 18.5 acres) of wetlands adjacent to the Property, Estuaries "used" this property to secure the FLUM Amendment, and therefore, exceeded the 9.99 acres. The Conservation Easement precludes development activity on the approximately 8.51 acres. ("The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to assure that the Property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent any use of the Property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property." Prohibited uses include "[a]ctivities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish and wildlife habitat preservation.") The "use" of the 8.51 acres as a potential visual amenity for potential residents on the Property is not a "use" within a reasonable reading of Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Parker also suggested that Estuaries will need to improve Riverside Boulevard (paving and drainage) and the public right-of-way consisting of approximately 1.51 acres, which is not owned by Estuaries. It appears that Riverside Boulevard is already open, improved, and paved. Also, Mr. Clem stated that it is common to have off-site improvements associated with a project, which might include intersection or roadway improvements that are not on or within the project site. Mr. Clem opined that while these improvements would be required for the project, they would have been off-site. Some improvements, such as improvements to Riverside Boulevard, would most likely benefit the general public, and not be limited to the future residents on the Property. It is common for local governments to require improvements to public infrastructure as a condition of development. These off-site improvements do not necessarily make the "development activity" larger than the size of the landowner's site, here the Property. Data and Analysis Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by appropriate data and analysis. As noted herein, Estuaries sought approval of a FLUM Amendment for its Property, i.e., a land use change to the FLUM. No text (goals, objectives, and policies) changes to the May 2000 EAR-Based Amendment were requested nor made. This is normal for a "site-specific small scale development activity." Section 163.3187(1)(c)1.d., Florida Statutes. Consideration of the FLUM Amendment in this proceeding is unusual for several reasons. First, the necessity for the FLUM change arose as a result of the Settlement Agreement, approved by Judge Traynor, which resolved the differences existing between the County and Estuaries regarding the number of units which could, as a maximum number, be developed on the Property. Second, the data and analysis, which normally is presented to the local government, here the County, at the time the plan amendment is adopted, is not in its traditional format here, largely, it appears, because of the manner in which consideration of the FLUM Amendment arose. Nevertheless, this situation is not fatal for, under existing precedent, see, e.g., Conclusion of Law 96, data, which was in existence at the time the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the County, may be considered in determining whether there is, in fact, adequate data supporting the FLUM Amendment. The data relied on by the County and Estuaries to support the FLUM Amendment was compiled and initially presented to the County on or about July 6, 1999, when Estuaries sought authorization from the County for a proposed project to construct 84 multi-family residential units on the same general area as the Property. This started the County's development review process. Estuaries began the process at this time, believing that it had "vested rights" to develop the Property. Mr. Clem explained that the development review process is "extremely detailed. It involves 11 or 12 different programs within the [C]ounty, looking at everything from the actual site plan itself, water and sewer provision, for all the things that would go into site construction, roadway design, the environmental considerations. We basically look at how this site will be developed in accordance with the land development code and any other regulations. We ensure that the water management district permits are obtained, if applicable, or other state agencies." This record contains County Department comments which pertain to a host of issues, including but not limited to, drainage, traffic, fire services, urban forestry (trees and landscape on-site), utilities, zoning (e.g., buffers, setbacks), concurrency requirements, etc. County staff raised questions (identified as submittals) on at least four separate occasions followed by written responses by the applicant on at least three occasions. However, not all issues were resolved. A July 1999, Land Development Traffic Assessment, prepared by Beachside Consulting Engineers, Inc., was submitted to the County as part of the request for a concurrency determination. The analysis "indicates that the roadway segments within the impact area will continue to operate at an acceptable LOS through the construction of this project." The "Summary" of the assessment states: "This project meets traffic concurrency standards, as defined by the St. Johns County Concurrency Management Ordinance, for all roads within the traffic area." "Stormwater Calculations" for the 84-unit, multi-family housing development were also provided in a report dated July 7, 1999. The applicant also furnished the County with a "geotechnical report," which analyzed the soil conditions related to storm water ponds and to the placement of the buildings and the support of the buildings on the site. Soil borings and other testing revealed the capabilities of the soil for, for example, percolation rates for the storm water ponds. There is no evidence that there are any specific historic buildings or geological or archeological features on the Property. In July 1999, the applicant submitted an application for concurrency. At that time, County staff analyzed this information to ensure that public facilities and services were in place to serve the project. This application was reviewed in relation to the County's concurrency management provisions of the County's Land Development Code. On September 3, 1999, the County's Planning Department prepared a report regarding this application and recommended "approval of a Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions for the development of 84 residential condominium units." (Staff made findings of fact, which included a discussion of traffic, potable water/sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, and mass transit.) On September 8, 1999, the Concurrency Review Committee met and adopted the Staff's Findings of Fact with conditions, including but not limited to, the applicant providing a copy of the Department of Environmental Protection permits "necessary for connection to central water and wastewater service prior to Construction Plan approval," and "[t]he applicant receiving approval of construction/drainage plans from the Development Services Department prior to commencement of construction." The Final Certificate of Concurrency with Conditions was issued on October 1, 1999, and was due to expire on September 8, 2001. However, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, that "the existing certificate of concurrency and the terms of the vesting letter as it relates to the Land development Code, of Sonya Doerr dated September 27, 1999, shall continue to apply." (Emphasis added.) (Ms. Teresa Bishop's (County Planning Director) November 7, 2001, letter indicated, in part, that Estuaries' request for "tolling [of the Final Certificate of Concurrency] cannot be reviewed until the outcome of the pending litigation is known. . . . After the litigation is concluded, your request for tolling may be resubmitted for review." The Settlement Agreement post-dates this letter.) In evaluating a small scale plan amendment, County staff evaluates the availability of public services which, according to Mr. Clem, is "one of the major components," and County staff "is looking at virtually the same issues that [the County] would look at in concurrency to evaluate and make recommendations on small scale amendments." Mr. Clem also advised that the County's analysis of the 84-unit project did not involve, and was not based on, "a specific site plan with buildings at a certain location or parking in a certain location. It was more an 84- unit project with certain data and analysis associated with that site or project." By letter dated October 4, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection indicated that it had received a "Notification for Use of the General Permit for Construction of an Extension to a Drinking Water Distribution System" submitted for the Estuaries project. The Department stated further: "After reviewing the notice, it appears that your project will have minimal adverse environmental effect and apparently can be constructed pursuant to a general permit as described in Chapter 62-555, F.A.C." The permit expires on October 4, 2004. This permit allows the applicant to demonstrate that it will offer a central water service, available to be served through the County's utility department. This would ensure that there is sufficient potable water available. By letter dated October 6, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection also issued a permit for the construction of a sewage collection/transmission system (domestic waste). By letter dated November 11, 1999, the St. Johns Water Management District issued a "formal permit for construction and operation of stormwater management system." This permit authorized "[a] new stormwater system with stormwater treatment by wet detention to serve Estuaries Multi-family Development, a 5.88 acre project to be constructed as per plans received by the District on 7/12/1999." This permit did not relieve the applicant "from the responsibility for obtaining permits from any federal, state, and/or local agencies asserting concurrent jurisdiction over this work." Mr. Clem believed that this permit was evidence that "the state agencies ha[d] considered the environmental issues relating to storm water and all the issues that they deal with in issuing a permit." The Property is located in a "development area boundary" as indicated on the FLUM, which means that these areas allow "development potential." Other areas, such as rural silviculture and agricultural lands, are outside the development area and only limited and low density development is allowed. Conservation areas are also designated on the FLUM. Given the location of the Property within the development area boundary, the County thereby eliminated the necessity of producing some of the data normally required.3 Mr. Clem explained: So by being within a development area boundary it's in essence already had rights to develop, depending on the classification what those rights are, whether it's residential, commercial, industrial. So by virtue of the fact that this site [the Property] was already in the developmental boundary, we didn't deal with issues such as need, which is a big issue in the county when we add developmental boundary. Is there need for additional residential units, and so forth. So that is one part of the answer. The other part is when we're looking at changing from one residential classification to another, we're not dealing with the same issues we might have if it was going from residential to commercial or residential to industrial. So in the context of a plan amendment like this, we're looking at what can this land support in terms of density and are there public facilities available? Is it generally compatible with the surrounding area? What are the potential impacts to natural resources? So those things are still analyzed, but they're done in a probably more confined context. And then the other factor is this being a small scale amendment further reduces the amount of data that is typically done. And if it was a major amendment, there's a whole new range of issues when we deal with major amendments. By definition, they can cause more of an impact. For Mr. Clem, the data and analysis which was generated during the concurrency process for the proposed 84-unit project was significant and would be applicable to a proposed 56-unit project. Mr. Clem opined that the data for this small scale amendment was "[f]ar in excess of anything [he had] seen in the county." Environmental Impacts of the FLUM Amendment The area on and around the Estuaries' property is an area of tidal marsh intermixed with upland scrub. Many wildlife species have been seen utilizing the wetlands on and adjacent to the Estuaries' site (the 18.5 acre parcel). These include woodstorks, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, little blue herons, tri-colored herons, white ibis, and ospreys. Owls, foxes, raccoons, opossums, fiddler crabs, clams, fish, shrimp, and turtles also frequent the area. Parker's environmental scientist and ecologist, Mr. Robert Burks, testified to the environmental effects of any development of the Property subject to the FLUM Amendment. Mr. Burks has worked with American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I.C.P.) designated planners, providing them with opinions with respect to environmental issues. But he is not an expert in land use planning. The National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) is a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal program administered by the Department of Environmental Protection. It is a program to do research and education on estuarine systems. The estuarine ecosystem composed of the Guana, Tolomato, and Matanzas Rivers has been designated as a NERR. There is testimony that development and increases in population in the area, in general, have been responsible for, for example, the decline and closure of shell-fishing and decline of water quality in the area. Conservation Goal E.2 provides: The County shall conserve, utilize, and protect the natural resources of the area, including air, water, wetlands, water wells, estuaries, water bodies, soils, minerals, vegetative communities, wildlife, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge areas and other natural and environmental resources, insuring that resources are available for existing and future generations. Objective E.2.2 provides: Native Forests, Floodplains, Wetlands, Upland Communities, and Surface Water The County shall protect native forests, floodplains, wetlands, upland communities, and surface waters within the County from development impacts to provide for maintenance of environmental quality and wildlife habitats. Policy E.2.2.5.(a)(1)(b) provides: The County shall protect Environmentally Sensitive lands (ESLs) through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternate types of protection for each type of Environmentally Sensitive Land. Adoption and implementation of the Land Development Regulations shall, at a minimum, address the following issues: For Wetlands, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and Estuaries: establish and modify buffers between the wetlands/ OFW/ estuaries and upland development as stated in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), and as follows: * * * Except a minimum of a 50 ft. natural vegetative upland buffer shall be required and maintained between the development areas and the St. Johns, Matanzas, Guana and Tolomato Rivers and their associated tributaries, streams and other interconnecting water bodies. Policy E.2.2.13(b)(6) provides: By December 1999, the County shall develop and adopt guidelines and standards for the preservation and conservation of uplands through various land development techniques as follows: (b) The County shall recognize the following vegetative natural communities as Significant Natural Communities Habitat. Due to the rarity of these vegetative communities, a minimum of 10 percent of the total acreage of the Significant Natural Communities Habitat (excluding bona fide agriculture and/or silviculture operations) shall be preserved and maintained by the development. * * * (6) Scrub. Where on-site preservation of the native upland communities are not feasible, the County as an alternative shall accept a fee in lieu of preservation or off-site mitigation in accordance with the County Land Development Regulations. Mr. Burks opined that "generally," and if Goal E.2 is read "literally", the FLUM Amendment did not meet this Goal and afford protection for wetlands, vegetative communities, estuaries, wildlife and wildlife habitat. He perceives that "[a]nytime there's a development there will be impacts to the estuarine--the water bodies because of surficial runoff from the parking lots, from the impervious surfaces, and it will carry pollutants into those areas. And that includes soils also. . . . As far as upland habitat, when you develop an area like this, unless you leave certain parts, the upland habitat will be negatively impacted obviously. There won't be the trees there, the vegetation that was normally there before the development." For Mr. Burks, any development of the Property would generally be inconsistent with the Plan provisions recited above. But, his opinion is specifically based on how each system or plan for the site, or here, the Property, is actually designed--"it would depend on the design of the housing structures themselves and where they were placed. If you design anything in a manner which is going to protect that buffer and literally protect the water quality and the runoff in that area, then you may--it may not violate it." For example, if the Property were developed with 25-foot buffers instead of 50-foot buffers, Mr. Burks says that, from an ecology standpoint, there would be insufficient protection for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. He offered the same opinion if the FLUM Amendment did not require a minimum ten percent set aside of the total acreage for significant natural communities habitat on the Property, such as, scrub of approximately 6.7 acres, a protected vegetative community existing on the upland portion of the Property. Furthermore, Parker introduced into evidence proposed site plans for the Property dated May 24, 2002, which show, in part, a 25-foot buffer, not a 50-foot buffer.4 Parker contends that these site plans are the best available data and analysis regarding whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance." However, the purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether the FLUM Amendment is "in compliance," not whether specific draft, and not approved, site plans are "in compliance" with the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment or the LDRs. If site plans are approved and a development order issued by the County, Parker, and any other aggrieved or adversely affected party may file a challenge pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. But, this is not the appropriate proceeding to challenge proposed site plans. This is not to say that proposed site plans cannot be considered data and analysis; only that they are not incorporated in the FLUM Amendment and are not subject to challenge here. See The Sierra Club, et al. v. St. John County, et al., Case Nos. 01- 1851GM and 01-1852GM (Recommended Order May 20, 2002; Final Order July 30, 2002). Internal Consistency Parker contended that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment. Some of these issues have been discussed above in Findings of Fact 68 to 80, pertaining to environmental considerations. Another issue is whether the FLUM Amendment, which changes the maximum density on the Property, is inconsistent with Policy E.1.3.11 which provides: "The County shall not approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments that increase the residential density on the Future Land Use Map within the Coastal High Hazard Area." See also Policy A.1.5.6 which offers almost identical language. The FLUM Amendment changes the land use designation of the Property, and allows a land use "limited to not more than 56 residential units, built in not more than four buildings with residential uses, not more than 35 feet in height," and thus allows a potential increase in the density of the Property, located in the Coastal High Hazard Area. This resulted from the Settlement Agreement. In Policy A.1.11.6, [t]he County recognizes that the Plan's Objectives and Policies sometime serve to support competing interests. Accordingly, in such instances, and in the absence of a mandatory prohibition of the activity at issue, it is the County's intent that the Plan be construed as a whole and that potentially competing Objectives and Policies be construed together so as to render a balanced interpretation of the Plan. It is the further intent that the County interpretation of the Plan, whether by County staff, the Planning & Zoning Agency, or the Board of County Commissioners, shall be afforded appropriate deference. County interpretations of the Plan which balance potentially competing Objectives and Policies shall not be overturned in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the County interpretation has misapplied the Plan construed as a whole. The May 2000 EAR-Based Plan Amendment Goals, Objectives, and Policies must be read in their entirety and individual provisions cannot be read in isolation. Objective E.1.3 requires the County to engage in "post disaster planning, coastal area redevelopment, and hurricane preparedness. The County shall prepare post-disaster redevelopment plans which reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards." Mr. Clem opined that Policy E.1.3.11, see Finding of Fact 81, expressed "the general intent of limiting population increases that would result in adverse impacts to hurricane evacuation of the coastal areas," and, in particular, the "barrier islands." (Policy E.1.9.5, under Objective E.1.9 Hurricane Evacuation Time, provides: "St. Johns County shall attempt to limit the density within the Coastal High Hazard Area as allowed by law.") Mr. Clem further stated that the FLUM Amendment, which restricted the Property to a maximum of 56 residential units, from a possible 116 unit maximum, was consistent with the Policy which restricts density within the coastal hazard zone. In rendering his opinions, Mr. Clem balanced the above- referenced Policies with Objective A.1.16, pertaining to "private property rights." When these May 2002 EAR-Based Plan Amendment provisions are read together, it appears that Mr. Clem's interpretations are not unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department of Community Affairs concluding that the FLUM Amendment adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2002-31 is "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether certain portions of Amendment RU-27 to the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, as adopted in Sarasota County Ordinance 96- 027, are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, GROWTH-RESTRAINT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION, INC. (GEO), is a non-profit environmental advocacy organization. By stipulation, GEO is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (ECOSWF), is a Florida non-profit corporation which has a number of corporate and individual members in Sarasota whose corporate purposes may be affected by RU-27. ECOSWF has engaged in a variety of advocacy and educational activities in Sarasota County and submitted oral comments to Sarasota County during the adoption of RU-27. Petitioner, MIAKKA COMMUNITY CLUB, INC. (MCC), is a non- profit community corporation whose members primarily reside in Sarasota County. By stipulation MCC is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner REBECCA AYECH (AYECH) owns property and resides in Sarasota County and submitted oral and written comments to Sarasota County on RU-27. By stipulation AYECH is an “affected person” as defined in Section 163.3184(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DEPARTMENT) is the State land planning agency, with responsibility to review plan amendments under Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Respondent SARASOTA COUNTY (COUNTY) is a local government with responsibility to prepare a comprehensive plan and any required amendments thereto pursuant to Sections 163.3167, 163.3171, Florida Statutes. The Challenged Amendment Ordinance 96-27, also known as amendment RU-27, was adopted by Sarasota County on April 30, 1996. RU-27 substantially revised the future land use element (FLUE) and future land use map (FLUM). Sarasota County is approximately 563 square miles in size. The revisions to the FLUM contained in RU-27 as a whole substantially affect approximately 305,000 acres. Petitioners’ only challenge to RU-27 as a whole is that the plan improperly fails to incorporate a five-year time frame for land use. In all other respects, Petitioners’ challenge is limited to two parcels of land comprising approximately 200 acres located immediately east of I-75 and immediately north of Fruitville Road. These parcels are identified as “A” and “C” on page 5 of Petitioners’ Exhibit 40. On the pre-amendment FLUM, Parcels A and C are designated semi-rural. “Semi-rural” provides for residential densities up to one unit per two acres. The post-amendment FLUM provided for the following land uses for parcels A and C: the western half of Parcel A was "major employment center/interstate regional office park" (MEC/IROP) and the eastern half was "moderate density residential" (MDR); the northern (approximate) third of Parcel C was "moderate density residential" (MDR), and the southern two thirds was "major employment center" (MEC). MEC is described in the FLUE as: Coordinated development of industrial, commercial, service and governmental uses within a park-like setting" which is encouraged in MEC. Commercial general uses, which are customarily accessory and incidental to the primary uses allowed within a MEC may be permitted, provided that such commercial uses are located and oriented internally, are consistent with an adopted Critical Area Plan or Development of Regional Impact, are located at least 300 feet from the boundary and do not exceed five percent of the total land area. Class A quality type development is encouraged, particularly along 1-75 pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.5. MDR-type residential densities can be allowed in the MEC districts up to 25 of the area consistent with FLUE Policy 3.1.2. All development within an MEC must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MEC/IROP FLUE policies permit "planned office parks including high technology research and development centers" pursuant to FLUE Policy 3.3.4. All development within an MEC/IROP must be consistent with an adopted critical area plan for the property under FLUE Policy 3.3.3. Implementing Zoning Categories for MEC/IROP are: PCD, PID, I, ILW, GU and PRD. MDR as described in the FLUE Policy 3.1.1 is development within the Urban Service Area (USA) having "gross densities equal to or greater than two dwelling units per acre and less than five dwelling units per acre." Implementing Zoning Categories for MDR are: RSFI, RSF2, RSF3, RSF4, RMH and PRD. Subject Properties Parcels A and C had initially been identified as a "study area" in the transmitted version of RU-27. At the adoption stage public hearing the Sarasota County Planning Department staff presented recommendations as to the designation of Parcels A and C and the extension of the Urban Service Area to encompass those parcels. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel A was substantially undeveloped, and consisted of about 60-70% pine flatwoods; 35% mesic hammock; and three small freshwater wetlands. There was a dolomite waste water treatment facility in the northwest corner. Further, a two-lane paved road oriented north-south ran inside of the western boundary, connecting the mining operation to the north with Fruitville Road to the south and then west to 1-75. At the time of the adoption of RU-27, Parcel C was mostly cleared open land with approximately a dozen houses and other structures. Adjacent Area At the time of RU-27's adoption, immediately north of Parcel A was a Florida Power and Light Company transmission line and easement, and north of the easement was a series of mining operations and a Development of Regional Impact industrial and office park development. