The Issue The issue is whether Plan Amendment 98-51C adopted by the City of Ocala by Ordinance No. 2869 on August 4, 1998, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioner, Shady Historic and Scenic Trails Association, Inc. (SHASTA), has challenged the consistency of a plan amendment adopted by Respondent, City of Ocala (City). The amendment changes the land use on certain real property owned by Intervenor, Norbert M. Dorsey, as Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando (Intervenor). By stipulation, the parties have agreed that SHASTA is a not-for-profit corporation whose members include residents of Marion County, Florida (County). Through the testimony of its registered agent, it was established that SHASTA is a "county- wide organization" formed in 1985 because of its concern "about where growth was going," and the potential impact of growth on the "plan." Another witness (Baldwin) made comments to the City at one of its meetings concerning the adoption of the plan. Whether she is a member of SHASTA is not of record, and it can reasonably be inferred that the witness resides and owns property outside of the City. SHASTA's registered agent also presented testimony at hearing, but whether she resides within the City or in the County is unknown. Finally, while SHASTA's registered agent presented argument during her opening statement concerning the organization's standing, she presented no evidence (through sworn testimony or exhibits received in evidence) that any member of the organization who resides, owns property, or owns or operates a business within the City made comments, recommendations, or objections to the City during the course of its review and adoption of the amendment. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Petitioner is an affected person within the meaning of the law. The City is a local government located within the County. It is one of five cities in the State designated by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as a "sustainable community" under Section 163.3244, Florida Statutes (1999). To this end, the City has entered into a sustainable community designation agreement with the DCA, and thus its plan amendments are not reviewed by the DCA or the regional planning council. Intervenor is an affected person since it owns the property which is the subject of the amendment. The amendment The City adopted plan amendment 98-51C by Ordinance No. 2869 on August 4, 1998. That amendment changed the land use on Intervenor's property from agriculture to public buildings and facilities. Section 1.1.12 of the City's Future Land Use Element specifies that the public buildings and facilities category "includes areas or facilities that serve the general public," such as "government buildings, public grounds, airports, cemeteries, churches and educational facilities." In making its recommendation, the City's Planning Department considered factors such as the type of soil on the property; the absence of known caves, sinkholes, or wetlands on the site; the suitability of the property for development; the property's location in the City's urban service area; the County's land use designation of the property as an urban land use; and the compatibility of the property with the surrounding land uses, including the proximity of the property to adjacent developments of regional impact (DRI), malls, large movie theaters, shopping centers, and other heavy commercial and retail development. In addition, the Planning Department considered the comments of other state and governmental agencies, including the DCA, St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and County. The County did not object to the amendment. Based on the foregoing data and analysis, the Planning Department recommended to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) that the plan amendment be adopted. The Commission in turn recommended to the City Council that the amendment be approved. That recommendation was accepted by the City on August 4, 1998. The property The subject property consists of 40 acres and was annexed into the City in 1998. It lies within the boundaries of the City at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Southwest 42nd Street and Southwest 27th Avenue. Both roads are two-lane paved roads designated by the County as special scenic roads. This means that the right-of-way on those roadways cannot be widened or altered, and trees cannot be removed in or adjacent to the right-of-way. Prior to annexation, the property had a low-density residential land use designation in the County, and it was zoned agricultural. However, this zoning was inconsistent with the land use designation and a more likely zoning classification under the County comprehensive plan would have been R-1, which permits a maximum of four dwellings per acre. Had the property been assigned a City zoning classification most similar to the County's R-1, it would have received a low-density residential use allowing five residential units per acre. Intervenor purchased the property for the purpose of building a private school on the site. In the County, schools are located in both rural and urban areas. Under the County's land use designation for the property, schools are an allowable use. Before the property was annexed, it was located within what is known as the City's "urban service area." Under an interlocal agreement with the County, the City had the exclusive right to provide water and sewer services to that area and to condition the provision of such services upon annexation. At the time the plan amendment was adopted, the property immediately south of the subject property was being operated as a thoroughbred horse farm known as Glen Hill Farm. Immediately to the north and across Southwest 42nd Street was property with a land use designation of low-density residential allowing five residential units per acre. That property was previously approved as a planned unit development of mixed commercial and residential uses. The adjacent property on the northwest corner of the intersection of Southwest 42nd Street and Southwest 27th Avenue has been developed as a high-density assisted living facility. Immediately behind the assisted living facility are two DRIs. The first includes retail uses (including a shopping center), professional and medical offices, two large apartment complexes (consisting of more than 700 units), and three or four nursing homes or adult living facilities; this DRI would allow a vocational or technical school with approximately 500 students. The second DRI consists of the Paddock Mall, which includes 580,000 square feet of developed retail use and another 173,000 square feet of available but undeveloped use. Across Southwest 27th Avenue to the west is property commonly known as the Red Oak Farm property, which is the subject of another plan amendment challenge by Petitioner in Case No. 98- 4144GM. That amendment allows medium-density residential use. Finally, the property is located within one mile of the fastest growing and most intensively developed property within the City, which lies in and around State Road 200. The objections raised by Petitioner In its Amended Petition filed on November 2, 1998, SHASTA has alleged that the plan amendment is not in compliance for a number of reasons. They include contentions that the property is unsuitable for a private high school in that all of the land slopes to the south where extensive flooding has occurred (paragraph 9); that the site cannot be engineered to prevent flooding or that control surface water flow by retention ponds will leak into the aquifer (paragraph 10); that the site is vulnerable to stormwater pollution (paragraph 11); that the City has inadequate data and analysis to support development regulations for natural resources protection, including sinkholes and floodplains pursuant to the Conservation Element (paragraph 12); that the City has not specified how sinkholes or solution pipes to the aquifer will be protected pursuant to Policies 1.5 and 1.7 of the Conservation Element (paragraph 13); that the City has violated Policy 1.4 of the Conservation Element by not continuing the County land use designations on the property (paragraph 14); that the City has not distributed proposed interlocal agreements for annexation and future land uses as required by Policy 2.8 of the Future Land Use Element (paragraph 15); that the amendment is not in compliance with Goal II of the Future Land Use Element (paragraph 16); that the amendment is not in compliance with Policy 3.5 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (paragraph 17); that the amendment is inconsistent with revisions made by the 1998 Legislature concerning school siting in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999)(paragraph 18); that the amendment does not further "the six broad principles of sustainability," as set forth in Section 163.3244(1), Florida Statutes (1999)(paragraph 19); that extending water and sewer lines to the property is unfair to City taxpayers (paragraph 20); that City taxpayers will be forced to pay a higher rate to fund expansion of City services into the area (paragraph 21); and that the school will not be compatible with adult