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel A was a low density residential area known as the Fox Creek housing development, generally developed with five-acre parcels. At the time of RU-27's adoption, east of Parcel C was a high density area known as the "Sun `N Fun" recreational vehicle and mobile home park. At the time of RU-27's adoption, across Fruitville Road and to the south of Parcel C was what is known as the "celery fields" parcel. The celery fields have been obtained by Sarasota County as a regional stormwater facility. At the time of RU-27's adoption, south of Fruitville Road on both sides of 1-75 were major employment centers with warehousing and industrial uses. At the time of RU-27's adoption, west of 1-75 and North of Richardson Road was a multi-family residential development under construction. At the time of RU-27's adoption, at the immediate northeast corner of 1-75 and Fruitville Road, was a MEC. It was established in 1993 in Amendment RU-15. The FLUM amendments changed the land use designation on the parcel to the immediate north of the previously existing MEC from semi-rural to MEC. Petitioners do not challenge this change. Parcel C is contiguous to the eastern boundary of the previously-existing MEC. A 24-inch force main water pipeline is scheduled to be constructed along Coburn Road, running along the western boundary of Parcel A, and a new water pumping station is planned for the northern corner of Parcel A. Potable water is available to Parcels A and C. A sanitary sewer (wastewater) pipeline is scheduled to be built by Sarasota County along the north, west and south boundaries of Parcel A. An analysis of the planning for the MEC and MEC/IROP land uses is set forth at pages 30-34 of RU-27. The Department's Compliance Review and Finding On or about December 8, 1995, Sarasota County transmitted a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan including amendment to the FLUE and FLUM. Sarasota County requested that the Department apply the Objections, Recommendations and Comments review process. The Department reviewed the proposed amendment, and notified the County on or about March 1, 1996, that the Department had seven objections to the proposed amendment under Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. None of the objections pertained to Parcels A or C directly. In addition, the Department objected based upon alleged inconsistencies with the Regional Policy Plan, Goal 7, Regional Issue F and Goal 9, Regional Issue E; and based upon inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan, Goal 7, Policies 24 and 25 and Goal 9 Policy 3. None of the state or regional agencies which commented on RU-27 to the Department at the transmittal or adoption stage registered any objections to RU-27. The Florida Department of Transportation reviewed the amendment and had no objections. The Southwest Florida Water Management District reviewed RU-27 and registered no objections. The District commented that the proposed amendment did not address the District's pending Southern Water Use Caution Area rule and its potential effects on land use and development within the County. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council reviewed the proposed RU-27 amendment and determined it to be consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. The Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments or objections to the amendment. On or about April 30, 1996, the County transmitted the adopted amendment (Ordinance RU-27) to the Department. RU-27 was a major revision of the FLUE. Sarasota County made changes in the transmitted version of RU-27 in the adoption stage, including changes to the FLUM. Among the changes to the transmitted amendment were: updated (to 1995) population estimates and projections; development capacity calculations; existing land use and cover maps, "minor corrections to the FLUM," updating of the FLUM "to show recent government acquisitions and changes to the FLUM that affected specific relatively small areas," and minor changes to several policies. The Department determined that the plan amendment adopted in Ordinance RU-27 was in compliance. The Department published notice of intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance on June 26, 1995, in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Petitioners filed a timely Petition challenging the Department’s intent to find Ordinance RU-27 in compliance. In Paragraph 4.a. of the Petition, Non-Compliance with Section 163.3177, it is alleged that the subject portion of RU-27 violates Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes, because (1) it causes the FLUM not to be based on the projected population of Sarasota County; (2) it allows urban sprawl into new areas without correcting public facilities deficiencies; (3) it fails to recognize important environmental features (messic hammock, wetlands, pine flatwoods); and (4) it fails to account for I-75 as an evacuation route when it is projected to be severely over- stressed for evacuation purposes. The evidence fails to establish any requirement that the designation of each parcel be mathematically justified in the plan or the effect of the designations at issue on the demographic analyses supporting the plan. As part of the plan amendment process, Sarasota County analyzed the growth trends in the northern versus the southern half of the county, and found that the northern half of the county had limited residential capacity for the next ten years, with a projected buildout by 2006. The limited supply justified an additional amount of additional residential capacity. The evidence fails to establish the existence of any public facilities deficiencies that would be affected by the amendment. Native habitats receive protection from other provisions of the comprehensive plan during the development review process, even under the designations applied in RU-27. The evidence fails to establish that the amendment would have any adverse impact on I-75’s ability to carry traffic in an emergency. The subject area is not a hurricane evacuation zone, but is planned to serve as a safe area to absorb evacuees from other coastal regions of the county. Timing of RU-27 vs. the EAR Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment violates Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, because it was transmitted and adopted prior to the adoption of Sarasota County’s Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Sarasota County’s EAR was adopted on February 20, 1996. RU-27 was adopted on April 30, 1996. Sarasota County notified the Regional Planning Council that RU-27 was an EAR-based amendment, but did not specifically notify the Department. The Department, however, considered and reviewed RU-27 as an EAR-based amendment. Other local governments have failed to specifically designate EAR-based amendments in the past. On such occasions the Department has contacted the local governments to ascertain the status of such amendments during the Department’s review process. Alleged Inconsistency with State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners allege that the amendment "does not comply" with the following parts of the State Comprehensive Plan: 187.201(8), (10), (17), (18), (20), (23), (24), Florida Statutes. The evidence fails to establish any inconsistency with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council found the amendment to be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the more specific and credible expert opinion is that the designations of the parcels at issue are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish the existing Future Land Use Element was not based on appropriate data and analysis, or that the entirety of RU-27 was not based on appropriate data and analysis. The evidence fails to establish that the data supporting the amendment were not collected and applied in professionally accepted manner. A consultant’s study prepared for the County in 1989 had estimated the unadjusted demand for new office park development in the I-75 corridor to consume approximately 640 acres by the year 2010. These data, prepared for an I-75 Corridor Plan, were incorporated into the 1989 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this information, the County had designated 770 acres of MEC/IROP land to allow for environmental constraints. Although located at an I-75 interchange, Parcels A and C had not been designated for Urban uses in part because of drainage problems and the habitat located on parts of Parcel A. Because of recent drainage improvements in this area and more stringent environmental site planning requirements incorporated into the plan after 1989, this particular location has improved substantially as to its suitability for MEC/IROP development. By designating a portion of this site for MEC/IROP uses, RU-27 increased the supply of MEC/IROP land by approximately 60 to 70 acres. No other MEC/IROP lands were added by RU-27, resulting in a total available supply of approximately 840 to 850 acres. When compared with the 1989 consultant’s study, the total MEC/IROP acreage exceeds absolute demand by approximately 33 percent. The MDR contained within the subject parcels amounts to approximately 120 acres. At the maximum possible density of five units per acre, 600 residential units could be constructed on these parcels, or 540 units more than the maximum allowable under the previous Semi-Rural designation. The total urban residential capacity of the urban-designated area in RU-27 is 43,912 units, meaning that the new urban development permitted on these parcels constitutes a maximum or 1.23 percent of the total number of potential units. Based on the County’s existing land use controls and other constraints, the County projects that such lands will actually develop at even lower densities than the maximum allowed within the FLUM designations. The actual zoning density applied in Sarasota County is less than Future Land Use designation, except in the rural area. In the text of the RU-27 amendment, the County justified the need for the designation of the MDR at this particular location as being to “serve as a transition between lands designated as Major Employment Center and existing Semi- Rural Development.” Population Projections Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(e) and 9J-5.006(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, in that it is not based on required population projections. RU-27 is based upon residential as well as seasonal population projections. The MDR areas designated on Parcels A and C by RU-27 were intended to provide a buffer between the newly-created MEC and MEC/IROP land uses on those parcels and existing residential development. Petitioners essentially challenge the changed land uses on Parcels A and C to new residential MDR capacity based upon the allegation that the expansion of the Urban Service Area to include the parcels is "over-allocated" because it exceeds the 133% market flexibility factor. The evidence, however, fails to show that the land uses designated for Parcels A and C is inconsistent with the projected population growth, particularly in light of the faster growth rate in the northern portion of Sarasota County. Planning Time Frames Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005(4), Florida Administrative Code, because the FLUE does not contain a five-year planning time frame. The challenged portions of the amendment (Parcels A and C) do not specifically relate to the planning time frame requirement, however, it is clear that the plan as amended contains at least two planning time frames, 1995-2005 time frame associated with the Urban Service Area and provision of capital improvements, and 1995-2010 for long-range capital improvements planning. Internal Consistency with Goals, Objectives, Policies Petitioners allege that the amendment does not comply with Rule 9J-5.005 (5), Florida Administrative Code, due to alleged internal inconsistency between the two FLUM changes and the following parts of the FLUE (as amended by RU-27). (1) Analysis. The Petition refers to portions of the Analysis section: "Development Capacity of the Urban Area"; "Coordination of Capital Improvements and band Uses"; "Planning for Residential Uses"; "Planning for Industrial Uses"; and "Summary." The evidence does not establish that the changed land uses on Parcels A and C are inconsistent with the totality of the data and analysis which the County considered. The County Commission designated Parcels A, B and C as a "study area", there was a pre-existing MEC on a contiguous parcel, and Parcel B was an urban enclave proximate to the Interstate. The map depicting the urban planning area did not include Parcels A and C; however, the map was intended to include the pre-RU-27 urban areas as a basis for beginning work on the amendment. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Analysis Section and Parcels A and C. (2) Intent. The Petition did not identify any specific provision of the Intent section alleged to be insistent with the FLUM designation of the two parcels. The Intent Section does not set forth goals, objectives or policy as meant by Rule 9J- 5.005(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The evidence does not establish an inconsistency between the Intent Section and the designation of the two parcels at issue. (3) Policy 1.2.1. This policy requires that potential land use incompatibilities be mitigated through certain design techniques. This policy applies to the issuance of development orders and rezonings, not plan amendments. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 1.2.1. (4) Policy 2.2.1. This policy requires that development orders be conditioned on adequate levels of service. A plan amendment, however, is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.1. (5) Policy 2.2.2. This policy requires that public expenditures for infrastructure and services be concentrated to serve areas within the Urban Services Area (USA) boundary. The parcels in question are within the USA boundary. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.2.2. (6) Policy 2.3.1. This policy calls for a minimum dwelling unit potential within the USA boundary of 133% of the projected housing demand. Parcels A and C are within the USA, therefore no inconsistency exists. (7) Policy 2.3.2. This policy provides that the Future Urban areas will be considered for inclusion within the USA, based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 2.3.2. (8) Policy 2.3.4. This policy explains that the FLUM “establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use,” but not a minimum. The designation of Parcels A and C in this regard is consistent with Policy 2.3.4. (9) Goal 3. This goal calls for the orderly development of lands needed to accommodate the projected population growth. . . .” The designation of Parcels A and C reflects a balanced approach to population growth in the northern part of Sarasota County. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Goal 3. (10) Policy 3.1.1. This policy provides guidelines for the application of the residential density ranges provided in the comprehensive plan to subsequent development orders. The designation of Parcels A and C is not a development order. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.1. (11) Policy 3.1.7. This policy requires the County to amend and adopt appropriate ordinances and plans to promote mixed use, pedestrian and bicycle friendly communities within two years. Within the context of RU-27, the designation of Parcels A and C provides a reasonable plan to promote the mixed use of this property and incorporate the area in an orderly manner. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 3.1.7. (12) Objective 4.1. Objective 4.1 provides for the establishment and implementation of planning programs to address development and redevelopment opportunities. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Objective 4.1. (13) Policy 4.1.7. This policy calls for the development and preparation of a subsequent overall plan for the areas east of I-75 in Sarasota County. The policy does not prohibit or otherwise limit the uses previously designated or the uses set forth in RU-27. The evidence does not establish an internal inconsistency with Policy 4.1.7. (14) Appendix I. Appendix I contains the capacity methodology and the designation of the two parcels at issue. The Petition did not allege that the methodology contained in Appendix I failed to comply with Chapter 163 or Rule 9J-5, and there is no showing of an internal inconsistency. Concurrency Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.0055 and 9J- 5.006(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because all required public facilities will not be available concurrent to the development permitted by RU-27. There is no evidence of any inadequacy of the plan’s existing concurrency management systems or their consistency with state statute or rule. There are no existing public facilities deficiencies at Parcels A and C. The designation of Parcels A and C in the amendment would not exacerbate any existing public facilities deficiencies. While the designation of Parcels A and C would have some impact on roads, sanitary sewers, stormwater management, and other facilities and services, the evidence does not establish that required facilities will not be available concurrent to development. Urban Sprawl Petitioners allege that the subject portion of the amendment does not comply with Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8 and 9J- 5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, because it allows and encourages urban sprawl. There is no existing or historic problem of urban sprawl in Sarasota County. Sarasota County has historically provided only the capacity needed to support the population projections. RU-27 established the urban service area for Sarasota County. The change in land use for the subject properties in RU-27 did not cause urban sprawl. Sarasota County has for planning purposes a “tight” plan, in that it contains effective land use controls, works well within the planning timeframes, and contains a much lower allocation of new land for growth than other land use plans reviewed and approved by the Department. The approximate 200 acres of Parcels A and C do not constitute a “substantial area” of Sarasota County. Parcels A and C do not constitute a substantial area of the FLUM, which encompasses approximately 305,000 acres. As determined by the planning reviewers, the changes to the adopted FLUM pertain to relatively small areas. The changes to the FLUM for Parcels A and C substantially represent an “urban to urban” change. The rule indicators of urban sprawl are not implicated by the changed land use of Parcels A and C. Sarasota County’s plan has effective development controls in place to mitigate for or discourage urban sprawl. The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “low intensity” or “single-use development.” The new FLUM categories for Parcels A and C are not properly characterized as “in excess of demonstrated need.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C constitute "nodal development" which is not urban sprawl and not “radial strip development.” The new land uses for Parcels A and C do not constitute “leapfrog” development, but constituted “infill” of the existing and surrounding development to Parcels A and C. 102 The amended land uses for Parcels A and C do not reflect premature, poorly-planned development. Parcels A and C do not have adjacent active agricultural areas with which to conflict. Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the amendment does not comply with the following parts of the Regional Policy Plan: Goal 1-9; Policy 10; Goal 11-25; and Policy 1e. The Department and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council determined that the amendment is consistent with the Regional Policy Plan. There is no evidence of record regarding any inconsistency with the Southwest Florida Regional Policy Plan.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to exercise general supervision over the administration and enforcement of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including Areas of Critical State Concern, and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. See, Section 380.031(18), Florida Statutes. The City of Key West is in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. See, Section 380.0552(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code. Since the City is in the Florida Key's Area of Critical State Concern, City ordinances regulating land development do not take effect until DCA approves them "by rule." See, Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. See also, Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes (which provides that no proposed land development regulation in an Area of Critical State Concern shall become effective until DCA has adopted a rule approving such regulation.) In pertinent part, Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes provides: 380.0552 Florida Keys Area; protection and designation as area of critical state concern.-- PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.--State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which chapter is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development as set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, the following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shorelines and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. * * * MODIFICATION TO PLANS AND REGULATIONS.--Any land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys Area may be enacted, amended, or rescinded by a local government, but the enactment, amendment or rescission shall become effective only upon the approval thereof by the state land planning agency. The state land planning agency shall review the proposed change to determine if it is in compliance with the principles for guiding development set forth in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, and shall either approve or reject the requested changes within 60 days of receipt thereof. Further, the state land planning agency, after consulting with the appropriate local government, may, no more often than once a year, recommend to the Administration Commission the enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan. Within 45 days following the receipt of such recommendation by the state land planning agency, the commission shall reject the recommendation, or accept it with or without modification and adopt it, by rule, including any changes. Any such local development regulation or plan shall be in compliance with the principles for guiding development. (Emphasis supplied.) In sum, any land development regulations adopted by the City must be submitted to DCA for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.0552(9). Such regulations become effective when approved by DCA. In evaluating an Ordinance submitted pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), DCA will look to the Principles for Guiding Development found in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DCA is directed to approve a proposed ordinance if it is in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development; conversely, DCA is without authority to approve a proposed amendment which is not in compliance with the Principles for Guiding Development. On September 3, 1991, the City adopted Ordinance 91-25 (the "Ordinance") which provides for a 180 day moratorium on certain development activities in the City. The Ordinance prohibits ...the approval of Community Impact Assessment Statements and site plans for projects falling within the scope of the city's CIAS ordinance, where the proposed density or intensity of use is inconsistent with the permitted density or intensity under the future land use map of the city's pending comprehensive plan or the property is situated in an area designated as coastal high hazard or wetlands on the Future Land Use Map of the City's pending comprehensive land use plan... A building moratorium, such as that set forth in the Ordinance, constitutes a land development regulation as defined in Section 380.031(8), and Rule 28-20.19(4), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the moratorium could not take effect until approved by DCA by rule. A Community Impact Assessment Statement ("CIAS"), as defined in Section 34.04, Key West Code, describes expected impacts of proposed development on specified City resources and infrastructure. While a CIAS is not a development order, the City requires a CIAS as a precondition to the granting of a building permit for most large projects in the City. A developer is required to submit a CIAS for a proposed residential or hotel/motel development of ten or more habitable units or a proposed commercial development of 10,000 square feet or more. A CIAS is intended to ensure that the impacts a proposed project will have upon public facilities and the social and economic resources of the community are considered in the planning process and to avoid surprises during the planning process. The City will reject a CIAS that it finds to be incomplete or misleading. The City Commission held its first hearing on the Ordinance on June 18, 1991. At least five public hearings before the City Commission were held prior to the City's adoption of the Ordinance. The 1981 City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (the "Existing Comprehensive Plan") sets forth certain parameters and standards for the issuance of development orders. The Existing Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-37, Florida Administrative Code. The City of Key West land development regulations and certain amendments to the Existing Comprehensive Plan have been approved by DCA in Chapter 9J-22, Florida Administrative Code. The City is required by the States's growth management statute, Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, to submit to DCA a new comprehensive plan. Since the City is in an Area of Critical State Concern, the new comprehensive plan will not take effect until it is approved by DCA by rule. The Existing Comprehensive Plan remains in effect until a new plan is adopted. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was in the process of preparing a new comprehensive plan to guide future development. By adopting the moratorium, the City sought to provide itself with an opportunity to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City submitted a proposed new comprehensive plan (the "Pending Comprehensive Plan") to DCA on December 2, 1991. DCA and the City are currently involved in negotiations over whether the Pending Comprehensive Plan is in compliance with the state's growth management law, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The Pending Comprehensive Plan was still in the draft stages at the time the Ordinance was adopted. As indicated above, the City adopted the moratorium for projects requiring a CIAS in an effort to ensure that the City would be able to effectively implement a new comprehensive plan. The City is faced with numerous development-related problems which it attempts to address in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. These problems include: Water Quality Water Resources - The City draws all of its water from the Biscayne Aquifer. The water is pumped from wellfields on the mainland in Dade County and is transported through a single pipe to Monroe County to provide water to the Florida Keys population. While there is no immediate problem with the availability of water for the City, the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) are in the process of preparing a water supply plan for Dade County and the Keys. These agencies recently informed all Monroe County local governments that they are approaching the limit of water that can be supplied from the aquifer and it is expected that there will be limitations on any further increases in consumption and/or consumptive use permits. The City and DCA contend that the moratorium will help the City to effectively analyze and address these issues in its new comprehensive plan. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to develop a plan for potable water resources, including replacement of the aging water main, providing for emergency supplies, and emphasizing the need to conserve water. Sewer System - Sewage treatment in the City of Key West is a serious problem. The treated effluent is currently dumped into the Atlantic Ocean and has been implicated in the degradation of the environmentally sensitive and unique coral reefs. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to substantially improve its wastewater treatment level of service, prevent system infiltration, fix leaky pipes, and reduce the pollution of the surrounding waters. Stormwater Runoff - The waters surrounding the island of Key West have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The runoff generated by rains in the City is currently channeled into these waters either directly or via canals. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not contain extensive guidance regarding stormwater runoff. Chapter 4 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would direct the City to conduct a half million dollar study over the next two years to examine, develop, and implement a stormwater management plan. Section 4-2.1(d) of the Pending Comprehensive Plan would also require improved levels of service for stormwater runoff. Hurricane Evacuation - The evacuation of people out of the Florida Keys during a hurricane is an important element in the planning process for the City. The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide any standards for hurricane evacuation. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan requires the City of Key West to develop a feasible hurricane evacuation plan and coordinate its implementation with the County. The City has taken no action on this directive to date. A model is being developed within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan for the safe evacuation of residents from the Florida Keys. The model will include updated information based upon the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The inclusion of new development into the model is complicated. By temporarily limiting new development, the City can provide more certainty to this planning process. Wetlands and Environmental Protection - The Pending Comprehensive Plan seeks to strengthen and clarify the Existing Comprehensive Plan provisions regarding wetlands and habitat protection by reducing densities within wetlands, salt ponds, and coastal high hazard areas and requiring the adoption of amended land development regulations which extensively improve the City's environmental protection requirements. Residential Housing and Conversion to Transient Units - There have been a significant number of conversions from residential to transient units (hotels, motels, and other tourist accommodations) in the City during the last several years. The increase in "transient" persons exacerbates the strain upon public facilities, especially transportation facilities. The Existing Comprehensive Plan offers little protection to residential areas from commercial and transient intrusion. The Future Land Use Element of the Pending Comprehensive Plan attempts to guide and plan the locations of conversions. Transportation - Many roads in the City are currently operating at poor levels of service, including U.S. Highway 1, the main arterial roadway in the City. The City has never had a specific plan to improve the levels of service. The City is required under the growth management statute (Chapter 163) to provide adequate levels of service on the roads within the City. Chapter 2 of the Pending Comprehensive Plan proposes to implement an extensive traffic circulation system over the next twenty years which will include roadway improvements, revised levels of service, and nonmotorized transportation provisions. Solid Waste - Currently, the City's solid waste is disposed at a local landfill. The City's solid waste disposal facility is currently operating under a year old consent order that directs the facility to be closed within three years. The Existing Comprehensive Plan states that the City is to provide adequate public facilities, but does not explain what constitutes "adequate". The Existing Comprehensive Plan does not provide a plan for the impending closure. The Pending Comprehensive Plan would require the City to provide the funding for solid waste disposal improvements. The clear goal of the Ordinance was to delay the approval of certain CIAS applications, site plans and building permits for 180 days while work continued on the Pending Comprehensive Plan. The City contends that the moratorium will help it to effectively implement the policies which it anticipates will be incorporated in the new comprehensive plan when it is finally in place. The Ordinance provided that the 180 day moratorium would begin on the effective date of the administrative rule approving the Ordinance. The City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the Ordinance. Normal rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, generally takes between 90 to 120 days. Many local governments experience a significant increase in development proposals immediately prior to the adoption of a new comprehensive plan. Many of these proposals are prompted by a fear as to the impact of the new plan and seek to acquire vested rights under the old plan. The City and DCA were concerned that such an increase in development proposals might complicate the planning process by rendering some aspects or assumptions of a new plan moot before the plan could even be adopted. Moratoria are frequently used by local governments in order to complete an effective comprehensive plan without the need for changes. In the year immediately proceeding the adoption of the Pending Comprehensive Plan by the City Commission (from September 1990 through September 1991), the City received seven CIAS applications. No CIAS applications had been received during the year prior. The City contends that many of the 1990/1991 applications were motivated by an attempt to obtain vested development rights. However, no persuasive evidence to support this speculation was presented. The City Commmission did not consider any reports, studies or other data in connection with the enactment of the Ordinance. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City Commission did not make any specific determinations that there were any immediate dangers to the public health, safety or welfare of the community nor was the Ordinance enacted as an emergency ordinance. After its adoption by the City Commission, the Ordinance was transmitted to DCA on September 5, 1991 for approval pursuant to Section 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes. The only information transmitted to DCA was a copy of the Ordinance. As indicated above, the City and DCA were concerned that normal administrative rulemaking time periods would defeat the purpose of the City's Ordinance. The City Planner contacted DCA to request approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City Planner and DCA concurred in the conclusion that the purpose of the Ordinance would be defeated if it was not immediately implemented. The City Commission did not specifically ask or authorize the City Planner to request DCA to enact the Ordinance by emergency rule. The City's concerns included, among other things, that the conversions of residential properties to transient tourist accommodations would accelerate during the process of finalizing the Pending Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City expects that its new comprehensive plan will reexamine the densities in coastal high hazard areas. By adopting a moratorium, the City sought to insure that any new developments will comply with the new densities ultimately adopted. On September 18, 1991, DCA filed the rule packet for the Emergency Rule with the Secretary of State and the Emergency Rule became effective on that date. DCA did not prepare an economic impact statement for the Emergency Rule. The rule packet consisted of: (a) a Certification Of Emergency Rule; (b) the Notice Of Emergency Rule; (c) a Statement Of The Specific Facts And Reasons For Finding An Immediate Danger To The Public Health, Safety And Welfare, (the "Statement of Specific Reasons") and (d) a Statement of the Agency's Reasons for Concluding that the Procedure Used Is Fair under the Circumstances (the "Agency Conclusions"). The Notice of Emergency Rule appeared in the September 27, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. In the Statement of Specific Reasons, DCA concluded that: ...Generally, a [comprehensive] plan revision process stimulates an accelerated rate of permit requests. Accelerated permitting including the acquisition of vested rights during a planning period will severly erode the City's ability to effectively revise and implement the comprehensive plan. Such accelerated development will also lead to further deterioration of current hurricane evacuation clearance time for the City. This action will increase the existing potential for loss of life and injury to person [sic] and property, will cause further deterioration of level [sic] of service on existing roadways and will lead to irreversible environmental degradation. Therefore this rule must be adopted by emergency procedures because of the potential immediate danger to the public health, safety and welfare. In the Agency Conclusions, DCA concluded: The emergency rulemaking is fair because (1) it immediately approves the ordinance as adopted by the City of Key West Commission and (2) normal rulemaking would moot the intent of the adopted ordinance since the City of Key West would be required to continue accepting applications for building permits, site plans, of [CIAS's] covering work projects or both, as set forth in Section 2 of ordinance 91-25 until the Department's rule approving the ordinance becomes effective. DCA's Statement of Specific Reasons was not reviewed or discussed with the City or its planner prior to its preparation. In deciding to promulgate the Emergency Rule, DCA considered the major public facilities and natural resource problems confronting the City and the City's proposed strategy to deal with these problems in the Pending Comprehensive Plan. DCA concluded that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, and welfare currently exists within the City justifying the approval of the Ordinance by emergency rule. The evidence clearly indicates that the City is facing many significant problems from a planning perspective. Petitioner contends, however, that there is no evidence that any of those problems present an "immediate" threat to the public health, safety or welfare. For the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law below, this contention is rejected. On October 10, 1991, DCA filed a rule packet for the Proposed Rule with the Secretary of State. The rule packet consisted of the Notice Of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013, the Estimate of Economic Impact on All Affected Persons (the "EIS",) a Statement of the Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 (the "Statement of Facts"), a summary of the Proposed Rule, a Comparison with Federal Standards, a Statement of Impact on Small Business and the text of the Proposed Rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule 9J-22.013 appeared in the October 18, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. On October 24, 1991, DCA filed a Notice of Change with the Secretary of State, stating that the correct number for the Proposed Rule was 9J-22.014, since 9J-22.013 had already been used. The Notice of Change appeared in the November 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. DCA did not consider any appraisals, data, reports or other studies concerning the economic impact that could result from the imposition of a moratorium. Instead, DCA followed the approach it had used in approving prior ordinances enacted by the City and concluded that its role in reviewing the Ordinance for compliance with the Priniciples Guiding Development did not require an examination of the economic impact of the underlying policy decisions reached by the City Commission in adopting the Ordinance. The EIS states that: Costs and benefits will occur as a result of this ordinance and were considered by the City prior to adoption of the ordinance. The City did not provide any information to DCA on the economic impacts of the Ordinance or on the impact of the Ordinance on the value of properties affected by it. The evidence was unclear as to the extent to which the City Commission considered economic impacts in deciding to adopt the Ordinance. Several public hearings were held in connection with the adoption of the Ordinance and DCA assumed that interested parties had an opportunity to express their concerns regarding the economic impact of the Ordinance at these hearings. DCA did not inquire as to the number of projects under review by the City at the time the Ordinance was passed nor did it seek a determination as to whether any projects with vested rights were affected by the Ordinance. The City Planning Department has retained a consultant, as required by the Ordinance, to conduct an economic study of existing conditions and projections for future growth. The purpose of this study is to assist in developing future amendments to the Ordinance. The study is not final and was not considered by the Key West City Commission when the Ordinance was enacted. DCA concluded that the proposed moratorium adopted by the Key West City Commission was consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Therefore, DCA concluded that Section 380.0552 required it to approve the Ordinance. Petitioner has not presented any persuasive evidence to establish that the Ordinance is in any way inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Petitioner owns 6.8 acres of vacant real property on Atlantic Boulevard in the City. He purchased the property in 1974 with the intent to develop it. Petitioner's property is located in an R-2H zoning district. The City's future land use map designates Petitioner's property as multi-family. Petitioner has spent approximately $71,000.00 to hire architects, engineers, surveyors, planners, biologists and attorneys to aid him in preparing to develop the subject property. In 1989, Petitioner submitted applications for a Department of Environmental Regulation Surface Water Management permit, and an Army Corps of Engineers dredge-and-fill permit, but neither of those permits have been issued to date. Generally the City requires a developer to obtain these "higher-order" permits prior to issuing a building permit. Petitioner has never applied for or installed sewer service, water service or any other utility service to the property. Since he acquired the property, Petitioner has not cleared any vegetation on the property except for minor trimming adjacent to the roadway which was required by the City for safety purposes. In June of 1989, the City passed a resolution notifying the Department of Environmental Regulation that it opposed Petitioner's application to place fill upon the property. On April 10, 1991, Petitioner submitted a CIAS to the City for a proposed 96 unit residential development in three buildings on the subject property. Before the Ordinance was enacted, the City Planner prepared a report dated July 3, 1991 reviewing Petitioner's CIAS as required by the CIAS ordinance. In that review, the City Planner concluded: The project is located in the R-2H zoning district and conforms to all provisions of that district, thus requiring no variances or special exceptions. On August 6, 1991, the Key West City Commission considered Petitioner's CIAS. The City Commission refused to approve the Petitioner's CIAS application. Specifically, the City Commission determined that Petitioner's CIAS application was incomplete and that the "submerged land district" designation ("SL") applied to the Petitioner's property as an overlay zoning district because Petitioner's property is located in an area which is deemed to include wetlands and mangroves. The City Commission requested that the CIAS address the "submerged land district" before the CIAS application could be deemed complete. The City Planner was not present at the August 6, 1991 City Commission meeting. The "submerged land district" in Section 35.07(f), City of Key West Code, provides that the density and site alteration of "environmentally sensitive areas including but not limited to wetland communities, mangroves, tropical hardwood hammocks and salt ponds shall be zoned with a maximum density of one (1) unit per acre. Site alteration shall be limited to a maximum of ten percent of the total size." The "submerged land district" overlay zone applies to any parts of the property which fall within the description of "environmentally sensitive areas" in Section 35.07, City of Key West Code. Because there is confusion over the interpretation and applicability of the SL district and because the SL land use district does not appear on the City's official zoning map, it was not considered in the preparation of the July 3 Report. The evidence in this case was inconclusive as to whether Petitioner's property is located in a SL district and/or whether Petitioner's CIAS for his property can be approved under the City regulations in place prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. On August 22, 1991, Petitioner submitted an amendment to the CIAS as well as a Site Plan. The amendment to the CIAS contests the City's conclusion that Petitioner's property should be considered part of a SL district. As set forth above, during this time period, the City had began consideration of the Ordinance. The first hearing on the Ordinance was held on June 18, 1991 and the Ordinance was passed by the City Commission on September 3, 1991. The City Planner notified Petitioner by letter dated October 11, 1991, that his CIAS Site Plan review and approval had been "stayed" because of the enactment of the Ordinance and because of the project's "inconsistencies with the City's Pending Comprehensive Plan." Petitioner requested an exception from the effect of the Ordinance pursuant to the procedure contained in the Ordinance. A hearing was held before the City Commission and the request was denied.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether development orders (building permits) issued by Monroe County to John F. Myers are consistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact Findings based on parties' stipulations John F. Myers is the owner of real property known as Lot 43, Block 3, Lower Matecumbe Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County issued the development orders which are the subjects of this proceeding. Petitioner Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereunder; and with authority to appeal any development order issued in an area of critical state concern to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, formerly Chapter 27F-8, F.A.C. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Department in Chapter 9J-14, F.A.C., and by the Administration Commission in Chapter 28-29, F.A.C. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (MCC). On December 10, 1993, Monroe County issued to Respondent Myers seven (7) building permits, each numbered 9230005763, for development of a 4,418 square foot single-family residence with 1,363 square feet of porches, and a 2,300 square foot ground slab. The permits also authorize development of a 183 square foot retaining wall, 38 pilings, and a "dock 183 sq. ft x 8ft." on the subject property. The permits were rendered to the Department on December 14, 1993. The open water shoreline on the subject property has accreted. Included in the environmental standards of the Monroe County land development regulations is Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, entitled "Environmental design criteria," which provides, in relevant part: Disturbed Lands: All structures developed, used or occupied on land which are [sic] classified as disturbed on the existing conditions map shall be designated, located and constructed such that: * * * (3) On lands classified as disturbed with beach berm: * * * b. No beach-berm material is excavated or removed and no fill is deposited on a beach berm; * * * f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; Lower Matecumbe beach is an active nesting area for marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the primary marine turtles which nest on Atlantic beaches in the Keys, are a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. There are thirty beaches in the Florida Keys which consist of loggerhead nesting habitat. The beach on Lower Matecumbe Key, including that portion of the beach which fronts on Mr. Myers' property, is a known turtle nesting beach that is ranked as the second most heavily nested beach in the Keys. The Monroe County comprehensive plan recognizes the beaches on Lower Matecumbe Key as known loggerhead turtle nesting beaches. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the County has prepared endangered species maps as a tool to be utilized in identifying known turtle nesting areas. Surveys of turtle nesting behavior in the Florida Keys are accomplished through a network of volunteers. The nesting survey information obtained from this volunteer network provides very general locations with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the number and ability of the volunteers and the extent to which they can obtain access to privately owned beach front property. Because of the limitations in the survey data, it is not generally possible to determine whether turtles have nested on a particular lot. Marine turtles most commonly nest within the first 50 feet landward of the mean high tide line, although they have been known to go farther upland. Because of the compressed beach and berm habitat in the Keys, loggerhead turtles have been known to nest in grassy vegetation and woody vegetation more than 50 feet landward of the mean high water line. Mr. Myers' property is properly designated as "disturbed lands" and there exists on this property a "beach-berm complex" which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles within the meaning of Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code. The setback requirement found in Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, applies to this development. Consequently, no structure may be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of the beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition that is pertinent to this proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the biota characteristic of beach systems in the Keys occur in up to four distinct generalized zones or associations, assemblages of plants and animals that have adapted to the environmental conditions of that zone. The zones on Keys beaches are described by Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: The strand-beach association is dominated by plants that are salt tolerant, root quickly, germinate from seed rapidly, and can withstand wave wash and shifting sand. Commonly found species include Sea Purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), Railroad Vine (Ipomoea pescaprae), Beach Grass (Panicum amarulum), Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata), Sea Lavender (Tournefortia gnapholodes), Coastal Ragweed (Ambrosia hispida) Bay Cedar (Suriana maritma), Cenchrus and Chamaesyce. On most Keys beaches this association occurs only at the base of the berm since the beach zone is very narrow. These plants also occupy the most seaward portion of the berm and continue some distance landward. * * * The next zone, "strand-dune" association begins with a steep and distinct increase in slope upward from the beach. This sloping portion of the berm receives the effects of the highest spring tides as well as storm-generated wave wash. The berm may be elevated only several inches or as much as several feet above the level of the beach and may extend landward hundreds of feet as a flat-topped plateau or beach ridge. The foreslope of the berm, or beach ridge, is vegetated primarily by the above-listed species of beach association. Grasses and herbaceous plants, which serve to stabilize this area, are most common. Proceeding landward, these pioneer species are joined by other species. * * * The strand-scrub association is generally considered a transition zone between strand-dune and hammock forest. Shrubs and occasional trees occur more frequently here and become more abundant as one proceeds landward. Species often found include Seagrape, . . . Wild Sage (Lantana involucrata), [and] Gray Nicker. . . . The most landward zone on the berm is occupied by tropical hardwood hammocks. On September 11, 1986, Monroe County issued building permit no. 20360 to John Brockway, Respondent Myers' predecessor in title, for development of a single-family residence on the subject property. The permit was issued prior to the effective date of the current Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and prior to adoption of the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, which is the subject of this proceeding. The Department of Community Affairs did not challenge the Brockway permit. In 1990, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issued to John and Patricia Brockway a deed for sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the subject property. The County-approved site plans for the subject permits indicate that excavation for a stormwater swale will occur seaward of the proposed residence. Mr. Myers has no intent to excavate a stormwater swale seaward of the proposed residence. The subject building permits and approved plans shall be revised to eliminate the stormwater swale and demonstrate the means by which stormwater runoff will be addressed, as required by the Monroe County Code. Based upon this agreement, the Department will not pursue its allegation that the permits are inconsistent with section 9.5-345(0)(3)b., Monroe County Code, and considers that issue to be resolved by this agreement. The parties agree that that portion of the subject permits which authorizes development of a dock on Lot 43 is acceptable, and a dock may be developed on Lot 43, so long as the permits are amended to specify that (a) the dock shall be developed adjacent to Lot 43 on an existing dredged channel and not on the jetty or open water shoreline, and (b) development of the dock is conditioned upon the Owner obtaining permits for a principal use. Findings based on evidence at hearing The subject property is generally triangular in shape. It fronts on a cul-de-sac on the northeast side. Along the west side of the property is a dredged channel and a jetty or riprap revetment. Along the south side the property fronts on the Atlantic Ocean. On the east side of the property is a single-family residence. The subject property is undeveloped except for a fill pad or fill pile established some time ago around the cul-de-sac to the western side of the property. The purpose of the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is to provide a habitat buffer to protect marine turtles from direct and indirect impacts of development, such as lighting impacts, noise, and clearing activities behind structures when people use their back yards. Buffers are a commonly used planning technique for both planning purposes and environmental purposes. The beach berm on the subject property has not moved over time. The shoreline has accreted in recent years and therefore the mean high tide line has moved seaward. This accretion provides additional habitat for marine turtles and affects the setback measurement when it is expressed as a number of feet from mean high water, as both parties have done in this case. However, the fact that a shoreline is either accreting or eroding is not relevant to a determination of the location of the beach berm. The parties agree that the berm is identified, at least in part, by a visual assessment of the increase and decrease in elevation of the property. A berm is essentially a rise in elevation which, moving landward from the water, rises up to a high point then begins to drop back off gradually until one reaches the adjacent grade or the natural grade beyond the berm. When the grade flattens out, that is generally the landward extent of the berm. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the landward extent of the beach berm complex on Respondent's property, and the area commonly utilized by marine turtles as nesting habitat are each approximately 50 feet landward of the mean high water line depicted on the June 1994 survey of Respondent's property. Expressed as a measurement from mean high water, the setback required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, on Respondent's property is approximately 100 feet. A variance from the setback provision in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, is not authorized. However, a variance from the front yard setback may be available to Respondent if he wishes to develop the particular single-family residence shown on the plans approved with the subject permits. The Monroe County comprehensive plan, Vol. I, Background Data Element, Section (3) entitled "Community Character," provides: A principal focus of growth management is the protection and enhancement of quality of life. Community character is a fundamental element of the circumstances described as quality of life. Community character refers to the nature of an area and can be described in terms of both the natural and the built environment. For example, the character of an undeveloped area is determined by the natural environment and is characterized by extensive open space and other environmental values. In contrast, the character of a city is defined by the built environment and the quality of life depends upon the design and effect of buildings. * * * . . . . In the Keys there are readily identifiable community characters that can be defined by the nature and extent of various land uses per community. These community character types are: Native, Sparsely Settled, Sub-Urban, Urban Transition and Urban. The comprehensive plan goes on to describe each type of community character, and includes a lengthy discussion of the criteria for determining community character. These criteria include land use, design of man-made elements including intensity of buildings and the nature of open spaces, landscaping, and social interactions and experiences. Setbacks are not mentioned in the list of criteria for determining community character or in the descriptions of the various community character types. Regardless of whether other homes in the neighborhood meet the setback requirement in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f., Monroe County Code, requiring Respondent to do so will not affect the community character of the neighborhood as defined in the Monroe County comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying permission to develop under Monroe County building permits no. 9230005763 as issued on December 10, 1993. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order state that Respondent will become eligible for permits if his development plans are modified as provided in paragraph 40 of the Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of August 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 9 through 14: Accepted. Paragraphs 15 and 16: Rejected as statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (The statements in these paragraphs are essentially correct, but they are not proposed findings of fact.) Paragraphs 17 through 20: Rejected as further statements of position or legal argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. (To the extent necessary, the parties' positions are addressed in the conclusions of law portion of this Recommended Order.) Paragraph 21: Accepted. (This is a stipulated "fact".) Paragraphs 22 through 24: Accepted, with some minor clarification. Paragraphs 25 through 34: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. (Most of the details proposed in these paragraphs are supported by the evidence and all were considered in the formulation of the ultimate findings of material fact, but none of these details need to be included in the findings of fact in this Recommended Order. The findings proposed in paragraph 33 are rejected for the additional reason that they are supported only be uncorroborated hearsay evidence.) Paragraphs 35 and 36: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 37: Rejected as a statement of position, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 38 and 39: Accepted. Paragraph 40: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42 and 43: Rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed findings of fact. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 14: Accepted. (These are all stipulated facts.) Paragraph 15: Accepted. Paragraph 16: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 17: First and last sentences rejected as irrelevant. Middle sentence accepted. Paragraph 18: First sentence accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 19: Most of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant. Some portions are rejected as not fully supported by persuasive evidence. Paragraph 20: First sentence rejected as too broadly worded to be meaningful. The last sentence is rejected as being a conclusion that is not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph 21: Accepted. Paragraph 22: First three sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Last sentence accepted. Paragraph 23: First sentence rejected as not fully supported by the evidence. The berm line is, in general, a gentle curve that for the most part runs parallel to the gentle curve of the shore line. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as unduly repetitious. Paragraph 24: Second sentence accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant. Paragraph 25: The first sentence is rejected as not fully supported by the persuasive evidence; the evidence is too vague to support the use of the word "immediately" in this context. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the persuasive evidence. Paragraph 26: The first four sentences are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because the greater weight of the evidence is consistent with the version put forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Greater confidence has been placed in the measurements by the Petitioner's witnesses than in the conflicting measurements described by Respondent's expert witness. The fifth sentence is accepted in substance. The sixth and seventh sentences are rejected as consisting of arguments or of conclusions that are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 27 and 28: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 29: First two sentences rejected as argument. Third and fourth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as apparently based on testimony that has been taken out of context or has been misunderstood. Fifth sentence rejected as argument. Sixth sentence rejected as an over-simplification. Seventh sentence rejected as an argument or conclusion that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Rejected as unnecessary summaries of testimony, rather than proposed findings of fact. Further, these summaries are, for the most part, either not fully supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence or are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Some of these summaries also emphasize details that are apparently based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of selected portions of the evidence and ignore the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 31: First sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (To the contrary, it appears to be based on a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of Mr. Metcalf's testimony.) The second, third, and fourth sentences are rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32: Rejected as argument; specifically, argument that is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie M. Gehres, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 32301-1859 Chris Haughee, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan Stengle, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the City of Fernandina Beach (“City” or “Respondent”) Future Land Use Map Amendment, adopted by Ordinance 2019-08 (“FLUM Amendment”), qualifies as a small scale development amendment to the City Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”); and, if so, whether the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” as that term is used in section 163.3187(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing ATC is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. ATC is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. ATC’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of ATC submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Sierra Club is a national nonprofit organization with 67 chapters, including the Nassau County Sierra Club Group with a substantial number of members who reside in, own property in, or operate businesses in the City. Sierra Club participates in activities and outings on the Egans Creek Greenway (“Greenway”) for its members and the general public and has organized and participated in the removal of invasive species in the Greenway. Sierra Club is an affected person under chapter 163, part II. Sierra Club’s Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed. Members of Sierra Club submitted oral and written comments on the FLUM Amendment to the City prior to and at the adoption public hearing. Petitioners have standing to maintain these proceedings because they are affected persons and presented (or had their attorney or representative present) comments at the adoption hearing of the proposed FLUM Amendment. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167. The City provided timely notice to the parties and followed the plan amendment procedures required by the City’s codes and chapter 163, part II. The subject property is located within the City’s jurisdiction. Amelia Bluff is a Florida limited liability company conducting business in the City. By virtue of its ownership of the property that is subject to the FLUM Amendment and this dispute, Amelia Bluff is affected by the challenge to the FLUM Amendment and has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The Subject Property The Property is part of a larger parcel of approximately 15.07 acres (the “School Board Property”) that was previously owned by the School Board of Nassau County (the “School Board”). The School Board Property was essentially undeveloped, though it had been used as outdoor classroom space for the high school. The School Board Property is located on the east side of Citrona Drive and is bounded on the west by Fernandina Beach High School/Middle School. The School Board Property is bounded on the south by the Hickory Street right-of-way, which is an access to the Greenway. Across from the Hickory Street right-of-way is Shell Cove, a residential subdivision that, according to the City Staff Report, is zoned R-2 with a Medium Density Residential FLUM designation. Shell Cove, which is completed, is of greater density than the proposed Amelia Bluff subdivision. The School Board Property is bounded on the north by a tract of undeveloped property. According to the City Staff Report, the property to the north is zoned R-1 with a LDR FLUM designation. The School Board Property is bounded on the east by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property. That property merges into the western edge of the main channel of Egans Creek. The Egans Creek Greenway then extends eastward from the western edge of Egans Creek. The School Board Property includes a relatively steep bluff running generally from the northwest corner of the Property at Citrona Drive, diagonally to the southeast to the Hickory Street right-of-way. The elevation of the upland portion of the School Board Property, which is the portion proposed for development, is from 18 to 20 feet above sea level at its northwest corner, to 11 to 12 feet above sea level at its southeast corner. Roughly 3.76 acres of the School Board Property at and east of the toe of the bluff consists of jurisdictional wetlands, dominated by wetland vegetation, at an elevation of 1 to 2 feet above sea level. The upland portion of the School Board Property includes the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. Those uplands were, at the time of the June 2016 purchase by Amelia Bluff, fully wooded with predominantly hardwood species, interspersed with pine, holly and other species. The 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision are appropriately zoned R-1 for low-density residential development. The Property that is the subject of the FLUM Amendment consists of approximately 6.40 acres of uplands within the 10.29 acres of the proposed subdivision. The Property is designated on the FLUM as Conservation. The remainder of the proposed subdivision is designated on the FLUM as LDR. The evidence indicates that there is no difference in the nature of the tree cover in the 6.4 acre Property and in the remaining acreage of the proposed subdivision. Maritime Forest/Maritime Hammock There was a good deal of testimony directed to the issue of whether the trees on the Property constitute a “maritime forest” or an imperiled “maritime hammock.” The tree cover on the Property, as established by the tree survey, consists largely of live oak, laurel oak, and water oak, interspersed with magnolia, pine, red maple, and other species. Ms. Jetton described the cover of the Property as maritime forest, and stated that “maritime forest” is identified as an imperiled community in the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (“FNAI”) and designated in the Egans Creek 2015 Greenway Management Plan (“Greenway Management Plan”) as such. Although a “maritime hammock” is designated as an imperiled vegetative community, a “maritime forest” is not. Ms. Jetton later clarified her testimony, stating that “I probably shouldn't have said ‘hardwood hammock.’ I'm accustomed to using that term in the Florida Keys. I know this is a maritime forest, but it is composed of hardwood trees, live oak trees, pine trees.” When asked about the terms “maritime forest” and “maritime hardwood hammock,” she stated that “it was a faulty use of my words. I should have stuck with ‘maritime forest.’” There was little to suggest that the Property contains a “maritime hammock,” which is a specific type of imperiled vegetative community identified in the FNAI and the Greenway Management Plan. Mr. Gerald indicated that it did not. Rather, Mr. Gerald indicated that the type of “maritime forest” that exists on the Property, i.e., a forest on a barrier island, is “very common throughout the mainland, throughout Nassau County, Duval County, St. Johns, Clay, all the way out through pretty much all of North Florida.” It is not an imperiled or unique community, as is a maritime hammock. The Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway indicates that maritime hammock communities associated with the Greenway “are located along the eastern part of the Greenway,” with another near an indeterminate stretch of Jasmine Street and bisected by a wide and deep canal that is not surficially connected to Egans Creek, and a third set at the southern portion of the Greenway that appear to be adjacent to a beach dune community. There is nothing in the Ecological Assessment to suggest that a maritime hammock community exists to the west of the Greenway. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the Property contains an imperiled “maritime hammock” as described in the FNAI and the Ecological Assessment of Egans Creek Greenway. There is little question that the Property is a beautifully wooded tract. However, the issue is not whether the Property merits preservation, but whether the FLUM Amendment, that will allow for the development of the Property as the Amelia Bluff subdivision, is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Egans Creek Greenway The Greenway is a system of approximately 317 acres of publicly-owned waterways, marshes, and wetlands that extends in a north-south direction through Amelia Island, separating the City’s beaches from its downtown and commercial areas. Egans Creek is not an Aquatic Preserve or Outstanding Florida Water. Egans Creek flows into the Amelia River and the Fort Clinch State Park Aquatic Preserve. The Greenway is a regional drainage facility that receives untreated stormwater from areas including part of the original plat of the City. Water quality in Egans Creek is degraded, though the creek is not designated as “impaired.” The City’s Greenway Management Plan provides that “[t]he primary purposes of the project are to protect this sensitive natural area from development,” and that “[a]ll of the property encompassed in this project will be designated as recreational/wetlands and protected in the City’s future land use plan.” The Greenway extends from the western bank of the Egans Creek channel eastward. The Greenway is separated from the Property by 200 to 400 feet of publicly-owned, predominantly wetland property, the first hundred feet or so of which is dense willow/wax myrtle/Chinese tallow shrub, and then brackish march to the Egans Creek channel. Procedural History of the Amelia Bluff Subdivision In June 2016, Amelia Bluff entered into a contract to purchase the 15.07-acre School Board Property from the School Board. The School Board Property includes the 6.4-acre Property. Amelia Bluff proposed to develop the upland portion of the School Board Property, including a significant portion of the Property, for the proposed subdivision. On September 27, 2016, the School Board filed an application to vacate a 60-foot right-of-way known as Gum Street extending through the School Board Property in connection with the School Board’s intent to sell the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff, memorialized as City Planning Advisory Board (“PAB”) Resolution 2016-24. On August 10, 2017, the School Board, Amelia Bluff, and the City executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), which memorialized the parties’ understanding of the conditions of the City’s agreement to vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the School Board Property. The MOU stipulated that Amelia Bluff would (i) provide access to the abutting properties owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”) located on the eastern boundary of the School Board Property through the creation of a City right-of-way to connect Hickory Street to the property owned by the FDOT; (ii) transfer the wetlands portion of the School Board Property to the City for conservation; and (iii) donate $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts, to be paid at the conclusion of all legal challenges and/or appeals for all subdivision approvals. On August 15, 2017, the City adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2016-40, which vacated a portion of Gum Street; and (ii) Resolution 2017-123, which approved the MOU. On November 29, 2017, the School Board conveyed the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed an application for preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed to the City approximately 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in two parcels (3.63 acres and 0.13 acres in size) and dedicated to the City approximately 0.917 acres for the right-of-way connection between Hickory Street and the FDOT property. The City accepted the conveyance of wetlands and dedication of right-of-way on March 20, 2018, pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 2018-39 and 2018-40, respectively. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and issued a recommendation of approval. On May 1, 2018, the Commission approved the preliminary plat for the Amelia Bluff subdivision. On May 10, 2018, the City’s Technical Review Committee (“TRC”) reviewed and approved the preliminary plat for technical completeness and issued a compliance letter on May 14, 2018 (SPR 2017-09), authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. In August 2018, Amelia Bluff commenced work on subdivision infrastructure improvements. On October 18, 2018, Amelia Bluff applied for final subdivision plat approval. The City and Amelia Bluff determined that the Property was designated Conservation under the Comprehensive Plan and would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR. On November 15, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed the application for the FLUM Amendment to change the Conservation designation of the Property. City professional staff reviewed the FLUM Amendment application and determined that the FLUM Amendment sought by Amelia Bluff was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, and furthered the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The determination was memorialized in a Staff Report prepared for consideration by the PAB prior to the PAB’s regular meeting on January 9, 2019. On January 9, 2019, the PAB reviewed the applications for the FLUM Amendment and final plat and issued recommendations of approval for the FLUM Amendment (PAB 2019-01) and final plat (PAB 2018-26). On February 19, 2019, the Commission approved the FLUM Amendment on first reading. On February 21, 2019, Amelia Bluff stopped work on the subdivision infrastructure improvements pursuant to the City’s request. On April 16, 2019, the Commission adopted: (i) Ordinance No. 2019-08, which approved the FLUM Amendment to change the FLUM designation of the Property from Conservation to LDR, allowing up to four residential dwelling units per acre; and (ii) Resolution 2019-57, which approved the final subdivision plat. Because of Petitioners’ pending challenge, the effective date of Ordinance No. 2019-08 is delayed. The Ordinance provides: “If challenged within 30 days after adoption this Ordinance may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted ordinance is in compliance pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stat.” Similarly, Resolution 2019-57 provides “[t]his Resolution shall become effective on the same date as Ordinance 2019-08 (a small scale Future Land Use Map Amendment that becomes effective pursuant to Section 163.3187, Fla. Stats.)” Thus, development may resume without any further action by the Fernandina City Commission if the FLUM Amendment becomes effective. Other Governmental Authorizations On December 28, 2017, the St. Johns River Water Management District (“SJRWMD”) issued Amelia Bluff an Environmental Resource Permit, No. 151737-1 (“ERP”), which notice was recorded in Official Records Book 2177, Page 1100 of the Public Records of Nassau County, Florida on February 15, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) issued Amelia Bluff Permit No. 0003152-107-DWC, which authorized Amelia Bluff to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system on the site, and accepted Amelia Bluff’s Notice of Intent to Use the General Permit for Construction of Water Main Extensions for PWSs. The Proposed Subdivision The proposed subdivision consists of 30 lots, designed with two entrances from Citrona Drive, and two cul-de-sacs. The legal description for the final plat approved on April 16, 2019, in Resolution 2019-57, describes the proposed subdivision as containing “10.29 acres more or less.”3/ In addition to the property conveyed to the City or dedicated to the city as right-of-way, the final plat depicts Tract “C” (0.25 acres) as a “recreation/open space tract” that is removed from development. The proposed subdivision was initially designed with stormwater detention ponds near the front of the subdivision, near Citrona Drive and away from the bluff. However, placement at that location would have required extensive grading and tree clearing to direct the flow of water against its natural flow direction. After discussion with City staff, the decision was made to reconfigure site drainage so that stormwater would be directed via overland flow and drainage structures from northwest to southeast, generally following site topography. Stormwater from lots, sidewalks, and streets will be directed to two dry detention ponds located at the southeast portion of the subdivision, and adjacent to the bluff. By allowing stormwater to follow the natural topography, grading and clearing for stormwater purposes will be minimized. The two dry detention ponds are connected by a 12-inch pipe approximately 100 feet in length that is designed to equalize water levels in the ponds. The ponds have a discharge structure in the southernmost pond that is designed to discharge treated stormwater after a 25-year storm to the bottom of the bluff. Efforts were made to design utilities, the stormwater system, and the roadways and associated structures to avoid particular specimen trees within the rights-of-way. In addition, Tract “C” located near the northwest corner of the subdivision, as well as portions of Tract “A” in the vicinity of the dry detention ponds were preserved due to an abundance of trees at those locations. The subdivision is designed with a 25-foot wetland buffer that prohibits removal of native vegetation or other disturbance within 25 linear feet of the jurisdictional wetlands. The buffer encompasses the entirety of the bluff. It was noted during the hearing that the buffer terminates near the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision. It was explained, credibly, that the 25-foot buffer is to buffer wetlands, and that there were no wetlands within 25 feet of the southwest corner that required a buffer. It was also noted that several lot lines extended into the wetland buffer. The buffer will be marked and restrictions recorded. Much of the evidence offered by Petitioners was directed to concern that the disturbance of the Property and removal of trees would destabilize the “relic dune” upon which the proposed subdivision is to be built. The testimony regarding that issue was conclusory, and not based on site- specific studies. However, Dr. McPhillips noted that there is residential development up and down the Greenway, and that the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision had experienced no evidence of dune collapse. Work Completed to Date In June 2016, after Amelia Bluff contracted to purchase the School Board Property, the owner representative, Wirt Beard, met with City planning staff to engage in preliminary discussions regarding the development of the proposed subdivision. At that time, Amelia Bluff and the City planning staff noted that the Property was subject to a Conservation designation on the FLUM. The planning director at the time, Marshall McCrary, indicated that it was his opinion that the FLUM Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” and that it would be taken care of. Considerable discussions regarding the abandonment of the Gum Street right- of-way then commenced, and the Conservation designation was essentially disregarded. Nonetheless, there is no question but that Amelia Bluff knew and understood at that time that the Property was not designated for development. Amelia Bluff’s decision to proceed with development planning and construction was not taken without considerable support by the City. Despite the fundamental issue of whether the proposed subdivision could go forward in light of the unresolved Conservation designation, the City proceeded with a number of actions that would have led Amelia Bluff to the reasonable conclusion that the matter was, in fact, being “taken care of.” As set forth previously, the City entered into the MOU with Amelia Bluff and the School Board that required Amelia Bluff to establish a City right-of-way through the Property to connect Hickory Street to FDOT property and to transfer roughly 3.76 acres of wetlands on the Property to the City for conservation, upon which the City would vacate a portion of Gum Street extending through the Property. Ordinances approving the MOU and vacating the Gum Street right-of-way were adopted on August 15, 2017. The sale of the School Board Property to Amelia Bluff was then closed on November 29, 2017. On March 9, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, Amelia Bluff conveyed the 3.76 acres of jurisdictional wetlands to the City, and dedicated 0.917 acres for the FDOT right-of-way. The City accepted both by resolution on March 20, 2018. On February 16, 2018, Amelia Bluff filed its application for preliminary plat approval. On April 11, 2018, the PAB reviewed the application for preliminary plat and recommended approval, which was approved by the Commission on May 1, 2018. On May 10, 2018, the TRC issued a compliance letter authorizing the commencement of subdivision infrastructure improvements. Amelia Bluff commenced work on infrastructure improvements for the Project in August 2018. When work was suspended on February 21, 2019, pursuant to the City’s request, the stormwater collection system was substantially complete, stormwater ponds had been cleared and constructed, and the stormwater collection system had been installed. In addition, roads had been cleared and curbs installed. City Commission FLUM Amendment Meetings The undersigned viewed and listened to every minute of the City Commission meetings of February 19, 2019; March 19, 2019; and April 16, 2019. The exclusive theme of those meetings was whether the Conservation designation of the Property was a “scrivener’s error.” The staff presentations were directed solely to the historic zoning and land use designations of the Property. Aerial photographs going back to 1943, and plats going back nearly as far, formed the temporal starting point of the presentations. Charts, maps, and plans were presented and discussed that showed the Property to be subject to a residential “zoning map” designation starting in 1961 and extending through the 1990 FLUM. The Property then became subject to a Wetlands Protection zoning map designation in 1993 and FLUM designation in 1997. In 2005, the Property appeared with a LDR designation in the City GIS FLUM Map. The Property was then made subject to the Conservation designation in 2006, a designation that was adopted by City ordinance. Regardless of how the Property became subject to the Conservation designation, that is its official designation, adopted by ordinance, reviewed by the state land planning agency, and not subject to any timely challenge. The staff presented little or no “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment itself with the Comprehensive Plan for consideration by the Commission. The discussion of the FLUM Amendment by the Commissioners involved the alleged “scrivener’s error,” the cost associated with litigating a Bert Harris Act “takings” claim if the FLUM Amendment was denied, the cost of acquiring the Property from Amelia Bluff and the source of funds to do so, and nothing more. Though the evidence establishes that the Commission had “data and analysis” as to the compliance of the FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, there was not a whisper of acknowledgment or direct evidence of consideration. Several Commissioners, and particularly Mr. Chapman and Mr. Kreger, made statements that their votes to approve the FLUM Amendment were driven solely by the assumption that the Conservation designation was an error, with Commissioner Chapman discussing the cost of buying the Property in lieu of other sensitive lands in the community, stating that “I cannot justify giving up . . . 