living facilities located northwest of the property (paragraph 24). Allegations not raised until hearing, such as a contention that the amendment would promote urban sprawl, were deemed to be untimely raised and were not considered. Finally, concerns about the specific design of the school, assuming one is built, are not relevant to a determination of whether the amendment is in compliance. As to the allegation in paragraph 18 concerning the amendment's lack of compliance with school siting requirements in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, that allegation is irrelevant since the new law became effective more than a year after the amendment was adopted. Likewise, the allegation in paragraph 19 has been found to be irrelevant for the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, while the allegation in paragraph 16 regarding Goal II of the Future Land Use Element has no relevance to the amendment since it refers to a transportation concurrency exception/urban area redevelopment area, a matter not in issue here. Finally, the allegations in paragraphs 20 and 21 regarding the potential for taxes being raised are not grounds on which to find an amendment not in compliance. The undisputed (and only) evidence shows that there are no sinkholes or known wetlands on the property; that the property did not have a conservation land use under the County's Comprehensive Plan; that the City has entered into an interlocal agreement with the County establishing an urban service area; that the amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses, including adult living facilities; and that the City considered and analyzed all of the data summarized in Findings of Fact 6 and 7 before it adopted the amendment. Therefore, the allegations in paragraphs 12-15, 17, and 24 of the Amended Petition have not been sustained. Still in issue are the allegations in paragraphs 9-11 of the Amended Petition concerning potential flooding and stormwater pollution. They will be discussed below. The property The property was once one of the three largest horse farms in the County. These farms have already been developed or, as is the case here, are in the process of being developed. The entire City, including Intervenor's property, and most of the land in the County, lie within a Karst sensitive area, which features sinkhole and cave systems. Mapped and documented cave systems are found approximately one-half mile to the west- southwest (Briar Cave) of the property and a like distance to the east (Oak Creek Caverns). However, no sinkholes, caves, or wetland systems have been found on the property, and the rules of the SJRWMD pertaining to Karst sensitive areas do not prohibit the construction in question. The tract is part of a high Floridan Aquifer (Aquifer) recharge area which permits very rapid infiltration of surface waters to the Aquifer, and it discharges into a 100-year-old flood plain. However, the property itself is not located in a flood plain. Two basic soils are found on the property. They are the Kendrick soil and Zuber soil. Due to shrinkage or swelling of the clay and "low strength," these types of soil present "slight" or "moderate" construction limitations. Expert testimony confirmed, however, that through good planning and design, or presite removal of the soils, these limitations could be readily overcome. This was also acknowledged by two of Petitioner's witnesses. At the same time, if SJRWMD regulations for construction of water retention areas in Karst sensitive areas are followed, those limitations would be resolved. Typically, the City does not impose specific requirements concerning stormwater retention or groundwater protection at the comprehensive plan stage. Rather, these are normally imposed through the City's land development regulations at the site plan stage of the process. Presumably, at that point, Petitioner will have an opportunity to raise these types of concerns. The City has had experience with other properties having Karst topography and water recharge features similar to the property in question. For example, on the Heathbrook DRI, the City imposed groundwater protection provisions which other local governments throughout the State have used as a model for other developments. To prevent groundwater contamination, the City uses a tool called a DRASTIC Index (Index), which was prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Index is used by the City and a host of other regulatory agencies to determine the potential of property for groundwater contamination. According to the Index, the property is less vulnerable to contamination than approximately seventy percent of the rest of the land in the County. City water facilities are available in the right-of-way on the north and west sides of the property, while City sanitary sewer facilities are approximately one-half mile away. If the project goes forward, Intervenor would be required to run sewer lines from the existing sewer facility to the improvements to be located on its property. If stormwater retention facilities are constructed on the property pursuant to City land development regulations, more pre-development water would be retained on the property than would be the case if the property were not developed. In addition, less runoff would be generated from the property if it were developed under the public buildings and facilities land use than would occur if the property was developed under the City land use most comparable to the County's R-1 classification. The potential for flooding Because the property slopes from the north to the south, stormwater run-off naturally flows over the property to the south and east across Glen Hill Farm to a natural low area or pond located on that farm. The evidence shows that in February and March 1998, when unusually heavy rains occurred, substantial flooding occurred on the farm, causing one of its road to be closed for almost two weeks. Intervenor has entered into an agreement with Glen Hill Farm whereby the farm has agreed to allow a portion of stormwater to continue to flow onto its property. Without such an agreement, the City would have required that Intervenor retain all stormwater from a 100-year storm on its property. A stormwater run-off system and a drainage system can be designed on the property to fully satisfy the SJRWMD's Karst sensitive development regulations. Such a system will retain all post-development run-off created by a 100-year storm. Thus, development of the property is unlikely to cause flooding on adjacent properties. Stormwater runoff As noted above, the SJRWMD has promulgated regulations for the design and construction of drainage systems and drainage basins within Karst sensitive areas, which are designed to protect against stormwater run-off contamination of the underlying aquifer. These regulations are more stringent than those that apply to other areas; if adhered to by Intervenor, they will adequately contain and control stormwater run-off and prevent groundwater contamination. In order to develop the property, Intervenor will be required to go through the site plan approval process with the City and to comply with the SJRWMD Karst sensitive regulations. Sufficient testing has been performed on the property to determine that stormwater retention systems may be designed for the property which will avoid unreasonable risk of groundwater contamination. The land use assigned to the property has less potential for detrimental impact upon the environment than would occur had the County permitted development using an R-1 classification, or a similar one by the City upon annexation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Ocala enter a final order finding Plan Amendment 98-51C to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER , Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene Weesner, Registered Agent Shady Historic and Scenic Trails Association, Inc. 655 Southwest 80th Street Ocala, Florida 34476 W. James Gooding, III, Esquire Gilligan, King & Gooding, P.A. 7 East Silver Springs Boulevard Suite 500 Ocala, Florida 34470-6659 Bryce W. Ackerman, Esquire Hart & Gray Post Office Box 3310 Ocala, Florida 34478-3310 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether proposed sign locations located in Holmes County 5,000 feet West of State Road 79 on the South side of Interstate 10 and 7500 feet East of State Road 79 on the North side of Iterstate 10 should be permitted. 