452 acres of land for six, I just can’t do it,”4/ and Vice-Mayor Kreger stating explicitly at the April 16, 2019, meeting that “to me, this is a mapping error, . . . I made the motion and I will vote yes on this.”5/ The undersigned is convinced that, at least as to the public discussions of the issue, little consideration was given to whether the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the issue in this case was whether the Commission actually considered available data and analysis supporting consistency, the evidence would suggest the answer is “no.” However, the issue in this de novo proceeding is whether data and analysis that was available to the Commission at the time of the adoption of the FLUM Amendment, and whether that data and analysis, together with any subsequent analysis, establishes that the FLUM Amendment is “in compliance” with the Comprehensive Plan under a “fairly debatable” standard. Available Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires all plan amendments to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but is not limited to, surveys, studies, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. Section 163.3177(2) requires the elements of the Comprehensive Plan to be supported by data and analysis. Likewise, section 163.3177(6)(a)8. requires FLUM amendments to be based upon an analysis of data. Section 163.3178(2) states that a local government’s coastal management element of its Comprehensive Plan must be based upon studies, surveys, and data. When the application for the FLUM Amendment was filed, Amelia Bluff provided the City with a substantial volume of information for consideration by City staff, and to which the Commission had access at the time it voted to approve the FLUM Amendment. The surveys, studies, and data included: a site survey prepared by Manzie & Drake Land Surveying; engineering plans for the proposed subdivision, including water and sewer design and stormwater system design prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; a wetland delineation, wetland survey, and documents conveying all wetlands to the City; a topographic survey; preliminary and final plats which include a depiction of the upland/wetland buffer; stormwater modeling data and site drainage calculations prepared by Gillette & Associates, Inc.; the SJRWMD ERP; a geotechnical and soils report for the stormwater model and roads prepared by AGES of Jax, Inc.; a tree survey with input from an arborist; and a wildlife assessment prepared by LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Small Scale Development Amendment Section 163.3187 applies to “small scale development amendments,” which may be adopted when “[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer.” Petitioners allege that the FLUM Amendment is not a small scale development amendment since the 6.4 acre FLUM Amendment is part of a use, i.e., the proposed subdivision, that is greater than 10 acres in size. The FLUM Amendment is designed to change the land use category on the 6.4-acre Property. Both Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple testified credibly that the size of a FLUM amendment application is the acreage of the property on which the land use category is to be changed. Mr. Teeple testified that, in his extensive experience, he was unaware of any instance in which the 10-acre threshold was applied to the applicant’s total acreage, on the size of a “parent parcel,” or on the overall size of a development of which a FLUM amendment parcel was a part. Ms. Jetton testified on behalf of Petitioners that the Amelia Bluff subdivision is the “use,” which includes “the lots, the driveways, the stormwater ponds, the entire use,” although only the land use designation on the 6.4 acres would be amended. She asserted that the FLUM Amendment “should have been for the Conservation land with an explanation along with it that it would be part of a use that includes” the entire proposed subdivision. Her opinion as to “use” notwithstanding, Ms. Jetton testified that if the FLUM Amendment had occurred prior to the plat approval, “and they only offered the Conservation land as a small scale amendment, then that would have met the statute,” and the FLUM Amendment would properly be for the 6.4 acres for which the land use category change was being sought. Ms. Jetton, and Petitioners, rely exclusively on St. George Plantation Owners Association, Inc. v. Franklin County, Case No. 95-5124GM (Fla. DOAH Feb. 13, 1997; Fla. ACC Mar. 27, 1997). That case will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law herein. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it is the established and accepted practice of the City and the regional council to base the determination of whether an amendment is a small scale amendment on the size of the property subject to modification. That determination is consistent with the plain language of the statute and is accepted as reflecting an accurate application of the standards for a small scale FLUM amendment. Internal Inconsistency In the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, Petitioners identified the specific goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that they assert render the FLUM Amendment inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Each of those goals, objectives, and policies is addressed as follows: Policy 5.07.09. The City shall prohibit any development activity that would potentially endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to existing drainage structures and natural drainage patterns. Ms. Gibson testified that the City applied this policy and found that it was met as evidenced by modifications to the original stormwater system design and the permitting of the stormwater system by the city and the SJRWMD. As originally configured, the stormwater system would have required significant regrading and virtual clear-cutting of the entire Property to allow stormwater to flow against the natural topography of the land to the front of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Citrona Drive. With input and direction from the City, the system was redesigned to direct stormwater generally from the high point of the property to its low point at the southeastern corner, following the natural topography of the proposed subdivision. All stormwater is to be directed to the permitted stormwater facility. The 25-foot upland buffer is not designed or intended to treat stormwater. The stormwater system consists of dry detention ponds, which are preferred by the SJRWMD. The vertical percolation rate is calculated at 42.8 feet per day. The horizontal percolation rate was calculated at 0.6 feet per day. Mr. Gillette testified that the stormwater system was designed to manage 100 percent of the stormwater from a 25-year storm event, which exceeds the City requirement of a system capacity to handle a 10-year storm event. The treatment volume does not include infiltration and percolation of stormwater. Mr. Desilet reviewed the drainage plans and calculations and determined that they were in compliance with the City Land Development Code. He further confirmed that Amelia Bluff received a stormwater permit from the SJRWMD as required by the Local Development Order. The system is designed and engineered such that flow from the proposed subdivision in its post-development state does not exceed flow from the proposed subdivision in its pre-development state. The system is designed to hold and treat stormwater on site from a 25-year storm. After that, stormwater will be allowed to “pop-off” to the stormwater drain and culvert. Nonetheless, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that any water leaving the site will be treated stormwater, meeting both permitting and water quality standards. Mr. Gillette testified that the modeling performed in support of the stormwater system indicates that for a mean storm event (5.4 inches of rain), pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 3.8 cubic feet per second (“CFS”), while post-development outfall is expected to be 0.67 CFS. For a 25-year storm event, pre-development stormwater outfall from the proposed subdivision is 16 CFS, while post- development outfall is expected to be 5.6 CFS. Mr. Desilet testified that the engineered stormwater system proposed by Amelia Bluff “addresses water quality by providing the minimum required treatment volume and infiltration under [SJRWMD] guidelines.” As such, he testified that under rules governing the SJRWMD, “[i]f the specified volume required by the pervious area of the site is provided, and it's shown that it infiltrates in the system and it meets other site criteria in the [SJRWMD] code, it is presumed to meet state water quality standards.” Consistent with Mr. Desilet’s testimony, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-40.432(2)(a), which is applicable to the SJRWMD, provides that “[w]hen a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for such systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the discharge from such systems will comply with state water quality standards.”6/ The stormwater system complied with the applicable rules, thus leading the SJRWMD to issue a stormwater permit to Amelia Bluff. There was no persuasive evidence introduced to rebut the presumption that state water quality standards would be met. The City reviewed Amelia Bluff’s stormwater plans for compliance with the City’s Land Development Code and determined that water quality was addressed, and that the data and analysis regarding stormwater from the proposed subdivision was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence offered to establish that the stormwater system designed for the proposed subdivision would “endanger lives and/or harm property, water quality, and quantity or any other valued environmental system resulting from an alteration to . . . natural drainage patterns” was not persuasive. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.09. Policy 5.07.12. The City shall require low-impact development strategies or conservation-based landscape planning and installation, water efficient irrigation, and appropriate measures that promote conservation of water resources and reduction of non-point source pollution as part of sustainable water management for new public and private development. New waterfront development shall be designed so that stormwater runoff and erosion are retained on-site or are channeled so as not to degrade water quality of adjacent waters. Ms. Gibson testified that the City required Amelia Bluff to apply low-impact development strategies, including its dedication of all wetlands to the City; the requirement of the 25-foot, naturally vegetated wetland buffer; modifications to the stormwater system to account for the natural topography of the land; and modification and realignment of infrastructure to preserve significant trees. Mr. Teeple testified that the proposed density of less than three units per acre is less than the four units per acre allowed under the LDR designation, thus supporting his opinion that Amelia Bluff applied a low-impact development strategy. Petitioners’ alternatives to the low-impact development strategies identified by Ms. Gibson included clustering all development onto that portion of the proposed subdivision currently designated as LDR, requiring swales in lieu of a “focused” drainage pattern, and increasing the width of the buffer. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its low-impact development policy was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There are different ways to measure the effectiveness of low-impact development strategies, and people may -- and do -- disagree as to the appropriate means to accomplish the policy. The issue is not, however, which strategies should be implemented, but whether the City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s strategy was beyond fair debate. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 5.07.12. Objective 5.08. - Wetlands Protection and Preservation Petitioners assert that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 5.08. of the Comprehensive Plan, which provides as follows: The City shall direct incompatible land uses away from wetlands, and shall protect and preserve wetlands from physical and hydraulic alterations, in order to maintain the following functions: natural biological functions . . . natural drainage systems impacting sedimentation patterns, salinity distribution, flushing characteristics . . . shielding other areas from wave action, erosion, or storm damage; storage areas for stormwater and flood waters; natural recharge areas; and natural water filtration processes that serve to purify water. Objective 5.08. is implemented through the City’s wetland Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.08.05. The City shall continue to ensure the protection and mitigation of wetlands, consistent with existing state and federal regulations, and shall ensure the following: Land uses which will have little or no adverse impact on wetlands; Standards and criteria for wetlands which possess significant functional value; and Activities that would provide direct public benefits and that would exceed those benefits lost to the public as a result of the degradation or destruction of wetlands. Policy 5.08.06. The City shall protect wetlands from impacts of adjacent development, and shall ensure through regulations included in the Land Development Code: Proper siting of development structures and infrastructure, including clustering of development away from wetlands; Location of buffer zones of native vegetation around wetlands and surface water bodies to prevent erosion, retard runoff, and provide habitat; and Setback of buildings and other structures from wetlands and water bodies. Policy 5.08.08. In instances in which development is proposed that is adjacent to a wetland, the boundary of a wetland transition area shall be established by an on-site field survey . . . . The City shall maintain land development regulations which ensure that the transition area provides a buffer between wetlands and upland development. Such buffer shall ensure existing vegetation is not disturbed; where new vegetation is required, plants or ground cover native or appropriate to a wetlands transition area shall be used. The data and analysis established clearly that the Property encompassed by the FLUM Amendment includes no wetlands, and that the proposed subdivision will result in no direct degradation, destruction, or impact to wetlands. Ms. Gibson testified that the Wetlands Protection and Preservation objective and policies were advanced in several ways, including the dedication of all wetlands on the School Board Property to public ownership so as to protect and preserve the wetlands, the creation of the wetland buffer between wetlands and the upland development, and the requirement -- enforced through the plat and engineering documents, Homeowners’ Association covenants, and City code provisions -- that native vegetation be maintained in the buffer. Petitioners argued that wetlands are adjacent to the proposed subdivision, that stormwater can drain from the proposed subdivision to the wetland, and that, ipse dixit, there will be an adverse affect on the wetlands. That allegation was not proven, and is inconsistent with the SJRWMD stormwater permit creating a presumption that the stormwater system complies with water quality standards. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wetland protection and preservation objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.08., or Policies 5.08.05, 5.08.06, or 5.08.08. Objective 5.10. - Wildlife Planning. The City shall encourage development and management of resources in a manner which sustains local wildlife, their habitat and the ecological services of the land, and shall protect significant habitats of populations of threatened or endangered species in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 16 USC 1531, and Florida Administrative Code Division 68A. Objective 5.10. is implemented through the City’s wildlife management Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policies: Policy 5.10.01. When reviewing development proposals for public or private development, the City shall take into account the following strategies: * * * Preserve native vegetation and habitat types; Preserve forested areas, the understory and native soil associations; and Avoid activities that dehydrate landscape features or alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks or water bodies. Policy 5.10.02. The City shall protect significant habitats for native wildlife and vegetation in areas of known environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The Land Development Code shall be updated with regulations to ensure that prior to the issuance of development permits in such areas, detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development shall be conducted. If on-site habitat will be disturbed by new development, the habitat shall be relocated or the impacts mitigated, if viable by virtue of its size, configuration, and connecting habitat. . . . Mr. Teeple testified that the donation of wetlands and the efforts taken, as described herein, to minimize impacts to trees on the Property, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. When confronted with the fact that the proposed subdivision will not “preserve the forested areas, the understory, and the native soil associations,” Mr. Teeple testified credibly that Policy 5.10.01 “doesn't say ‘preserve all native vegetation and all habitat types.’ It's incongruous with the nature of development.” The data and analysis demonstrate that Amelia Bluff made efforts to preserve native vegetation and forested areas on the property, as described herein, though it is without question that the Property will be subject to the normal impacts of low- density development. Compliance with the stormwater standards is sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality or water quantity impacts from the stormwater collection and management system, and that the system will not alter seasonal water flows or duration of inundation to wetlands, hammocks, or water bodies. Dr. McPhillips testified as to her concern that the buffer vegetation on the northern -- and more elevated -- side of the proposed subdivision will be desiccated, and that the vegetation on the southern -- and lower -- side near the dry detention ponds will, from time to time, become saturated. Her concern was that trees at the buffer would not be able to generate interfacial friction between the roots and soil to stabilize them under any appreciable wind load. However, Dr. McPhillips was not familiar with the adjacent Shell Cove subdivision, which has similar characteristics, or the requirements of the SJRWMD and the calculations required for a stormwater permit. Her opinions were not supported by specific facts as to how the site will hold or drain water, and were more in the nature of “pure opinion” testimony based on her admittedly extensive professional education and experience. The data and analysis was adequate to establish that the stormwater management system would not result in adverse impacts resulting from the system, including dehydration of landscape features. As to Policy 5.10.02, the evidence indicated that the City Land Development Code required detailed inventories and assessments of impacts of development. As part of the data available to the City, Amelia Bluff provided a wildlife survey. The survey established that the Property contained no environmentally sensitive habitats, including habitats of endangered species. The known environmentally sensitive habitats in the form of wetlands have been protected through conveyance to public ownership and the establishment of naturally vegetated buffers to protect off-site habitat. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with its wildlife planning objective and policies was supported by data and analysis, and was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 5.10., or Policies 5.10.01 or 5.10.02. Objective 5.11. - Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry. The City shall commit to preservation of community trees and the urban forest to improve air quality, community health, quality of life, aesthetics, and energy conservation. Objective 5.11. cannot be read in isolation from the policies adopted to implement the objective. Those policies include Policy 5.11.09., which requires the City’s Land Development Code to “protect and retain existing trees and require replacement of trees lost to land clearing,” with the objective of “achiev[ing] no net loss of trees per development site,” as well as “[m]aintenance of a Tree Fund for payments in lieu of replanting or mitigation of protected trees.” Mr. Platt testified that the City’s objective has been met through a number of strategies and policies applied to Amelia Bluff. Mr. Platt and Ms. Gibson testified that individual lots will be required to submit a land clearing application at the time of the single-family home permit, and the lot grading and tree removal associated with each individual lot will be reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis at that time. The City's Land Development Code has provisions for the protection of noninvasive, healthy trees larger than five inches in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) within five feet of a home footprint. For any tree in the protected class that must be removed, the City has a mitigation and minimum planting ordinance which requires that any tree planted as part of mitigation be a noninvasive, native tree, at a minimum of two and a half inches DBH and eight feet in height. In addition to the foregoing, the City Land Development Code has a provision that allows for up to 50 percent of on-site mitigation to be accomplished through an “inch-for-inch” payment to a tree mitigation fund. That provision is, according to Mr. Platt, rarely used, though it is consistent with Policy 5.11.09 described above. As indicated previously, Amelia Bluff set aside several areas of the proposed subdivision, both within the Property and within the remaining generally indistinguishable acreage, for protection of both important specimen trees and clusters of trees, most notably Tract “C” (0.25 acres) near the northwest corner of the proposed subdivision, areas around the dry detention ponds (0.17 acres), and tree “islands” in the cul- de-sacs. In addition, Amelia Bluff worked with the City to realign roadways and utilities to avoid particular trees. Petitioners assert that Objective 5.11. has not been met because the overall forest will be altered, not only through the installation of infrastructure, but also through the clearing that will be necessary for homes and driveways. Petitioners argue that the inevitable thinning of the forest and damage caused through construction activities will weaken the remaining trees, and diminish the storm protecting qualities of an unbroken forest. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 5.11. was supported by data and analysis, including the tree survey and the retention/removal plan. It was a legislative decision to accept the plans and specifications, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. People clearly, and in good faith, disagree as to the best means of preserving the urban forest. Development, even of low density, by its very nature entails a modification of the natural state. However, the issue is whether the City’s determination that the FLUM Amendment, including protections proposed by Amelia Bluff, was, beyond fair debate, in error. The evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Tree Preservation and Urban Forestry Objective 5.11. Objective 6.05. - Open Space. Open spaces shall be protected within urbanized areas for their aesthetic, health, environmental, and economic benefits. The City shall continue to maintain standards in its land development regulations for the provision and maintenance of open space in the community, including in private developments and publicly owned lands. Objective 6.05. is implemented through the City’s open space Comprehensive Plan policies. Petitioners allege that the proposed FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the following policy: Policy 6.05.03. Privately-owned open space, such as those within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use or contains environmentally sensitive lands, shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements. There was surprisingly little or no testimony offered by anyone other than Ms. Gibson and Mr. Teeple regarding the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with this objective and policy. Mr. Teeple testified to the difficulty in applying Policy 6.05.03 -- despite the provision that open space “within subdivisions or PUD developments, which consist of a conservation future land use . . . shall be protected through the acquisition of conservation easements” -- due to “the out- of-sequence process that we're going through by dealing with land use last.” Had the FLUM Amendment been considered “in- sequence,” there would have been no subdivision to which Policy 6.05.03 would have applied. Several witnesses testified that had the sequence of events not been skewed by Mr. McCrary’s ill- advised statement that the “scrivener’s error” would be taken care of, a number of issues created as a result of the amendment of the FLUM after plat approval would not have been problems. This appears to be one. It does appear that Policy 6.05.03. was designed to apply to open space lands within a developed subdivision, ensuring through a conservation easement that such designated open space lands would not be encroached upon. That scenario does not present here. The evidence establishes that all of the “environmentally sensitive lands” on the School Board Property were conveyed to the City. Though the Property is forested, it is of a nature common throughout north Florida, and not imperiled “maritime hammock.” Amelia Bluff conveyed all wetlands on the Property to the City. Amelia Bluff also placed 0.25 acres into “recreation/open space, preserved significant stands and individual trees, and donated $115,000 to the City for land conservation efforts. The City’s decision to accept Amelia Bluff’s proposed subdivision as consistent with Objective 6.05. and Policy 6.05.03. was supported by data and analysis as described above. Though a facially credible argument can be made that the Property is land designated as Conservation within a “subdivision”, under the specific -- and peculiar -- facts of this case, the legislative decision to adopt the FLUM Amendment as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, when considered in conjunction with the related policies and the City’s Land Development Code, was fairly debatable. Objective 6.10. - Egans Creek Greenway. The City shall protect Egans Creek Greenway for its value as a recreational asset, for its significance as an outstanding natural resource, and for its role in providing wildlife habitat. The Amelia Bluff subdivision does not front onto the Egans Creek Greenway. Rather, the easternmost edge of the Property is from 200 to 400 feet removed from the Greenway. The Greenway was protected by the dedication of all wetlands that were part of the School Board Property to the City. The Greenway is further protected by the establishment of the 25-foot naturally vegetated upland buffer. As established herein, any stormwater discharged from the dry detention ponds is not reasonably expected to result in the violation of water quality or water quantity standards established by the SJRWMD or the City. While recognizing the value of the Egans Creek Greenway, the evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will impair the Egans Creek Greenway’s value as a recreational asset, its significance as an outstanding natural resource, or its role in providing wildlife habitat, and does not establish beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Objective 6.10. Policy 1.02.04. Decision on amendments to the FLUM shall be based on an analysis of the suitability and compatibility of the proposed use, based on the following factors: Type and density or intensity of surrounding uses; Zoning districts in the surrounding area; Demonstration of adequate water supply and water supply facilities; Appropriateness of the size of the parcel compared to the proposed use; Physical condition of the site, and the suitability of soils and topography for the proposed use; Suitability of the site based on the presence or absence of natural resources, environmentally sensitive lands, flood zones, or historic resources; Compatibility factors; Impact on adopted levels of service standards and quality of service standards; and Location in a Coastal Upland Protection Zone (CUPZ). Petitioners’ argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessments called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendment creates an internal inconsistency with the policy. As set forth herein, the data available to the City, and the analysis of that data, met the substantive requirements of Policy 1.02.04. Thus, the record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.02.04. Data and Analysis Petitioners’ last argument is, as expressed in section II.a.