1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for permits on two proposed sign locations in Holmes County, Florida. The locations were 5,000 feet West of State Road 79 on the South side of Interstate 10 and 7500 feet East of State Road 79 on the North side of Interstate 10. Both locations are in areas which are zoned commercial and otherwise meet the Department's requirements for spacing, etc. The area in question was zoned commercial in 1988 when the County adopted Ordinance Number 88-02 as a comprehensive zoning plan. The relevant commercial area parallels Interstate 10, Highway 90 and State Road 79 in which many commercial activities are presently located. The portions paralleling Interstate 10 West of State Road 79 are located on the North side of I-10 and run west, terminating at County Road 173. The portions paralleling I-10 East of State Road 79 are located on the North and South sides of I-10 and run east for over two miles. While some may disagree that the areas designated for commercial or industrial use will develop those uses in the future, it is clear that commercial or industrial development is a reasonable use of this land for comprehensive zoning purposes and neither the physical dimensions nor configurations of the area prevent or prohibit such use. Prior to the enactment of Ordinance 88-02, Holmes County held several public hearings and worked with a company which is an expert in land use planning in developing this ordinance. The ordinance considers all reasonable land uses and encompasses all unincorporated areas of the County. The ordinance is consistent with the County's comprehensive plan and with the purposes of the ordinance stated therein. The Ordinance does not permit lesser uses of the commercial or industrial areas. Commercial or industrial use is the only use allowed in the commercial and industrial areas. Neither variance or special exceptions are required for a commercial or industrial use of those areas. The ordinance is clearly comprehensive zoning and was not adopted by the County for the primary purpose to permit signs. Numerous other signs within this same area have been permitted by DOT since the adoption of Ordinance 88-02.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order permitting signs located in Holmes County 5,000 feet West of State Road 79 on the South side of Interstate 10 and 7500 feet East of State Road 79 on the North side of Interstate 10. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989.
The Issue The issue is whether a text amendment to the general description of the Commercial land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) of Respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E on June 22, 2010, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipal entity and is responsible for enacting and amending its Plan. Since 2007, the City has participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. Except for amendments based on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report or amendments based on new statutory requirements that specifically require that they be adopted under the "traditional" procedure described in section 163.3184, and small-scale amendments, all other amendments must be adopted under that process. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." § 163.32465, Fla. Stat. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department of Community Affairs (Department) and other designated agencies for their preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether an amendment is in compliance. Id. In this case, the Department did not file adverse comments or initiate a challenge to the City's amendment. Clifton Curtis Horton owns real property located at 7175 Blanding Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Horton Enterprises, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns and operates a "strip club" known as "New Solid Gold" located on Mr. Horton's property. The club is an "adult entertainment establishment" as defined by the Jacksonville Municipal Code (JMC). See §§ 150.103(c) and 656.1101, JMC. History Preceding the Amendment In order to operate an adult entertainment facility within the City, the facility must have both a correct land use and zoning classification. The location must also satisfy certain distance limitations from schools (2,500 feet), other adult entertainment businesses (1,000 feet), churches (1,000 feet), residences (500 feet), and businesses selling alcohol (500 feet). See § 656.1103(a)(1)-(4), JMC; § 847.0134, Fla. Stat. Prior to 2005, adult entertainment facilities were an authorized use in the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use category. In 2005, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E, which approved a text amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's 2010 Plan adding the following language to the Community/General Commercial (C/GC) land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right only in Zoning District CCG-2." See Respondent's Exhibit D. That classification is the primary zoning district within the C/GC land use category. The Ordinance also deleted the following language from the HI land use category: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right." Id. The purpose of the amendment was to change the permissible land use designation for adult entertainment facilities from HI to C/GC with a further condition that the property must also have a CCG-2 zoning classification. At the same time, the City enacted Ordinance No. 2005-743-E, which adopted a new zoning requirement that any adult entertainment facility whose location was not in conformity with the revised land use/zoning scheme must close or relocate within five years, or no later than November 10, 2010. See § 656.725(k), JMC. Because New Solid Gold did not conform to these new requirements, it would have to close or relocate within the five-year timeframe. On an undisclosed date, Horton Enterprises, Inc., and two other plaintiffs (one who operated another adult entertainment facility in the City and one who wished to open a new facility) filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the City's adult zoning scheme and seeking to enjoin the five-year amortization requirement, as applied to them. See Jacksonville Property Rights Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville, Case No. 3:05-cv-1267-J-34JRK (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla.). On September 30, 2009, the United States District Court entered a 33-page Order generally determining that, with one exception not relevant here, the City's zoning and land use scheme was permissible. See Petitioners' Exhibit V. On November 3, 2009, that Order was appealed by Petitioners to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit where the case remains pending at this time. The parties' Stipulation indicates that oral argument before that Court was scheduled during the week of December 13, 2010. An Order of the lower court memorialized an agreement by the parties that the five- year time period for complying with the new requirements are stayed until the federal litigation is concluded. See Petitioners' Exhibit JJ. The Court's Order also noted that an "ambiguity" in the Plan arose because the City failed to "remove the language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations acknowledging its intention to locate adult entertainment facilities in the HI category." Id. at 19. This occurred because when adopting the new amendments, the City overlooked conflicting language in the general description of the Commercial land use designations in the FLUE. However, the Court resolved the ambiguity in favor of the City on the theory that the conflicting language was contrary to the City's overall legislative intent in adopting the new land use/zoning scheme and could be disregarded. Id. Thereafter, a new amendment process was begun by the City to delete the conflicting language. This culminated in the present dispute. The Transmittal Amendment - 2010-35-E To eliminate the ambiguity, the City proposed to amend the FLUE by deleting the following language from the general description of the Commercial land use designations: "Adult entertainment facilities are allowed by right in the heavy industrial land use category, but not in commercial." This amendment was numbered as Ordinance No. 2010-35-E. A public workshop was conducted by the City's Planning and Development Department on December 14, 2009. Thereafter, public hearings were conducted by the City Planning Commission on February 11, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on February 17, 2010; and by the full City Council on February 9 and 23, 2010. It became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on February 26, 2010. Although the Ordinance inadvertently referenced section 163.3184 as the statutory authority for its adoption, it also stated that the amendment was being transmitted for review "through the State's Pilot Program." See Petitioners' Exhibit E. As required by the Pilot Program, copies of the amendment were then transmitted to the Department and seven other agencies. No adverse comments were received from any agency. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not attend the the workshop or any hearing, and they did not submit written or oral comments concerning the proposed amendment. When the process for adopting Ordinance No. 2010-35-E began, the City's 2030 Plan was still being reviewed by the Department and had not yet become effective. Consequently, at the Department's direction, the Ordinance referenced the City's then-effective 2010 Plan as the Plan being amended. On February 3, 2010, the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan became effective, replacing the 2010 Plan. However, the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E (and other plan amendments adopted at the same time) was published in the Daily Record on January 29, 2010, a local newspaper that the City has used for advertising plan amendments since at least 2003. The parties agree that the legal advertisements complied with the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. Besides the above notice, an additional notice regarding Ordinance No. 2010-35-E was published in the Florida Times Union on January 31, 2010. The parties agree that this advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. The Adoption Amendment - 2010-401-E Because the 2030 Plan contained the same conflicting language in the Commercial land use descriptions, on May 25, 2010, a draft of Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced at City Council for the purpose of deleting this language. Except for referencing the latest Plan, the language in Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E was identical. While somewhat unusual, this procedure was authorized by the Department because the 2030 Plan became effective during the middle of the amendment process. A copy of the draft Ordinance and schedule for the upcoming hearings on that Ordinance was emailed by the City's counsel to Petitioners' counsel on June 4, 2010. See Petitioners' Exhibit FF. Public hearings on Ordinance No. 2010-401-E were conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2010; by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010; and by the full City Council on June 8 and 22, 2010. All of the meetings occurred after Petitioners' counsel was given a schedule of the hearings. The amendment became effective upon the Mayor signing the Ordinance on June 24, 2010. Notice of the public hearings for Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E was published in the Daily Record on May 28, 2010. The parties agree that the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. were met. An additional notice of the public hearings was published in the Florida Times Union on May 30, 2010. The parties agree that this legal advertisement did not meet the size, font, and appearance requirements of section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., but was published by the City for the purpose of providing additional public notice and to broaden the coverage of the plan amendment. Ordinance No. 2010-401-E, as originally proposed, incorrectly referenced section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, as the statutory authority for adopting the amendment. During the hearing conducted by the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee on June 15, 2010, an amendment to Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was proposed changing the statutory authority to section 163.32465. The City proposed the same amendment for 19 other plan amendments being considered at the same hearing. The amendment was minor in nature and had no effect on the substance of the Ordinance. It is undisputed that Petitioners did not appear or submit written or oral comments at any public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. On July 21, 2010, Petitioners timely filed their Petition with DOAH challenging Ordinance No. 2010-401-E. Their objections, as later refined in the Stipulation, are both procedural and substantive in nature and are discussed separately below. Petitioners' Objections Substantive Objections As stated in the Stipulation, Petitioners contend that the amendment is not in compliance because it "is inconsistent with the balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and underlying municipal policies, since it forces adult uses into zones which permit residential and educational uses." To support this claim, Petitioners point out that the C/GC land use category permits a wide range of uses, including commercial uses in close proximity to sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, and residential areas. Petitioners characterize the current range of uses in C/GC as "an excellent planning approach to downtown Jacksonville" and one that promotes a well-reasoned, mixed-use development in the urban area. Because Ordinance No. 2010-401-E "forces" adult uses into the C/GC category where, despite the distance limitations, they will have to co-exist with sensitive uses, Petitioners contend the amendment is inconsistent with Policy (15)(b)3. and Goal (16) of the State Comprehensive Plan, which generally encourage orderly, efficient, and functional development in the urban areas of the City. Further, they assert it would contradict the City's "policy" of separating adult uses from residences, businesses, and schools. Petitioners' primary fear is that if they are required to relocate from HI to C/GC where sensitive uses are allowed, this will generate more complaints from schools, churches, and residents, and result in further zoning changes by the City and more forced relocations. As explained by Mr. Killingsworth, Director of the City's Planning and Development Department, Ordinance No. 2010- 401-E does not change the permitted uses in the Commercial or HI land use categories. Those changes in permitted uses were made by Ordinance No. 2005-1240-E in 2005 and are now being litigated in federal court. The purpose of the new amendment is simply "to clear up an inconsistency [noted by the federal court but told that it could be disregarded] that existed in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Killingsworth added that even if the language remained in the Plan, it would have no regulatory weight since the actual language in the C/GC and HI categories, and not the "header" or general description that precedes the category, governs the uses allowed in those designations. Assuming arguendo that the new amendment constitutes a change in permitted uses, the City established that from a use standpoint, adult entertainment facilities (like businesses selling alcohol) are more consistent with the C/GC land use category with the appropriate distance limitations from schools, churches, and residential areas. Further, the placement of adult entertainment facilities on property with a C/GC designation will not necessarily result in their being closer to residential property, as the City currently has a "great deal" of HI land directly adjacent to residential properties, as well as grandfathered enclaves of residential areas within the HI category. The City also established that the HI category is set aside for uses that generate physical or environmental impacts, which are significantly different from the "impacts" of a strip club. Finally, while a plan amendment compliance determination does not turn on zoning issues, it is noteworthy that the CCG-2 zoning district is the City's most intensive commercial district, and that very few schools (all grandfathered) remain within that zoning classification. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and internally consistent with the "balance of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan." Procedural Objections Petitioners' principal argument is that the City did not publish a notice for either Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation, as described in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., or in the proper location of the newspaper; that these deficiencies violate both state law and a Department rule regarding notice for the adoption of this type of plan amendment; and that these procedural errors require a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. They also contend that because the legal notice did not strictly comply with sections 163.3184(15)(e) and 166.041(3)(c)2.b., both Ordinances are void ab initio.2 As noted above, the City has published legal notices for plan amendments in the Daily Record since at least 2003. The newspaper is published daily Monday through Friday; it has been published continuously for 98 years; it is published wholly in English; it is mailed to 37 zip codes throughout the City and around 20 zip codes outside the City; most of its revenue is derived from classified and legal advertisements; it is considered by the United States Postal Service to be a general circulation newspaper; it is available in newsstands throughout the City; and although much of the newspaper is directed to the business, legal, and financial communities, the newspaper also routinely contains articles and editorial content regarding special events, sporting news, political news, educational programs, and other matters of general interest pertaining to the City that would be of interest to the general public and not just one professional or occupational group. Its publisher acknowledges that the newspaper is a "Chapter 50 periodical," referring to chapter 50 and specifically section 50.031, which describes the minimum standards for newspapers that can be utilized for publishing certain legal notices. Also, its website states that it covers political, business, and legal news and developments in the greater Jacksonville area with an emphasis on downtown. Although Petitioners contend that the legal notice was published in a portion of the Daily Record where other legal notices and classified advertisements appear, as proscribed by section 166.041(3)(c)2.b., and is thus defective, this allegation was not raised in the Petition or specifically in the parties' Stipulation. Therefore, the issue has been waived. Both proposed recommended orders are largely devoted to the issue of whether the Daily Record is a newspaper of general paid circulation as defined in section 166.041(3)(c)2.b. For the reasons expressed in the Conclusions of Law, it is unnecessary to decide that question in order to resolve the notice issue. Petitioners received written notice that the City intended to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-401-E prior to the public hearings, along with a copy of the draft Ordinance and "everything" in the City's file. They also received a copy of all scheduled hearings during the adoption process. See Petitioners' Exhibits EE and FF. Therefore, notwithstanding any alleged deficiency in the published legal notice, they were on notice that the City intended to adopt the plan amendment; they were aware of the dates on which public hearings would be conducted; and they had an opportunity to submit oral or written comments in opposition to the amendment and to otherwise participate in the adoption process. Given these facts, even assuming arguendo that the publication of the legal notice in the Daily Record constitutes a procedural error, there is no evidence that Petitioners were substantially prejudiced in any way. Petitioners also contend that reference by the City to section 163.3184, rather than the Pilot Program, in the draft ordinance during the preliminary stages of the amendment process is a procedural error that rises to the level of requiring a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. This argument is rejected as the error was minor in nature, it was corrected shortly after Ordinance No. 2010-401-E was introduced, it did not affect the substance of the amendment, and it would not confuse a member of the public who was tracking the amendment as to the timing and forum in which to file a challenge. In Petitioners' case, they cannot claim to be confused since they timely filed a Petition with DOAH, as required by section 163.32465(6)(a). Finally, intertwined with the procedural arguments is the issue of whether Petitioners are affected persons and thus have standing to challenge the plan amendment. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners (or their representative) did not attend any meeting regarding the adoption of either Ordinance. Petitioners argue, however, that emails between the parties in May and June 2010, and a telephone conference call on June 3, 2010, involving Petitioners' counsel and the City's then Deputy General Counsel, equate to the submission of written and oral comments regarding the amendment. The parties have stipulated that the following written communications between Petitioners and the City occurred in May and June 2010: Petitioners made a public records request regarding the amendment on May 21, 2010, to Cheryl Brown, Council Secretary/Director, seeking various public documents relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, transmitted by electronic mail and facsimile. On May 27, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged emails with Assistant General Counsel Dylan Reingold regarding pending document requests relating to Ordinance No. 2010-35-E, and Mr. Reingold provided a number of responsive documents. On June 3, 2010, Cindy A. Laquidara, then Deputy General Counsel (but now General Counsel), sent an email to Petitioners' counsel stating: "Below please find the schedule for the passage of the comp plan changes. Call me with questions or to discuss. Take care." On June 4, 2010, counsel for Petitioners exchanged a series of emails with Assistant General Counsel Reingold regarding the status of Ordinance Nos. 2010-35-E and 2010-401-E, as well as the review of the proposed plan amendment by the Department of Community Affairs. On June 4, 2010, Jessica Aponte, a legal assistant with counsel for Petitioners' office, exchanged emails with Jessica Stephens, legislative assistant, regarding the proofs of publication for the legal advertisements relating to Ordinance No. 2010- 35-E. The affidavits of Petitioners' counsel (Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL) regarding a conversation with the City's then Deputy General Counsel would normally be treated as hearsay and could not, by themselves, be used as a basis for a finding of fact. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. However, the parties have stipulated that they may be used in lieu of live testimony by Petitioners' counsel. See Stipulation, p. 17. The affidavits indicate that the reason for the conference call was "that [Petitioners] were trying to reach a mutually acceptable approach with the City by which enforcement of the City of Jacksonville's amortization ordinance against [them] . . . would be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal to the Eleventh Circuit." Petitioners' Exhibits KK and LL. During that call, counsel also advised the City's counsel that "there were [procedural] problems with the enactment of the subject Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that they would likely be filing challenges to its enactment." Id.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2010-401-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments for the Bay County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Diane C. Brown resides and owns property within the County, and she submitted written and oral comments to the County during the adoption process of Ordinance No. 09-36. The County is a local government that administers its Plan and adopted the Ordinance which approved the changes being contested here. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the County. The EAR Process The County's first Plan was adopted in 1990 and then amended through the EAR process in 1999. As required by law, on September 5, 2006, the County adopted another EAR and in 2007 a Supplement to the EAR. See County Ex. 1C and 1D. The EAR and Supplement were found to be sufficient by the Department on December 21, 2007. See County Ex. 1E. After the EAR-based amendments were adopted by the County and transmitted to the Department for its review, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. After making revisions to the amendments in response to the ORC, on October 20, 2009, the County enacted Ordinance No. 09-36, which adopted the final version of the EAR-based amendments known as "Charting Our Course to 2020." See County Ex. 1B. On December 15, 2009, the Department issued its notice of intent determining that the EAR-based amendments were in compliance. See County Ex. 1F. Notice of this determination was published in the Panama City News Herald the following day. See County Ex. 1G. The EAR is a large document comprised of five sections: Overview Special Topics; Issues; Element Reviews; Recommended Changes; and a series of Maps. Section 163.3191(10), Florida Statutes, requires that the County amend its comprehensive plan "based" on the recommendations in the report; subsection (2) also requires that the County update the comprehensive plan based on the components of that subsection. The EAR-based amendments are extensive in nature, and include amendments to all 13 chapters in the Plan. However, many provisions in the 1999 version of the Plan were left unchanged, while many revisions were simply a renumbering of a provision, a transfer of a provision to another element, a change in the format, or an otherwise minor and non-substantive change. Although the EAR discusses a number of issues and concerns in the first three sections of the report, the EAR- based amendments must only be based on the recommended changes. See § 163.3191(10), Fla. Stat. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the County to react through the amendment process to the discussions in the Issues and Element Reviews portions of the EAR. For example, the EAR discusses air quality and mercury but made no specific recommendations to amend the Plan to address either subject. Also, nothing in chapter 163 or Department rules requires that the County implement changes to the Plan that parrot each specific recommendation to the letter. So long as the revisions are "based" on an area of concern in the recommendations, the statutory requirement has been satisfied. Section Four of the EAR contains the "Recommended EAR- Based Actions and Corrective Measures Section 163.3191(2)(i)." See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 1-9. Paragraph (2)(i) of the statute requires that the EAR include "[t]he identification of any actions or corrective measures, including whether plan amendments are anticipated to address the major issues identified and analyzed in the report." Section Four indicates that it was intended to respond to the requirements of this paragraph. Id. at p. 1. Finally, the only issue in this proceeding is whether the EAR-based amendments are in compliance. Therefore, criticisms regarding the level of detail in the EAR and Supplement, and whether the County adequately addressed a particular issue in those documents, are not relevant. A determination that the EAR was sufficient in all respects was made by the Department on December 21, 2007. In her Amended Petition, Petitioner raises numerous allegations regarding the EAR-based amendments. They can