(3) of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with various provisions of section 163.3177, including that the proposed FLUM Amendment be based on “accurate” data and analysis. In that regard, section 163.3177(1)(f) provides that: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. (emphasis added). Section XI of the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation then identifies the following issues as remaining for disposition: Whether the [FLUM] Amendment is based upon appropriate data and analysis including the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and suitability of the property for the proposed use in accordance with Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . ensures the protection of natural resources and the compatibility of adjacent land uses as required under Section 163.3177(3). Whether the development . . . directs future land uses that are incompatible with the protection of wetlands and wetland functions in violation of section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes. Whether the development . . . will adversely impact water, wetlands, wildlife, habitat, soils, native vegetative communities, existing natural preserve areas, and other natural and environmental resources pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), (6), Florida Statutes. (emphasis added). Ms. Gibson testified that the FLUM Amendment is supported by information described in paragraph 73, and described in further detail throughout these Findings of Fact. The availability of the data was corroborated by Mr. Platt, Mr. Desilet, Mr. Gillette, and Mr. Gerald. Though there was little evidence that the data and analysis was fully considered by the Commission,7/ the evidence established that there was substantial data “available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment,” and that the data was, at a minimum, analyzed and considered by City staff. Consistency of the FLUM Amendment with section 163.3177(2), (3), and (6) has been addressed in conjunction with the specific Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies set forth in detail herein. Based thereon, Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, or are otherwise inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), (2), (3), and (6). Conclusion In analyzing the consistency of the FLUM Amendment with the Comprehensive Plan, the undersigned gave full attention to not only the witnesses and evidence produced by the parties, but also to the public comment taken during the evening of July 15, 2019. This project has clearly evoked a great deal of justifiable passion from people who are concerned, invested, and involved in their community. However, the burden applicable in proceedings of this nature -- beyond fair debate -- is substantial. The decision that was made by the City officials was, as discussed herein, a legislative decision. Regardless of the extent that their attention may have been misdirected to the issue of whether the adopted and valid Conservation designation was a “scrivener’s error,” the data and analysis in support of the FLUM Amendment was available. Under the specific facts of this case, the decision of the elected City officials to approve the FLUM Amendment, regardless of their publicly stated reasons, was one that reasonable persons could differ over, and was therefore “fairly debatable.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2019-08 on April 16, 2019, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 16th day of September, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Ordinance 02-06, as adopted by the City of Key West and approved by the Department of Community Affairs, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern, as provided in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact All Petitioners, except John Abbe, and all Intervenors are substantially affected persons. After the commencement of this proceeding, Petitioner John Abbe sold his property and voluntarily dismissed his claim. The parties agreed that, for mutual convenience, the style of this case would remain unchanged, but references to "Petitioners" or the "parties" below do not include John Abbe. At all material times, each Petitioner owned or managed for rental residential real property in the City of Key West (as an area, Key West). Each Petitioner rented these properties for tourists for terms of less than 30 days or one calendar month. None of these properties was the primary residence of any Petitioner who is a natural person. Petitioners have transient occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County. Petitioners Hein and Klein do not have occupational licenses from Intervenor City of Key West (as a municipality, City) for transient rentals, but five of the 30 properties managed by Petitioner Property Management of Key West, Inc. are properly licensed with City transient occupational licenses. Intervenor Martha DuPont (DuPont) owns a residence in the Truman Annex development in Key West. Members of Intervenor Truman Annex Residents, Inc., (TAR) also own residences in the Truman Annex. Properties adjacent to the Truman Annex are devoted to transient rentals, and DuPont and TAR's members have been disturbed in the enjoyment of their residences by transient renters occupying the properties that they have rented. On February 20, 2002, the City adopted Key West Ordinance 02-06. Ordinance 02-06 amends Section 5-21.2 of the City land development regulations by amending the definition of "Transient Living Accommodations" and adds a new regulation governing transient living accommodations in residential dwellings. The amendment to the definition of "Transient Living Accommodations" adds that advertising or holding out a property as available for rent to transients satisfies the definition, even if no rental occurs, and that "a short-term rental use of or within a single family dwelling, a two family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling . . . shall be deemed a transient living accommodation." The new land use regulation is Section 2-7.21, which is entitled, "Transient Living Accommodations in Residential Dwellings--Regulations." Section 2-7.21 accomplishes the restrictions to which Petitioner object and provides, in part: Intent. These regulations apply only to the transient use of residential dwellings. In 1986, the City enacted former zoning code Section 35.24(44) which provided the following definition of a transient living accommodation: "Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days." (This definition shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Former Transient Definition.") Some property owners and developers interpreted the Former Transient Definition to mean that an owner could rent his or her residential dwelling for less than half the year without the dwelling losing its residential status, and therefore without the need for a City-issued transient license (so long as State of Florida licensing requirements were met). This interpretation went unchallenged by the City. Three categories of transient use of residential dwellings resulted: (1) some owners obtained a residential license allowing unrestricted transient use; (2) some owners followed the Former Transient Definition and, accordingly, rented their properties less than half the year; and (3) some owners put their residences to a transient use without City or State license and without regard to existing regulations. In addition, many residential dwelling owners never put their properties to a transient use and they no longer have the opportunity to do so under the City's current Rate of Growth Ordinance. The City Commission finds that short-term or transient rentals affect the character and stability of a residential neighborhood. The home and its intrinsic influences are the foundation of good citizenship; although short-term tenants no doubt are good citizens generally, they do not ordinarily contribute to activities that strengthen a community. Therefore, the City of Key West intends by these regulations to establish a uniform definition of transient living accommodations, and to halt the use of residences for transient purposes in order to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods. The City has provided only a brief phase-out period in recognition that in many instances investment expectations have already been met either through rental income or rising market value. * * * Key West is a designated area of critical state concern (ACSC). Therefore, on February 22, 2002, the City submitted Ordinance 02-06 to Respondent, which is legally obligated to review proposed land development regulations in ACSC. By Final Order issued April 2, 2002, Respondent found that Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern, as set forth in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code (Principles). (All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Specifically, Respondent found that Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with all of the Principles and "promotes and furthers" Principles a and h. The Principles, which were adopted by the Administration Commission on February 28, 1984, consist of the following objectives: Strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development. Protection of tidal mangroves and associated shoreline and marine resources and wildlife; Minimize the adverse impacts of development of the quality of water in and around the City of Key West and throughout the Florida Keys; Protection of scenic resources of the City of Key West and promotion of the management of unique, tropical vegetation; Protection of the historical heritage of Key West and the Key West Historical Preservation District; Protection of the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities, Sewage collection and disposal facilities, Solid waste collection and disposal facilities, Key West Naval Air Station, The maintenance and expansion of transportation facilities, and Other utilities, as appropriate; Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public investments on the natural and environmental resources of the City of Key West; and Protection of the public health, safety, welfare and economy of the City of Key West and the maintenance of Key West as a unique Florida Resource. Unlike the other Principles, Principle a derives its importance from the remedial process implicit in the ACSC rules. Pursuant to Rule 28-36.001(3), the necessity of the ACSC designation is obviated, if the City implements the Principles through the adoption and enforcement of a compliant comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The City's comprehensive plan prohibits transient rentals in the following districts: Coastal Low Density Residential Development, the Single Family Residential Development, Medium Density Residential Development, High Density Residential Development, Mixed Use Residential/Office, Limited Commercial Development, Historic High Density Residential Development, Historic Medium Density Residential Development, Historic Residential/Office, Conservation, Military, Public Services, and Historic Residential/Office (as to residential properties not already licensed for transient use prior to the effective date of the comprehensive plan). The City's comprehensive plan allows transient rentals in the following districts: Salt Pond Commercial Tourist, General Commercial Development, and Historic Commercial Tourist. The City's comprehensive plan defers the land-use decision concerning transient rentals to the land development regulations in the following districts: Mixed Use Planned Redevelopment and Development and Historic Planned Redevelopment and Development (Truman Annex is the only area bearing this designation). The City's comprehensive plan allows and prohibits transient rentals in different parts of the following districts: Historic Residential Commercial Core (allowed in subdistricts 1 and 3, but prohibited in subdistrict 2) and Historic Neighborhood Commercial (allowed in subdistricts 1 and 3, but prohibited in subdistrict 2). Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with Principle a because the ordinance implements plan designations that prohibit transient rentals and executes plan designations that defer the land-use decision regarding transient rentals to the land development regulations. Petitioner's contentions to the contrary are unpersuasive. Provisions of the City's comprehensive plan stress the importance of tourism, but the City's decision to restrict transient rentals does not necessarily conflict with the presentation of Key West as an appealing tourist destination. The record does not suggest that the loss of rental homes, many located in established residential neighborhoods, would diminish Key West's tourist appeal. Analysis of Principle a does not require the resolution of such longstanding disputes between the parties, such as whether the prohibition of transient rentals accomplished by Ordinance 02-06 maintains and enhances Key West's charm and tourist appeal, as ordinance proponents contend, or substantially reduces the inventory of rental properties for a particular segment of the tourist market, as ordinance opponents contend. As is more apparent in the discussion below of Principle h, the relevant inquiry is that of consistency, which encompasses a broader range of permissible land use regulations relative to the Principles--not promotion, which, unwisely used by Respondent in its final order, encompasses a narrower range of permissible land use regulations relative to the Principles. Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan's restrictions on transient rentals and identifies those districts for which the plan defers to the regulations with respect to land use regulation. Therefore, the passage of Ordinance 02-06 clearly demonstrates the City's emerging capability for managing land use and development. As is relevant to this case, Principle h is to protect the welfare and economy and maintain Key West's role as a unique Florida resource. By implication, Petitioners contend that the Principles require the City not to restrict the availability of transient rentals in Key West. Resisting Petitioners' claims, Respondent, the City, and Intervenors contend that the Principles require the City to restrict the availability of transient rentals in Key West. Principle h illustrates the problem with Respondent's finding that Ordinance 02-06 "promotes and furthers" a Principle, when only consistency is required. The concept of consistency contemplates a range of permissible planning solutions, some of which may even be contradictory. The concept of promotion is less amenable to contradictory planning solutions, such as, in this case, the restriction or extension of transient rentals. The protection of the public welfare or economy and maintenance of Key West as a unique Florida resource are concepts that will accommodate a considerably wider range of planning decisions than will the protection of mangroves and water quality. On this record, the City could, consistent with these salutary exhortations imbedded in Principle h, restrict or extend transient rentals. Respondent's finding that Ordinance 02-06 promotes Principle h is an unfortunate departure from the statutory standard of consistency because the erroneous corollary of this finding is that Principle h impliedly discourages, if not prohibits, a later ordinance extending the availability of transient rentals. Principles requiring the protection of natural and historic resources and governing infrastructure are sufficiently demanding, and the range of responsive planning solutions sufficiently narrow, that a specific planning strategy may be mandated or prohibited, even though the standard is only consistency. However, the treatment of transient rentals does not impact these Principles in any meaningful way, so the range of planning solutions available to the City is not significantly restricted. In preempting the rights and responsibilities traditionally accorded local governments in Florida, the Administration Commission explicitly limited itself to matters involving natural and historic resources and infrastructure. Rule 28-36.004(1) states: "The [Principles] are oriented towards [sic] protection of natural and historic resources and public investments of regional and State importance." Obviously, Rule 28-36.004(1) omits any mention of the subjects of Principles a and h, which are the two Principles that Respondent found were promoted by Ordinance 02-06. Among all the Principles, these two have the broadest application, because they are not limited to natural and historic resources and infrastructure, but impose the least restrictions upon the City, because they are not limited to natural and historic resources and infrastructure. Respondent cites these two Principles in defense of Ordinance 02-06, not because Respondent has a weak case, but because a transient rental ordinance has little, if anything, to do with the Principles and their purposes. However annoying the presence of transient rentals may be to some residents or costly the absence of transient rentals may be to some landowners and rental agents, the status of transient rentals immediately prior to this ordinance or immediately after it has no significant impact upon Key West's status as an ACSC. The record does not support a claim that the presence or absence of transient rentals forms a distinctive historical feature in Key West, has any bearing on the natural resources of Key West, or ultimately involves the public welfare or economy of Key West in any measurable way. Thus, Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with Principle h, just as would be an ordinance repealing Ordinance 02-06 and restoring transient rentals to their status just prior to the adoption of Ordinance 02-06. For similar reasons, Ordinance 02-06 is consistent with the remaining Principles.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding Ordinance 02-06 consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the City of Key West, as set forth in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Audlin, Jr. 415 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Jeffrey M. Bell Ritter, Chusid, Bivona and Cohen, LLP 7000 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Timothy E. Dennis Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Lee R. Rohe Post Office Box 420259 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Colleen M. Castillo, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David L. Jordan, Deputy General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the Escambia County comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2020-14, 2020-15, and 2020-16 adopted on June 4, 2020, are "in compliance," as that term is used 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. Parties Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in section 163.3184(1)(a) who own property in the County and timely submitted comments or objections to the County with regard to the subject plan amendments. The County is a non-charter county and a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County's principal offices are located at 221 Palafox Place, Pensacola, Florida 32502. The County is a local government that is subject to the requirements of chapter 163. Intervenors are the owners of property located at 2025 West Kingsfield Road, Cantonment, Florida 32533. The Westmark Property was the subject of Ordinance No. 2020-14. The instant administrative proceeding was a challenge to all three Ordinances adopted by the County on June 4, 2020. The Arnold Property was the subject of Ordinance No. 2020-15. The Jolly Property was the subject of Ordinance No. 2020-16. Background A sector plan is the process in which the local government engages in long-term planning for an area of at least 5,000 acres. See §§ 163.3164(42) and 163.3245(1), Fla. Stat. It involves two levels of planning: a) a long-term master plan, and b) a Detailed Specific Area Plan (DSAP), which implements the master plan. A DSAP is created for an area that is at least 1,000 acres and identifies the distribution, extent, and location of future uses and public facilities. See § 163.3245(3), Fla. Stat. While the DSAP is created by a local development order that is not subject to state compliance review, an amendment to an adopted sector plan is a plan amendment reviewed under the state coordinated review process. See § 163.3184(2)(c), Fla. Stat. The County's OSP was one of five original sector plans adopted as part of a pilot program in the State of Florida. The County's OSP is unique from the other sector plans throughout the state because of its large number of property owners. The other four pilot sector plans contain one or two owners of large parcels. Those one or two property owners specifically requested to have a sector plan. In the County there are 1,792 parcels located in the OSP. On June 3, 2010, the County adopted its Comp Plan and the Mid-West OSP through Ordinance No. 2010-16. Ordinance No. 2010-16 was challenged by the state land planning agency, the former Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Ordinance No. 2011-3 was adopted by the County as a stipulated remedial ordinance in response to the DCA challenge. Ordinance No. 2011-3 was determined to be in compliance with part II of chapter 163. The time for a challenge to Ordinance 2011-3 has expired. The OSP DSAP was adopted by County Ordinance No. 2011-29 in September 2011, and the DSAPs attached to the ordinance were adopted as well. Ordinance No. 2011-29 established two DSAPs: Muscogee DSAP and Jacks Branch DSAP. The time for a challenge to Ordinance 2011-29 has expired. Chapter 7 of the County's Comp Plan contains the FLU Element that established future land use patterns as described by the FLU Element's goals, objectives, and policies. The policies include FLU categories with general descriptions of allowable uses and development standards. FLU Element categories include Agricultural, Rural Community, and MU-S. Chapter 16 of the County's Comp Plan contains the OSP overlay that established a long-term master plan for buildout of the area covered by the OSP. The OSP sets forth FLU goals, objectives, and policies that generally describe types of land uses, regionally significant public facilities, and regionally significant natural resources. The policies include FLU categories related to the OSP area general principles that contain general descriptions of allowable uses and development standards. OSP FLU categories include Town Center, Village Center, Traditional/Urban Neighborhood, and Conservation Neighborhood. Until a DSAP is adopted, the property within the OSP maintains the underlying FLU Element designation. The right to opt-out or withdraw from the long-term master plan with local government approval was created by the Florida Legislature when section 163.3245 was amended during the 2011 legislative session. See § 163.3245(8), Fla. Stat. This can be accomplished only with the approval of the local government by plan amendment adopted and subjected to state compliance review under section 163.3184. Id. On April 16, 2015, the County repealed and replaced its entire LDC and instituted a county-wide rezoning to accomplish a consolidation of zoning districts by Ordinance No. 2015-12. On March 16, 2017, the County amended its LDC through Ordinance No. 2017-14, establishing criteria for evaluation of any request by a property owner wishing to opt-out of the Mid-West OSP. Ordinance No. 2017-14 was not challenged. Once a parcel is removed from the County's OSP, the underlying County zoning becomes effective, but a new FLU category must be assigned to the property by a plan amendment. Ordinance Nos. 2020-14, 2020-15, and 2020-16 were considered favorably by the County Planning Board on March 3, 2020. The three Ordinances were considered and approved by the County Commission on March 5, 2020, and June 4, 2020. Notice of all public hearings was published in a newspaper of general circulation. The comprehensive plan amendments at issue were made available to the public. Members of the public could speak at the public hearings. The Subject Properties The subject properties are located on the southeastern perimeter boundary of the Mid-West OSP, within the Muscogee DSAP. The current underlying zoning for each parcel is Low Density Residential (LDR), with a maximum residential development allowance of four dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The existing land use derived from the DSAP Final Land Use Plan identifies that the parcels are within the Conservation Neighborhood District, with a maximum residential development allowance of three du/ac. In the County there are 1,792 parcels located in the Mid-West OSP. The County's staff calculated that the total developable acreage in the entire Mid-West OSP is 8,611.80 acres. The total developable acreage of the Muscogee DSAP in the Conservation Neighborhood District is 1,289.90 acres. The Westmark Property has a single-family residence on site and the approximate acreage for the parcel is 84.10 +/- acres. The parcel's 84.10 +/- acres represents 0.97% of the existing developable acreage in the Mid-West OSP. Removal of this acreage would result in a decrease of 6.52% of available developable acres in the Muscogee DSAP in the Conservation Neighborhood District. Petitioners contend that the Conservation Neighborhoods were selected for that designation because they are environmentally sensitive lowlands prone to flooding. However, an analysis of the Final Land Use Map in the DSAP reveals that the Conservation Neighborhoods are mostly high and dry like the Westmark Property. The most environmentally sensitive lands with substantial wetlands and lowlands are found in and around Town Centers and Regional Employment Districts. Town Centers and Regional Employment Districts have the highest density and intensity uses in the Mid-West OSP. These and other high-density uses are exempt from the open space set asides imposed on properties in the Conservation Neighborhoods. Respondents' expert, Mr. Metcalf, testified that there was a one percent chance of a flood occurring on small pockets of the Westmark Property. This was determined using the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones that are incorporated in the County's regulations. In addition, the County's regulations allow for corrective measures such as mitigation and fill, so the flood zone areas would not preclude development of any affected property. The Arnold Property has a single-family residence on site and the approximate acreage of the parcel is 4.04 +/- acres. The parcel's 4.04 +/- acres represents 0.04% of the existing developable acreage in the Mid-West OSP. Removal of this 4.04 +/- acres would result in a decrease of 0.31% in available developable acres in the Muscogee DSAP under the Conservation Neighborhood District. The Jolly Property has two single-family residences on site and is comprised of two adjacent parcels having a total approximate acreage of 5.99 +/- acres. The parcels' 5.99 +/- acres represents 0.07% of the existing developable acreage in the Mid-West OSP. Removal of these 5.99 +/- acres would result in a decrease of 0.46% of available developable acres in the Muscogee DSAP under the Conservation Neighborhood District. Application Review In 2015, when the County received its first request to opt out of the Mid-West OSP, County staff contacted the state land planning agency, the current Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), for advice on how to process such a request. DEO informed County staff that there was no prior data that they could provide to the County. There was no sample application or process that any other jurisdiction had created because the County was the first jurisdiction to process an opt-out request. Because this was only the second time opt-out applications had been filed with the County, the County relied upon a series of meetings previously held with DEO for the purpose of seeking guidance on how to proceed. The County was instructed by DEO that the opt-out application and FLU assignment should be processed in the same manner as a FLU map (FLUM) comprehensive plan amendment and then reviewed under the state coordinated review process. DEO had also suggested criteria that should be considered when processing such an application. Those criteria were adopted as LDC section 2-7.4. After the three opt-out applications were filed, the County began the process of determining whether the applications satisfied the opt-out criteria in LDC section 2-7.4 and the relevant Comp Plan requirements. At the hearing, it became clear that some of the criteria adopted by LDC section 2- 7.4 were above and beyond the state compliance review necessary for plan amendments under section 163.3184. Petitioners asserted that the LDC criteria and a strict scrutiny standard should govern review of the opt-out applications in this proceeding. However, that approach would be contrary to the state compliance review set forth in section 163.3184, including the fairly debatable standard mandated by section 163.3184(5)(c). At the hearing, Mr. Metcalf testified that he prepared a 15-page expert written report based on information a professional planner would consider reliable. The report is titled "Westmark Comprehensive Plan Amendment Compliance Evaluation" and was accepted into evidence. Mr. Metcalf's expert testimony and report, along with the County's staff report, were the most credible evidence presented at the hearing to support the Westmark Property opt-out application. As more fully discussed below, the preponderance of the evidence established that the Westmark Property, Arnold Property, and Jolly Property opt-out application met all applicable statutory requirements for approval of the FLUM change from Conservation Neighborhood to MU-S. The requested opt-outs were debated extensively during a series of public hearings that began in March 2020. Members of the public were allowed to speak for or against the proposed opt outs. On June 4, 2020, the County voted to amend its Comp Plan by: (a) allowing the parcels to withdraw from the Mid-West OSP; (b) removing the Mid-West OSP overlay on the parcels; and (c) amending the FLUM by assigning the properties the MU-S FLU designation. The Ordinances were transmitted to DEO for review under the state coordinated review process. DEO determined that each Ordinance met the requirements of chapter 163, for compliance purposes. Besides DEO's review, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Education reviewed the Ordinances for impacts on transportation and school concurrency, respectively. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission also reviewed the Ordinances. No comments, recommendations, or objections were sent to the County by any of these reviewing agencies. Internal Consistency When the effect of a plan amendment creates clear conflict with other provisions of the existing Comp Plan, the plan amendment is said to create internal inconsistencies within the Comp Plan in contravention of section 163.3177(2). Petitioners argued that the opt-out applications are internally inconsistent with the policies in Chapter 16 of the Comp Plan. Petitioners' convoluted argument cannot be accepted because the sector plan statute allows property owners to withdraw their parcels from the OSP area. Thus, those parcels would no longer be subject to the policies of Chapter 16 of the Comp Plan. Mr. Metcalf's opinion was that an internal inconsistency could occur only if the plan amendment is so disruptive that it completely undermined the County's ability to implement the OSP in a manner consistent with the Comp Plan policies. Petitioners failed to demonstrate any internal inconsistencies that would completely undermine the County's ability to implement the OSP. Because of its limited scope, Mr. Metcalf persuasively testified that withdrawing the three properties from the OSP area would not prevent the County and the OSP from carrying out its objectives and remaining internally consistent with all of its policies. In addition, the three opt-outs did not create remnant areas or fragment the DSAP. A "remnant" or "fragment" would result when removal of a parcel leaves behind one or more OSP parcels that did not have any connectivity or access to the remainder of the OSP parcels within the DSAP. The MU-S FLU category is compatible with adjacent, existing, and planned FLU. As shown by the maps included with the opt-out applications' amendment packages, many MU-S neighborhoods abut properties designated as Conservation Neighborhood within the OSP area. Many of these MU-S neighborhoods are also zoned LDR. Thus, the three opt-out plan amendments are comparable to the existing land use and zoning pattern in the area. The County's experts testified that when no specific development project was proposed for the three properties, all elements of the Comp Plan were reviewed for consistency with the proposed FLU category of MU-S. That review included elements such as infrastructure, mobility, and conservation. The MU-S designation for the three opt-out properties was consistent with all applicable elements of the Comp Plan. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the three opt-out plan amendments were internally inconsistent or would create conflict within the County's Comp Plan. It is fairly debatable that the three opt-out plan amendments were internally inconsistent with relevant provisions in the Comp Plan. Relevant and Appropriate Data and Analysis "To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." § 163.3177(1)(f), Fla. Stat. Data supporting an amendment must be taken from professionally accepted sources. See § 163.3177(1)(f)2., Fla. Stat. However, local governments are not required to collect original data. Id. Surveys, studies, and data regarding the area form the bases for FLU plan amendments. See § 163.3177(6)(a)2., Fla. Stat. During the application process for each of the opt-out applications, the County staff reviewed the extensive data that was collected and used to support adoption of the Mid-West OSP and the DSAPs. The data reviewed and analyzed by the County staff addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts to the environment. The data also addressed the availability of potable water, sanitary sewer, and all other public facilities. Specifically, County staff confirmed the location of the parcels and determined who the providers would be in order to analyze the specific level of service standards applicable to the parcels. The County's experts testified that since no specific development projects were proposed for the three properties, it was reasonable to analyze the impacts of the FLUM change to MU-S within the constraints of the maximum standards for the underlying LDR zoning. Although Mr. Metcalf's independent analysis and opinion was based on reviewing the maximum standards for the MU-S FLU category, he agreed that the County's approach was sensible and realistic in the context of these three opt-out applications. His analysis demonstrated that there would be sufficient infrastructure and service capacity available either way. The evidence demonstrated that there was adequate data and analysis taken from professionally accepted sources, and gathered through professionally accepted methodologies, to support the three opt-out plan amendments. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the three opt-out plan amendments were not based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the County, as required by sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2. FLUM Amendment Analysis Specific analyses are relevant for these FLUM amendments. See § 163.3177(6)(a)8., Fla. Stat. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The Westmark Property, Arnold Property, and Jolly Property are currently dependent upon on-site septic systems like other surrounding properties in the neighborhood. Septic systems are limited to a maximum of four du/ac per acre by state health department regulation. At present, this would comport with the four du/ac maximum density allowed by LDR zoning. Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA) operates a 12-inch force main sewer line at the intersection of Highway 97 and West Kingsfield Road, three quarters of a mile from the Westmark Property. Mr. Metcalf evaluated the permitted capacity for ECUA's interconnected wastewater treatment facilities and concluded there would be sufficient capacity available to service the Westmark Property if developed to the FLU MU-S maximum density of 25 du/ac. With regard to potable water, the subject properties are located in the Farm Hill Utilities, Inc. (FHU), service area, which has a 20-year consumptive use permit (CUP), valid through 2033. Notably, the CUP application was based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research high population projection series for this area. The CUP authorizes an average daily withdrawal of 0.68 million gallons per day (MGD) for three active wells. The 2019 average daily withdrawal for the three wells totaled 0.49 MGD as reported in the 2019 annual report submitted to the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). The NWFWMD 2018 Water Assessment Report forecasts demand through 2030 of 0.618 MGD. The largest of the subject properties, the 84.10 +/- acre Westmark Property, would generate a demand for 0.078 MGD at the maximum zoning density based on the adopted level-of- service standard set forth in Infrastructure (INF) Policy 4.1.7 of the Comp Plan. As such, sufficient capacity is currently available and is projected to be available through 2030 to serve even the 84.10 +/- acre property if developed based on the zoning density. Mr. Metcalf concluded that if FHU was unable to provide MU-S FLU category maximum density service, ECUA could and would provide the service. The ECUA service area is adjacent to FHU's service area. ECUA could simply extend to the west to service the Westmark Property in a maximum density development scenario. ECUA operates as an enterprise fund, meaning it would charge users as it expands the system. So, to the extent that the current or any future owner of the Westmark Property wanted to develop to 25 du/ac, they would be required to pay for that expansion. The County has no public stormwater treatment facilities in the area to serve the subject properties. Stormwater retention and treatment would be accomplished by a required on-site system capable of handling the maximum 25 du/ac or mixed-use development scenarios as well as the LDR zoning scenario. The opt-out plan amendments would not affect stormwater management. To the extent stormwater ultimately discharges to an Outstanding Florida Water such as the Perdido River, higher levels of stormwater management are required, and additional measures would protect sensitive wetlands. With respect to solid waste disposal, the Perdido Landfill is used to accommodate the municipal solid waste disposal needs of the County. The County's six pounds per capita per day level of service standard is based on population projections for calculating demand, which has already been established by the County independent of the Comp Plan. If future development projects were to be proposed for the three subject properties, the current buildout for the Perdido Landfill has solid waste disposal capacity until the year 2045. The County does not require a recreational level of service standard. The County has made a policy decision not to implement concurrency requirements for recreation. Petitioners argued that the open space requirement of 50% under the Conservation Neighborhood land use is an important level of protection that would be lost if the subject properties are allowed to withdraw from the OSP. The Conservation Neighborhood open space requirements do not include any direction as to where the open space must be located and preserved on a site. Permitted uses of the open space allowed by section 3.03 of the DSAP include recreation that allows accessory buildings and improvements such as golf courses, tennis and basketball courts, athletic fields, clubhouses with swimming pools, and other such improved recreational facilities, plus up to one-half of the open space can be used for enhanced stormwater retention ponds, provided they are designated as subdivision amenities. Mr. Metcalf determined that the allowable uses of open space in the OSP Conservation Neighborhood designation generally comport with the open space uses as defined in Chapter 3 of the Comp Plan. The Petitioners' own expert, Mr. Albrecht, did not dispute that the Recreation and Open Space Element contained in Chapter 13 of the Comp Plan applies to private developments and would be applicable to these properties if they are allowed to withdraw from the OSP. Although the County has not adopted school concurrency, or school impact fees, Mr. Metcalf testified that a reasonable estimate for long-term planning purposes may be derived from existing census and school enrollment data. Mr. Metcalf estimated the potential number of elementary, middle, and high school students if the Westmark Property was developed at the maximum density with mid-story, multifamily units. He also conducted an estimate using the same methodology if it was developed at the maximum zoning density. The school district budgets for growth and capital over five and ten- year periods utilizing its own data and analysis including enrollment growth of individual schools that fluctuate partly because the County has freedom of choice for enrollments. In Mr. Metcalf's expert opinion, the County school district's 2019-2020 Five Year Work Program confirmed that sufficient capacity was available within the school district to serve the Westmark Property, whether developed at the maximum zoning density or the maximum MU-S FLU density. Notwithstanding the fact that school concurrency has been removed from both the state statute and the County's Comp Plan, Mr. Jones testified that the County reviews what public schools are in the vicinity of a proposed project to determine if there is capacity or if the school board needs to be advised regarding further development of the public school system. The County's expert, Ms. Lindsay, confirmed that granting these opt-out requests would have no immediate impact on public school facilities. She also testified that the County would review potential impacts on public school facilities during any site plan review of a proposed project. Despite the fact that the County has no level of service standard or concurrency for transportation, Mr. Metcalf explained that the statutory FLUM amendment evaluation requires an analysis and a demonstration of adequate planning to coordinate land use and transportation. However, there was no binding development standard that had to be achieved in order to demonstrate availability of adequate capacity. Notwithstanding the fact that transportation concurrency has been removed from both the state statute and the County's Comp Plan, the County would be reviewing the traffic capacity and the ability of the roads adjoining any proposed project to handle any new traffic generated by the project. The County's transportation expert, Ms. Malone, confirmed that such a review would entail a trip generation study to determine the potential for an increase in number of trips and number of pedestrians. The review would also entail an analysis of whether an intersection or turn lane would be necessary for any proposed development. The County has an active project to realign and extend West Kingsfield Road from Highway 97 west to the first 90-degree curve, as well as construct a new two-lane roadway further west to connect to the eventual Beulah Interchange Connector Project. The County is currently nearing 60% design and is in the right-of-way phase. The construction phase will follow the design and right-of-way phases once the necessary funding has been identified. The new extension roadway will run east to west through the Westmark Property. During her review of the opt-out proposals, Ms. Malone determined that this portion of West Kingsfield Road is functioning within its allowable capacity. Ms. Malone found no reason to believe that approving these opt-outs would have any immediate impact on the capacity of the existing transportation infrastructure. Mr. Metcalf conducted a worst-case scenario analysis of the impact on West Kingsfield Road by assuming a maximum development potential for the Westmark Property. He analyzed three different development scenarios. One development scenario was based on the maximum density at 25 du/ac allowed by the MU-S FLU category. The second development scenario was based on the trip generation resulting from the MU-S density if the property was developed for either residential or commercial purposes. The third development scenario was based on the trip generation resulting from the LDR zoning at four du/ac. For each of the three scenarios, Mr. Metcalf compared the amount of daily trip generation to the capacity of West Kingsfield Road as it has been planned, and then he calculated the resulting level of service. He confirmed that West Kingsfield Road would operate at an acceptable level of service in all scenarios. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the three opt-out FLUM plan amendments were not based on an analysis of the availability of facilities and services, as required under section 163.3177(6)(a)8. The character of undeveloped land. The County considered the suitability of the proposed FLU MU-S category in light of the existing character of the three opt-out properties including the soils, the topography, the natural resources, and the historic resources. The County staff reviewed the extensive data that was collected and used to support adoption of the Mid-West OSP and the DSAPs. The data reviewed and analyzed by the County staff addressed natural resources, wetlands, historically significant sites, and impacts to the environment. There was no dispute that relevant elements of the Comp Plan would continue to apply to these three properties if they are withdrawn from the OSP. Those elements include the Conservation Element that contains policies addressing wetland protection, wildlife habitat protection, and protection of listed species. Also, the Recreation and Open Space Element contained in Chapter 13 of the Comp Plan applies to private developments and would be applicable to these properties if they are withdrawn from the OSP. There was no dispute that allowing these properties to withdraw from the OSP would have no immediate impact on the wildlife, ecology, or biology of the County. Petitioners contended that the Conservation Neighborhoods were selected for that designation because they are environmentally sensitive lowlands prone to flooding. However, an analysis of the Final Land Use Map in the Muscogee DSAP revealed that the Conservation Neighborhoods are mostly high and dry, like the Westmark Property. The most environmentally sensitive lands with substantial wetlands and lowlands are found in and around Town Centers and Regional Employment Districts. Town Centers and Regional Employment Districts have the highest density and intensity uses in the Mid-West OSP. These and other high-density uses are exempt from the open space set asides imposed on properties in the Conservation Neighborhoods. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the proposed FLU MU-S category was not suitable in light of the existing character of the three opt-out properties including the soils, the topography, the natural resources, and the historic resources. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Section 163.3177(1) provides that a comprehensive plan "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." Petitioners argued that the opt-out plan amendments are inconsistent with section 163.3177(1) because they fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for removal of property from the DSAP and renders the OSP meaningless. The more persuasive evidence established that withdrawing the three properties from the OSP area would not prevent the County and the OSP from carrying out its objectives and remaining internally consistent with all of its policies. In addition, the three opt-outs did not create remnant areas or fragment the DSAP. The County's experts testified that all elements of the Comp Plan were reviewed for consistency with the proposed FLU category of MU-S. That review included elements such as infrastructure, mobility, and conservation. The MU-S designation for the three opt-out properties was consistent with all applicable elements of the Comp Plan. Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the three opt-out plan amendments rendered the OSP meaningless and the Comp Plan lacking meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land. It is fairly debatable that the three opt-out plan amendments fail to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding Ordinance Nos. 2020-14, 2020-15, and 2020-16, adopted on June 4, 2020, by Escambia County, to be "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Theresa Blackwell 9535 Tower Ridge Road Pensacola, Florida 32526 Jacqueline A. Rogers Neal Road/Knollwood Neighborhood 1420 Ridge Way Cantonment, Florida 32533-7991 Charles V. Peppler, Esquire Office of the Escambia County Attorney 221 Palafox Place, Suite 430 Pensacola, Florida 32502 Sally B. Fox, Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, P.A. 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, Mail Station 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Kia M. Johnson, Esquire Office of the Escambia County Attorney 221 Palafox Place, Suite 430 Pensacola, Florida 32502-5837 William Beech 1956 West Kingsfield Road Cantonment, Florida 32533 Frank E. Westmark Elizabeth J. Westmark Post Office Box 575 Cantonment, Florida 32533 Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 Dane Eagle, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners 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 the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, 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 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the City of Hallandale's comprehensive plan adopted in Ordinance No. 1999-12 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Mickey Biss, is an individual who resides in Miami, Dade County, Florida. Respondent, City of Hallandale (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a municipal corporation located within Broward County, Florida. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Respondents, Ocean Marine Yacht Club, Inc. and Security Management Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Ocean Marine"), are corporations organized under the laws of Florida and Maryland, respectively. Intervenor, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Standing. Mr. Biss owns a condominium, unit No. 2109, located at 2030 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida. Mr. Biss' parents reside in the condominium unit. Mr. Biss made oral and written comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment at issue in this case. Ocean Marine and Security Management own parcels of property located at 1935 and 1945 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is the subject of the plan amendment at issue in this proceeding. All of the parties proved that they are "affected persons" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. All of the Parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City and Its Comprehensive Plan. General The City is located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a charter county with county-wide powers over land use planning. The City has adopted the City of Hallandale Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The City's Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE") and Future Land Use Maps (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), a Coastal Management Element, a Capital Improvements Element, and other elements required by the Act. Among the land use categories allowed pursuant to the FLUE are residential "High Density" and residential "High Density-2." Residential property designated High Density is subject to a "maximum density of twenty-five (25) dwelling units per net acre." The residential High Density-2 land use category was created by an amendment to the City's Plan adopted by the City on February 5, 1998, through Ordinance No. 1998-3. Residential property designated High Density-2 is subject to a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. This new land use category was also added to the FLUM. The amendment to the City's Plan to add High Density-2 as a land use category was found to be "in compliance" by the Department. It was also found to be consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan. The High Density-2 land use category is subject to the following limitation: Dwelling units and accessory structures subject to a maximum density of fifty (50) dwelling units per net acre, provided however that any density over 25 dwelling units per net ace may only be permitted by the City Commission on site specific properties by assignment of Flexibility Units in accordance with the Flexibility Rules of the Administrative Rules Document, Broward County Land Use Plan. The High Density-2 land use category of the City's Plan is consistent with the Broward County Comprehensive Plan, which contains a "High (50) Residential" land use category allowing up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The City's Urban Infill Area and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas The FLUE of the City's Plan establishes an Urban Infill Area in the City. The Urban Infill Area is delineated on the FLUM. The following Objective and Policies concerning the Urban Infill Area are included in the City's Plan: OBJECTIVE 1.17: Establish criteria which encourage development of urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) to promote economic development, increase housing opportunities, and maximize the use of existing public facilities and services. POLICY 1.17.1: Increase economic development and employment opportunities within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). POLICY 1.17.2: Adequate housing opportunities necessary to accommodate all segments of present and future residents shall be provided within urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s). The City's Plan also designates Urban Infill Areas as Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas. FLUE Policy 1.17.4 of the City's Plan provides the following: Designated urban infill and urban redevelopment area(s) shall be excepted from transportation facilities concurrency requirements consistent with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; however, application will be subject to providing a traffic analysis consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element and potential improvements to minimize impacts. Coastal High Hazard Area The City's Plan includes a Coastal Management Element addressing, among other things, hurricane evacuation from the City's coastal high-hazard area and participation in the development of evacuation plans by Broward County. The FLUE of the City's Plan also includes Policies providing for protection of the City's coastal high-hazard area. The City's Plan, prior to the adoption of the Challenged Amendment, allowed the designation of property located anywhere in the City, including the coastal high-hazard area, as High Density-2. This fact must be considered in interpreting the provisions of the Coastal Management Element and the FLUE of the City's Plan dealing with development within the coastal high hazard area. Flexibility Units. The Broward County Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "County's Plan") includes an Administrative Rules Document. The Administrative Rules Document was adopted to assist local governments, among others, in interpreting the County's Plan. The FLUE of the City's Plan adopts by reference the Administrative Rules Document as they relate to flexibility units. The Future Land Use Maps of the County's Plan divide Broward County into 125 geographic areas designated as "flexibility zones." The number of flexibility units available within each zone is determined by subtracting the number of dwelling units permitted within a flexibility zone by a local government's plan from the number of dwelling units permitted within the same flexibility zone by the County's Plan. Local governments are allowed to, within certain specified limits, rearrange land uses, including residential densities, within flexibility zones located within the local government's jurisdiction. The City is divided into two flexibility zones: Flex Zones Nos. 93 and 94. The FLUE of the City's Plan contains a table on pages 2-28 and 2-32 which sets out the number of flexibility units available in Flex Zone Nos. 93 and 94. The City's Plan allows the use of flexibility units anywhere within either Flex Zone of the City, including areas within the coastal high hazard area. A "Summary" included with the table provides, in pertinent part, that flexibility units may be "assigned to any particular site within the Flexibility Zone to allow for increased residential densities above the amount permitted under the Hallandale Land Use Plan map. . . ." The flexibility units are available for transfer without the need to amend the City's Plan. At the time that the Challenged Amendment was adopted, there were a total of 2,429 flexibility units available within Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Property. The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.75 acres of land. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1935 Ocean Drive is vacant. The parcel of the Subject Property located at 1945 Ocean Drive is developed. The developed parcel has an 80-unit motel on it. The motel located on the Subject Property was constructed in 1956. The buildings on the Subject Property are in substantial decay. The Subject Property is surrounded on three sides by property used for high density multi-family residences. The property to the north, Chelsea Hall, has been developed at a density of 54 units per acre. The properties to the east, Malage Towers, Biltmore Mansions, Taromina Apartments, and Hemispheres Ocean, have been developed at densities of 75, 19, 45, and 117 units per acre, respectively. The property to the south, Hemispheres, has been developed at a density of 85 units per acre. Densities in the area surrounding the Subject Property averaged approximately 86 units per acre. The Subject Property lies totally within the City's Urban Infill Area. The Subject Property is, therefore, also considered to be located totally within a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. The Subject Property also lies within the coastal high-hazard area. The Subject Property is located within the City's Flex Zone No. 93. The Subject Amendment. On June 1, 1999, the City passed Ordinance No. 1999-12, amending the City's Plan by changing the FLUM land use designation for the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Amendment"). The Challenged Amendment changed the land use designation of the Subject property from residential High Density to residential High Density-2. The Challenged Amendment was adopted pursuant to the procedures allowed for "small scale" development amendments set forth in Section 163.3187 of the Act. Pursuant to this provision, the City decided that it would elect to have the Department review the Challenged Amendment. The change in land use designation on the Subject Property increased the allowable development of the Subject Property from a maximum of 25 units per acre to a maximum of 50 units per acre through the use of "flexibility units." The Challenged Amendment assigns 143 flexibility units out of the 2,429 available within Flex Zone No. 93 to the Subject Property and specifically provides " . . . the applicant agrees the assignment of 143 Flexibility Units to the parcel is a maximum and agrees the use of density above 25 units per acre will be determined by the City Commission upon review of a future major development plan." Mr. Biss' Challenge. Mr. Biss filed a Petition for Hearing to Challenge Compliance of a Small Scale Development Amendment with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Biss alleged generally that the Challenged Amendment is not "in compliance" for the following reasons: The Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act because the density of the Subject Property is more than ten units per acre and the Subject Property is not vacant; The Challenged Amendment is contrary to the State Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1997). In particular, Mr. Biss alleged that the Challenged Amendment is contrary to Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), which requires the following: 22. Require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of coastal residents. The Challenged Amendment, by increasing densities in the coastal high-hazard area, increases the dangers from hurricanes contrary to Coastal Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan; The Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard of Hallandale Beach Boulevard contrary to FLUE Element Policy 1.12.4 and Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan; There is insufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that the possible additional 143 residential units in the coastal high-hazard zone will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high-hazard area; and The Challenged Amendment fails to consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. Qualification as a Small Scale Amendment. The Subject Property is located within the Urban Infill Area and a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. Therefore, the Challenged Amendment may involve a residential use with a density of more than ten units per acre and still qualify as a small scale amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is not a small scale amendment pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) of the Act. I. The State Comprehensive Plan. The City has prepared plans for evacuation of coastal residents as required by Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Biss failed to prove that the requirements of Section 187.201(7)(b)22., Florida Statutes (1997), concerning the preparation of evacuation plans, apply to the Challenged Amendment. Density Increase in the High-Hazard Area; Coastal Management Element Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, and FLUE Policies 1.9.5 and 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. The Coastal Element of the City's Plan includes Goals 2 and 3, and Objective 2.2 pertaining to the City's high hazard area: GOAL 2: The City of Hallandale Shall Protect Human Health and Safety in the Coastal Area. . . . . OBJECTIVE 2.2: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas in concert with the established hazard mitigation strategies developed by Broward County . . . . GOAL 3: The City Shall Discourage or Limit Development in Areas Subject to Destruction by Natural Disasters. The evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with these Goals or the Objective of the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. These Goals and the Objective were intended to provide broad planning guidelines and were not intended to apply specifically to a small scale amendment such as the Challenged Amendment. The Goals and the Objective of the Coastal Management Element relied upon by Mr. Biss must be evaluated with other provisions of the City's Plan. In particular, those provisions which allow the transfer of residential dwelling unit densities through flexibility units anywhere within the City, including the coastal high-hazard area. Because of these existing provisions the Challenged Amendment does not increase densities within the coastal high-hazard area or increase the danger from hurricanes anymore than already allowed by the City's Plan. Although not required by Coastal Management Element Goals 2 or 3, or Objective 2.2 of the City's Plan, even a consideration of the impact of the Challenged Amendment on actual hurricane evacuation times does not support Ms. Biss' challenge. The City's projected hurricane evacuation time for roads which would be impacted by increased density on the Subject Property are less than seven hours. The addition of up to 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact that evacuation time. Ongoing road improvements will even mitigate any such impacts. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Element of the City's Plan. FLUE Policy 1.9.5 of the City's Plan provides: POLICY 1.9.5: The City shall direct populations away from High-Hazard Areas, to the extent legally feasible, through the establishment of redevelopment regulations for High-Hazard Areas by 1998. The City has complied with this Policy by adopting redevelopment regulations. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with this Policy. FLUE Policy 1.9.3 of the City's Plan provides the following: POLICY 1.9.3: Encourage development and redevelopment in the coastal high hazard area to include hazard mitigation measures for beach and beachfront property protection to minimize loss of life and property against beach erosion. This Policy has no relevance to the Challenged Amendment. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with the Policy. The City's Plan does not include a Policy 2.7.2. The FLUE of the City's Plan includes a "Section 2.7.2" which describes the following "Natural Conditions Affecting Development" as part of the description of the dangers from flooding in the City: The danger from hurricanes can be somewhat controlled by limiting future allowable densities in high hazard areas. This subject is more fully addressed in the Coastal Management and Conservation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Section 2.7.2 of the City's Plan. Impacts on Traffic. FLUE Element 1.12.4 of the City's Plan establishes a level of service standard "D" for City roads. Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan recognizes existing traffic circulation problems within the City, including roads impacted by the Challenged Amendment. This Section is not, however, a goal, objective, or policy of the City's Plan. Mr. Biss has argued that the Challenged Amendment degrades the level of service standard for the City on roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment and further exacerbates the traffic circulation problems recognized by Section 9.3.2.1 of the Transportation Element of the City's Plan. The evidence failed to support this argument. While the addition of 143 dwelling units will naturally increase traffic in the area surrounding the Subject Property, Mr. Biss failed to prove the extent of that impact. More importantly, Mr. Biss failed to prove that the impact will be so great as to be considered inconsistent with the City's Plan. Data and Analysis. Mr. Biss has argued that the City did not have sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that an additional 143 residential units will not negatively impact the City's ability to evacuate the coastal high hazard area. Mr. Biss failed to prove this allegation. Hurricane evacuation times for roads which may be impacted by the Challenged Amendment are well below acceptable hurricane evacuation time standards. An additional 143 dwelling units will not significantly impact those evacuation times. Data relied upon by the City indicated that, after ongoing road improvements, hurricane evacuation times, even with the Challenged Amendment, will decrease. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the City did not have adequate data and analysis to support the Challenged Amendment. Impacts on Public Schools. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment did not consider the impacts on public schools contrary to the County's Plan. The Challenged Amendment is not required to be consistent with County's Plan until it is reviewed for "recertification" by the Broward County Planning Council. At the time of recertification, the Challenged Amendment will likely be considered exempt from school concurrency pursuant to Policy 13.01.10 of the County's Plan. Mr. Biss failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with any provision of the City's Plan dealing with public schools. Mr. Biss also failed to prove that the impact on public schools by the Challenged Amendment will be more than the addition of nine students. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that the Challenged Amendment is inconsistent with Coastal Management Element Policy 3.1.1 of the City's Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the Challenged Amendment to be a small scale amendment and that it is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kent Harrison Robbins, Esquire 1224 Washington Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Clifford R. Steele, Esquire John C. Hanson, II, Esquire Steele & Hanson, P.A. Museum Tower, Penthouse 150 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Barbara Hall, Esquire Greenberg, Taurig, et al 515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Richard Kane, City Attorney City of Hallandale 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Karen A. Brodeen, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Arnold Lanner, Mayor City of Hallandale City Hall 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale, Florida 33009 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether small-scale amendments to the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017 (the “FLUM Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, Ronald Ross, resides and owns property within the City. Mr. Ross submitted written comments concerning the FLUM Amendments to the City during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the FLUM Amendments and ending with the adoption of same. Respondent is a Florida municipal corporation with the duty and authority to adopt and amend a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2017). The Subject Properties Together the FLUM Amendments affect eight contiguous parcels located at the corner of North 2nd Street and Broome Street, which runs perpendicular to, and dead ends at, North Front Street, the City’s historic waterfront. The subject properties are located two blocks east of North Front Street. The structure at 211 Broome Street is an existing single-family home built circa 1900. The structure at 205 Broome Street is a vacant single- family home built circa 1900. The parcel at 224 North 2nd Street contains a multi- family structure. The remaining parcels are vacant and undeveloped. The Amendments are owner-initiated. Existing Conditions Residential uses are not allowed in the IND land use category. As such, the residential uses on the subject parcels are non-conforming to the regulations for that category. The residential uses at 211 Broome Street and 224 North 2nd Street are “grandfathered” from the prohibition on residential uses, and are allowed to continue as non-conforming uses until such time as any one of a number of criteria are met. Significant redevelopment of the structure would trigger the requirement to conform to allowable uses. The residential structure at 205 Broome Street is vacant, in disrepair, and cannot be redeveloped for a residential use in the IND category. The FLUM Amendments The FLUM Amendments change the FLUM category for each of the eight parcels from IND to CBD. The purpose of the IND land use category is to “recognize the existing industrial development, appropriate open air recreation activities, and the animal shelter, and to ensure the availability of land for industrial and airport purposes.” Industrial uses include “airport dependent uses, manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; green technologies, general commercial activities; integral airport related support services such as rental car facilities, parking facilities; and other similar land uses.” The CBD category is designed to “accommodate single- family or duplex residential uses, either ‘stand alone’ or in a mixed residential and business structures; offices; commercial retail; personal service establishments; restaurants; transient accommodations; commercial parking facilities; civic uses; and cultural uses.” The CBD allows other uses, such as indoor recreation, multi-family, marinas, daycare centers, and educational facilities, subject to certain conditions. The maximum density of residential uses in CBD is 34 units per acre (34/acre). The maximum intensity of non-residential uses in both IND and CBD is a floor area ratio (”FAR”) of 2.0. The Community Redevelopment Area All of the subject properties are located within the City’s Waterfront Area Community Redevelopment Area (“Waterfront Area CRA”). Section 163.360, Florida Statutes, authorizes local governments to undertake community redevelopment projects in areas designated as slum or blighted, or areas with a shortage of affordable housing. The local government must first adopt, by resolution, findings that slum, blight, or inadequate housing exists. See § 163.355, Fla. Stat. Following adoption of this “Finding of Necessity,” the local government, or community redevelopment agency, may adopt a community redevelopment plan for the area, following review and comment by the local planning agency, and an advertised public hearing. Once a community redevelopment area (“CRA”) is designated, the local government may issue redevelopment revenue bonds; approve investments, acquisitions, demolition, removal, or disposal of property in the area; approve community policing innovations; and exercise the power of eminent domain. The statute provides a financial benefit for CRAs known as tax increment financing, or “TIF.” The incremental increase in ad valorem value of properties within the CRA, derived from investment in the CRA, must be deposited in a trust fund established by the local government. TIF revenues may only be utilized for redevelopment projects within the CRA boundary. The City adopted a “Finding of Necessity” to establish a CRA in 2004. The City found the following statutorily- enumerated blighted conditions in its waterfront district: inadequate street layout and parking facilities; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deterioration of site and other improvements; and inadequate and outdated building density patterns. In June 2004, the City established the Waterfront Area CRA including the marina, shrimping and seafood processing area, and adjacent residential areas, including the subject properties. The total acreage of the Waterfront Area CRA is 37.364 acres. In its 2005 resolution approving the Waterfront Area CRA Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), the City found, “The Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Challenges to the Plan Amendments Internal Inconsistency Petitioner first challenges the FLUM Amendments as inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01, which reads as follows: The City shall perform a housing needs assessment by December 2013. Information contained in the assessment should include, but not be limited to, information regarding housing trends; the number, type and condition of existing housing units; identification of substandard housing units; the number and types of housing units needed in the future for all income ranges based on growth projections; and shortages and/or deficiencies in the existing housing stock. The housing needs assessment should be updated a minimum of every five (5) years. It is an undisputed fact that the City has not conducted the housing needs assessment mandated by the subject policy. Petitioner maintains that the FLUM Amendments, which allow the subject properties to be developed (or, redeveloped, as the case may be) for residential densities as high as 34/acre, conflict with the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is essentially that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by relevant data and analysis in the form of the assessment called for in the policy. That argument is separate and apart from the issue of whether the FLUM Amendments create an internal inconsistency with the policy. The cited policy does not prohibit the City from adopting any plan amendment until the assessment is completed. Petitioner presented no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The record does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.01.01. Petitioner next contends the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08, which reads as follows: The City shall establish a City-wide neighborhood planning program to encourage the stabilization and preservation of residential areas throughout the City and strengthen linkages between neighborhoods and City government. The parties stipulated that the City has not implemented the neighborhood planning program called for in the policy. Petitioner’s argument on this point is that without the neighborhood planning program, the City cannot assess the impact of the FLUM Amendments on the medium density residential neighborhood to the east of the subject properties.3/ The policy in question does not prohibit the City from adopting plan amendments until the neighborhood planning program is implemented. Petitioner introduced no expert witness testimony regarding internal inconsistency between the FLUM Amendments and the cited policy. The evidence does not support a finding that the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with Housing Element Policy 3.02.08. Data and Analysis Petitioner’s last argument is the FLUM Amendments are inconsistent with section 163.3177(1)(f), which requires as follows: All . . . plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the . . . plan amendment. The City’s Senior Planner, Kelly Gibson, testified in deposition that the FLUM Amendments are supported by the Findings of Necessity supporting creation of the Waterfront Area CRA, the Redevelopment Plan, and the historic development patterns of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the City’s stated purposes of creating the Waterfront Area CRA is to “afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Area by private enterprise.” Applicants for the change in land use designation of 205 and 211 Broome Street seek to redevelop the deteriorated residential structure at 211 Broome Street. The applicants will not invest in redevelopment of the property under the IND designation because that designation prohibits residential uses. The FLUM Amendments will encourage redevelopment by allowing the applicants to invest in the dilapidated structure. Further, the FLUM Amendments afford the applicants more flexibility in development of the vacant lots because, while the IND land use category is limited to the uses described in paragraph 14, above, the CBD category allows single-family and duplex residential uses, offices, commercial retail, personal service establishments, restaurants, transient accommodations, commercial parking facilities, civic uses, and cultural uses. The applicants for change in the land use designation of properties located at 224 North 2nd Street, and the adjoining vacant lots, seek to reinvest in the existing non-conforming multi-family residential structure. The FLUM Amendments encouragement redevelopment by allowing the reinvestment sought by the applicants. Likewise, the FLUM Amendments provide flexibility for infill development of the adjoining vacant lots. The Redevelopment Plan includes initiatives and programs for the Waterfront and “Transitional Areas.” The subject properties are located within a Transitional Area of the Waterfront Area CRA. One of the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan is to “encourage opportunities for new development by allowing a broader mix of uses in the . . . transitional areas[.]” Further, the Plan states, “It is critical that the strategies are prioritized to initiate growth of tax increment revenues to the Agency – a primary or seed funding source for many of the redevelopment efforts identified in this Plan.” Objective 2 of the Redevelopment Plan is to promote a mix of uses within the CRA. This section states, “The existing Future Land Use and Zoning designations along the waterfront and adjacent areas limit the type of allowable uses to industrial uses. Such limitations may be a primary impediment to redevelopment of the CRA.” The Redevelopment Plan further states, “[T]he City should take a proactive position in accommodating a broader mix of uses with design controls.” The CBD category allows a broader mix of uses than the IND category. See paragraphs 14 and 15, above. Further, the FLUM Amendments remove the impediment to redevelopment of the subject properties created by the prohibition on residential uses in the IND category. Petitioner elicited testimony from the City’s experts that there are minimal differences between the uses allowed within the existing zoning category of the subject properties and the zoning category sought under the applicant’s concurrent rezoning request. Petitioner proved that the uses allowed within the CBD zoning category, which are not allowed in the existing I-1 (Light Industrial), are residential, daycare centers, group homes, and bed and breakfast inns. The issue in this case is not the breadth of the zoning category, but that of the FLUM category.4/ The FLUM Amendments are supported by both the Findings of Necessity establishing, and the Redevelopment Plan for, the Waterfront Area CRA.5/ Finally, Petitioner points to Future Land Use (FLU) Policy 1.07.10 to support his argument that the FLUM Amendments are not supported by data and analysis. FLU Policy 1.07.10 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: A proposed amendment to the FLUM to increase the land area within the Central Business District land use category shall demonstrate the suitability of the proposed site based on: The need for additional land area within the Central Business District land use category; Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the Central Business District; and Consistency of the land area with the characteristics of the downtown. Petitioner presented the lay testimony of former City Mayor and Councilman Greg Roland, distinguishing the location and characteristics of the downtown and the CBD from those of the subject properties. In the same vein, Petitioner grilled both Ms. Gibson and Mr. McCrary in deposition regarding what data and analysis support a need for additional land in the CBD. The testimony and other evidence regarding this policy was largely irrelevant because Petitioner did not allege, in either his Petition or the pre-hearing stipulation, that the FLUM Amendments were internally inconsistent with FLU Policy 1.07.10. The testimony regarding compliance with FLU Policy 1.07.10 was relevant to Petitioner’s contention that the FLUM Amendments are not based on relevant and appropriate data. However, as explained below, the issue is whether the FLUM Amendments are supported by data available at the time the amendments were adopted, not whether non-existent data may be contrary to the amendments. Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendments are not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis in violation of section 163.3177(1)(f).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the City of Fernandina Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendments adopted by Ordinances 2017-13 and 2017-15 on June 6, 2017, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2017.