be generally summarized as allegations that various text amendments, including entire elements or sub-elements, are inconsistent with statutory and rule provisions or are internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions, and that the County failed to properly react to changes recommended in the EAR. Because this is a challenge to an in-compliance determination by the Department, Petitioner must show that even though there is evidence to support the propriety of these amendments, no reasonable person would agree that the amendments are in compliance. See Conclusion of Law 90, infra. Objections Administrative Procedures - Chapter 1 Petitioner contends that new policy 1.4.1(4) is inconsistent with sections 163.3181 and 187.201(25)(a) and (b)6., which generally require or encourage effective citizen participation, and rule 9J-5.004, which requires a local government to adopt procedures for public participation. She also contends the County should not have deleted policy 1.4.2, which required the County to provide notices (by mail and sign postings) beyond those required by chapter 163. The new policy simply provides that notice of public hearings be provided for in accordance with chapter 163. There is no statutory or rule requirement that more stringent notice requirements be incorporated into a plan. The new notice requirements are consistent with the above statutes and rule. It is fairly debatable that the changes to the Administrative Procedures part of the Plan are in compliance. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) - Chapter 3 Petitioner has challenged (a) one policy that creates a new planning area; (b) the County's failure to adopt new energy standards in the FLUE; and (c) the adoption of new development standards for two land use categories in Table 3A of the FLUE. Table 3A describes each land use category in the Plan, including its purpose, service area, designation criteria, allowable uses, density, intensity, and development restrictions. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-5 through 3-17. These contentions are discussed separately below. Southport Neighborhood Planning Area New FLUE policy 3.4.8 creates the Southport Neighborhood Planning Area (Southport), a self-sustaining community with a functional mix of uses. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-20 and 21. The effect of the amendment is simply to identify Southport as a potential planning area that includes a mixture of uses. This follows the EAR recommendations to create "new areas where residents are allowed to work, shop, live, and recreate within one relatively compact area while preserving the rural and low density land uses in the area[,]" and to create "higher density rural development." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 2. Southport is located north of the greater Panama City area in an unincorporated part of the County near or adjacent to the proposed new intersection of County Road 388 and State Road 77. Southport is also identified in new policy 3.2.5(8) as a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) that is designated as an overlay on the Future Land Use Map Series. Id. at p. 3-5. (There are seven STZs in the Plan that act as overlay districts on the FLUM. Overlays do not convey development rights.) Petitioner contends that policy 3.4.8 is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(a) and (d), (8), and (9)(b) and (e), and rules 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (7), 9J-5.006(5), and 9J-5.013. More precisely, Petitioner generally contends that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl; that there is no need for the additional development; that there are no central water and wastewater facilities available to serve that area; that there is no mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation of the policy; that it will impact nearby natural resources; that it allows increased density standards in the area; and that it is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Most of the data and analysis that support the establishment of the new planning area are in the EAR. They are found in the Introduction and Overview portion of Section One and the FLUE portion of Section 3 of the Element Reviews. The County Director of Planning also indicated that the County relied upon other data as well. Although the new policy allows an increase in maximum residential density from five to 15 dwelling units per acre, paragraph (b) of the policy specifically requires that "all new development [be] served by central water and sewer." Petitioner's expert opined that the new community will create urban sprawl. However, Southport is located within the suburban service area of the County, which already allows densities of up to five dwelling units per acre; it is currently developed with low-density residential uses; and it is becoming more urban in nature. Given these considerations, it is fairly debatable that Southport will not encourage urban sprawl. The new STZ specifically excludes the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Therefore, concerns that the new policy will potentially threaten the water quantity and quality in that reservoir are not credited. In addition, there are other provisions within the Plan that are designed to protect the reservoir. Petitioner criticized the County's failure to perform a suitability analysis before adopting the amendment. However, a suitability study is performed when a land use change is proposed. Policy 3.4.8 is not an amendment to the FLUM. In fact, the Plan notes that "[n]othing in this policy shall be interpreted as changing the land use category of any parcel of the [FLUM]." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-21. In determining the need for this amendment, the County took into consideration the fact that except for the Beaches STZ, the EAR-based amendments delete residential uses as an allowed use in commercially-designated lands. The number of potential residential units removed from the commercial land use category far exceeds the potential number of residential units that could be developed at Southport. Thus, the new amendment will not result in an increase in residential units. Petitioner also contends that the County should have based its needs analysis using Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates. The County's population projections are found in the Introduction portion of the EAR and while they make reference to BEBR estimates, they are not based exclusively on those data. See County Ex. 1C, § 1, pp. 2 and 3. However, there was no evidence that the estimates used by the County are not professionally acceptable. Where there are two acceptable methodologies used by the parties, the Department is not required to evaluate whether one is better than the other. See § 163.3177(10)(e), Fla. Stat. ("the Department shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another"). The County's estimates are professionally acceptable for determining need. The other objections to the amendment have been considered and found to be without merit. Therefore, it is at least fairly debatable that the amendment is in compliance. Neighborhood Commercial - Table 3A The purpose of this commercial category is to "provide areas for the convenience of residential neighborhoods so as to generate a functional mix of land uses and reduce traffic congestion." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3-15. Allowable uses include, among others, supermarket centers, restaurants, public facilities, and other similar uses. The County amended the intensity standard for this category by allowing development that is "[n]o more than 50-feet in height." Id. Petitioner asserts that the new 50-foot height limitation for commercial buildings results in the amendment being inconsistent with rule 9J-5.006 because it is not based on adequate data and analysis. Petitioner further argues that the standard is internally inconsistent with FLUE objective 3.9 and policy 3.9.1 and Housing Element objective 8.5, which relate to compatibility. Finally, Petitioner alleges that it will cause unsustainable density in the category and create new demands for public services. The EAR contains a section that analyzes data regarding residential development in commercial land use categories. See County Ex. 1C, § 2. There is, then, data and analysis that support the amendment. The 50-foot height limitation actually limits the intensity that would normally be allowed under current Land Development Regulations (LDRs) if this limitation were not in the Plan. Therefore, it will not increase the intensity of development within this district. Because the Plan specifically provides that the category is for "areas [with] low-intensity commercial uses that will be compatible with adjacent or surrounding residential uses," and such uses must be located "outside subdivisions . . . unless intended to be included in the subdivisions," compatibility issues with adjacent residential areas should not arise. Petitioner failed to establish beyond fair debate that the amendment is not in compliance. Seasonal/Resort - Table 3A This land use category is designed for transient occupancy (temporary seasonal visitors and tourists) under chapter 509, rather than permanent residents. It is limited to areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used in the tourist trade. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, p. 3- The category includes a new intensity standard for buildings of "[n]o more than 230-feet in height." Id. Petitioner contends that this intensity standard is inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(d), (8), and (9) and rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), 9J-5.006, and 9J-5.013. These provisions require that an amendment protect natural resources, that it be based on the best available data and analysis, and that it be internally consistent with other Plan provisions. Petitioner also points out that the land use category is located in or adjacent to the Coastal High Hazard Area, that the amendment allows an increase in density, and this results in an inconsistency with statutes and rules pertaining to hurricane evacuation zones. Prior to the adoption of the EAR-based amendments, there was no intensity standard in the Plan for this land use category and all development was governed by LDRs. Pursuant to a recommendation by the Department in its ORC, the new standard was incorporated into the Plan. Before making a decision on the specific height limitation, the County considered existing condominium construction on the beach, current LDR standards for the district, and whether the new standard would create an internal inconsistency with other Plan provisions. Therefore, it is fair to find that adequate data were considered and analyzed. The new height limitation is the same as the maximum height restriction found in the Seasonal Resort zoning district, which now applies to new construction in the district. Because condominiums and hotels that do not exceed 230 feet in height are now allowed within the district, and may actually exceed that height if approved by the County, the amendment is not expected to increase density or otherwise affect hurricane evacuation planning. Historically, transient visitors/tourists are the first to leave the area if a hurricane threatens the coast. Petitioner also contends that the amendment will create compatibility problems between existing one- or two-story residential dwellings in the district and high-rise condominiums, and that the County failed to adequately consider that issue. However, before a condominium or other similar structure may be built, the County requires that the developer provide a statement of compatibility. It is fairly debatable that the new intensity standard is in compliance. Energy Issues Petitioner alleges that the new amendments do not adequately address energy issues, as required by section 163.3177(6)(a). That statute requires, among many other things, that the FLUE be based upon "energy-efficient land use patterns accounting for existing and future electric power generation and transmission systems; [and] greenhouse gas reduction strategies." However, amendments to objective 3.11 and policy 3.11.5, which relate to energy-efficient land use patterns, adequately respond to these concerns. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 3, pp. 3-27 and 3-28. In addition, new Transportation Element policy 4.10.3 will result in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gases by reducing idle times of vehicular traffic. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, p. 4-12. It is fairly debatable that the energy portions of the Plan are in compliance, and they promote energy efficient land use patterns and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the statute. Transportation Element - Chapter 4 The EAR contains 14 recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, pp. 2-4. Item 2 recommends generally that bike paths be installed in or next to certain areas and roadways. Id. at p. 2. Petitioner contends that this recommendation was not implemented because it is not included in the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, one section of the Transportation Element is devoted to Bicycle and Pedestrian Ways and includes objectives 4.14 and 4.15 and policies 4.14.1 and 4.15.1, which respond to the recommendation. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 4, pp. 4-14 and 4-15. In addition, the General Strategy portion of the element requires the County to install alternative transportation systems where a demonstrated need exists. Id. at p. 4-1. Petitioner contends that by limiting bike paths only to where there is a demonstrated need, the County has not fully responded to the recommendation. This argument is illogical and has been rejected. It is fairly debatable that the above amendments are in compliance. Groundwater Aquifer Recharge - Chapter 5F As required by section 163.3177(6)(c), the County has adopted a natural groundwater aquifer recharge element. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5F. The goal of this sub-element, as amended, is to "[s]afeguard the functions of the natural groundwater recharge areas within the County to protect the water quality and quantity in the Floridan Aquifer." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The EAR contains three recommended changes for this part of the Plan: that the County update its data and analysis to identify areas of high and/or critical recharge for the Floridan aquifer; that it include in the data and analysis an examination of existing LDRs which affect land uses and development activities in high recharge areas and note any gaps that could be filled through the LDRs; and that it include within the data and analysis a study of potential impacts of increased development in high recharge areas, including reasonable development standards for those areas. See County Ex. 1C, §4, pp. 4-5. Petitioner contends that "the objectives and policies pertaining to protecting water recharge areas" are inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(7) and rules 9J-5.5.011 and 9J-5.013, which require that the Plan protect groundwater; that they violate section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(7), which require measurable objectives for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation; and that the County violated section 163.3191(10) by failing to respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. In response to the EAR, in July 2009, the County prepared a watershed report entitled "Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Lake Watershed," which was based on a watershed management model used by County expert witness Peene. See County Ex. 4. The model used for that report is the same model used by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The study was also based on data and analysis prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The purpose of the analysis was to look at potential future land use changes in the Deer Point watershed and assess their ultimate impact upon the Deer Point Reservoir, which is the primary public water supply for the County. The model examined the entire Deer Point watershed, which is a much larger area than the Deer Point Lake Protection Zone, and it assumed various flows from rain, springs, and other sources coming into the Deer Point Reservoir. The study was in direct response to a recommendation in the EAR that the County undertake a study to determine if additional standards were needed to better protect the County's drinking water supply and the St. Andrews estuary. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. Another recommendation was that the study be incorporated by reference into the data and analysis of the Plan and be used as a basis for any amendments to the Plan that might be necessary. Id. at p. 6. Pursuant to that recommendation, the report was incorporated by reference into Objective 5F.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5, p. 5F-1. The evidence supports a finding that the report is based on a professionally accepted methodology and is responsive to the EAR. The model evaluated certain future land use scenarios and predicted the level of pollutants that would run off of different land uses into the Deer Point Reservoir. Based on this analysis, Dr. Peene recommended that the County adopt certain measures to protect the groundwater in the basin from fertilizers, stormwater, and pesticides. He also recommended that best management practices be used, that septic tanks be replaced, and that any new growth be on a centralized wastewater treatment plant. Petitioner's expert criticized the report as not sufficiently delineating the karst features or the karst plain within the basin. However, the report addresses that issue. See County Ex. 4, p. 2-36. Also, Map 13 in the EAR identifies the Karst Regions in the County. See County Ex. 1C, § 5, Map 13. One of the recommendations in the EAR was to amend all goals, policies, and objectives in the Plan "to better protect the Deer Point watershed in areas not included within the Deer Point Reservoir Special Treatment Zone, and [to] consider expanding the zone to include additional areas important to preserving the quantity and quality of water entering the reservoir." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Besides amending the sub-element's goal, see Finding of Fact 31, supra, the County amended objective 5F.1 to read as follows: By 2010 protect groundwater resources by identifying and mapping all Areas of High Aquifer Recharge Potential to the Floridan Aquifer in Bay County by using the data and analysis contained in the Deer Point Lake Hydrologic Analysis - Deer Point Watershed, prepared by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., dated July 2009. In addition, policy 5F-1.1 requires that the County use "the map of High Aquifer Recharge Areas to establish an Ecosystem Management overlay in the Conservation Element where specific land use regulations pertaining to aquifer water quality and quantity shall apply." Also, policy 5F-1.2 requires the identification of the Dougherty Karst Region. Finally, the EAR and Map 13A were incorporated by reference into the Plan by policy 1.1.4.4. These amendments sufficiently respond to the recommendations in the EAR. While Petitioner's expert criticized the sufficiency of the EAR, and he did not believe the report adequately addressed the issue of karsts, the expert did not establish that the study was professionally unacceptable or otherwise flawed. His criticism of the County's deletion of language in the vision statement of the sub-element that would restrict development density and intensity in areas known to have high groundwater aquifer potential is misplaced. An amendment to a vision statement is not a compliance issue, and nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to limit "density and intensity" in high aquifer recharge areas. On this issue, the EAR recommended that the County's drinking water supply be protected by using "scientifically defensible development standards." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 5. The amendments accomplish this result. Petitioner also contends that while new policy 5F.3 and related policies are "good," the County should have collected additional data and analysis on the existence of swallets, which are places where streams flow underground. Again, nothing in chapter 163 or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to consider swallets. Also, a contention that policy 5F3.2 allows solid waste disposal facilities in high recharge areas is without merit. The policy requires that the County continue to follow chapter 62-7 regulations (implemented by DEP) to protect water quality of the aquifers. In addition, a moratorium on construction and demolition landfills has been adopted, and current LDRs prohibit landfills within the Deer Point Reservoir Protection Zone. Petitioner also criticized the sufficiency of policy 5F.4, which requires the implementation of LDRs that limit land uses around high aquifer recharge areas. The evidence establishes that the new policy is sufficient to achieve this purpose. It is at least fairly debatable that the new amendments protect the natural resources, are based on the best available data and analysis, include measurable objectives for overseeing the amendments, and respond to the recommended changes in the EAR. Conservation Element - Chapter 6 The purpose of this element is to conserve the natural resources of the County. Petitioner contends that "many of the amendments [to this chapter] are not consistent with applicable rules and statutes, and that a number of recommendations in the EAR pertaining to the Conservation Element were not implemented as required by Section 163.3191(10)." These contentions are discussed below. Air pollution While the EAR discusses air pollution, there were no specific recommendations to amend the plan to address air quality. See County Ex. 1C, Element Reviews, Ch. 6, pp. 1 and Petitioner contends, however, that current Plan objective 6.3, which was not amended, is not protecting air quality and should have been revised to correct major air quality problems in the County, including "the deposition of atmospheric mercury caused by fossil fuel burning power plants and incinerators." Objective 6.3 requires the County to maintain or improve air quality levels, while related policies 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 require that the County's facilities will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and federal standards. The policies also require that the County work through state and federal agencies to eliminate unlawful sources of air pollution. Notably, the County does not regulate emissions or air pollution, as that responsibility lies within the jurisdiction of other state and federal agencies. It is fairly debatable that the County reacted to the EAR in an appropriate manner. Policies and Objectives in Chapter 6 Petitioner contends that policy 6.1.1 is inconsistent with section 163.3177(8) and rule 9J-5.005(2) because: it is not supported by adequate data and analysis; it does not implement the EAR recommendations, as required by section 163.3191(10); it is inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(b) and (f) because it results in "inconsistent application of policies intended to guide local land use decision[s]"; it is inconsistent with sections 163.3177(6)(d) and 187.201(9) and (10) and rule 9J- 5.013 because it fails to adequately protect natural resources, including isolated wetlands; and it is internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Policy 6.1.1 provides that as a subdivision of the State, the County "will, to the maximum extent practicable, rely upon state laws and regulations to meet the conservation goals and objectives of this Plan." Item 9 in the recommended changes recommends that the County should resolve the ambiguities and inconsistencies between various policies and objectives which rely on the jurisdiction of state laws and regulation on the one hand, and objective 6.11 and implementing policies, which appear to extend wetland jurisdiction to all wetlands, including isolated wetlands not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. The real issue involves isolated wetlands, which at the time of the EAR were not regulated by the Northwest Florida Water Management District. The EAR did not recommend a specific solution, but only to resolve any apparent "ambiguity." Through amendments to policy 6.11.3, which implements objective 6.11, the County reacted to the recommendation. These amendments clarify the Plan and provide that wetlands in the County will be subject to the Plan if they are also regulated by state and federal agencies. Any ambiguity as to the Plan's application to isolated wetlands was resolved by the adoption of new rules by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, which extend that entity's jurisdiction to isolated wetlands. See Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-346. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick, who explained that the Plan now defers to the wetland regulations of state and federal agencies. Therefore, any inconsistencies or ambiguities have been resolved. Petitioner contends that objective 6.2 and implementing policy 6.2.1 are inconsistent with statutes and a rule which require protection of natural resources because they focus on "significant" natural resources, and not all natural resources. With the exception of one minor change to the policy, the objective and policy were not amended, and the EAR did not recommend that either be revised. Also, testimony established that existing regulations are applied uniformly throughout the County, and not to selected habitat. Finally, the existing objective and related policies already protect rare and endangered species in the County. Objective 6.3 requires that the County "maintain or improve air quality levels." For the reasons cited in Finding of Fact 45, the objective is in compliance. Objective 6.5 requires the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality consistent with state water quality standards, while policy 6.5.1 delineates the measures that the County will take to achieve that objective. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-4 and 6-5. Except for one minor change to paragraph (3) of the policy (which is not in issue), neither provision was revised. Also, the EAR did not recommend any changes to either provision. Notwithstanding Petitioner's contention to the contrary, the County was not required to revise the objective or policy. Policy 6.5.2 requires that the County "protect seagrass beds in those areas under County jurisdiction" by implementing certain enforcement measures. County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-5. The policy was only amended in minor respects during the EAR process. Petitioner contends that the County failed to amend the policy, as required by the EAR, and this failure results in no protection to natural resources. However, the EAR only discusses the policy in the Issues section. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 7. While the EAR emphasizes the importance of seagrass beds to marine and estuarine productivity, it has no recommended changes to the objective or policy. Even so, the County amended policy 6.5.2(5) by requiring the initiation of a seagrass monitoring program using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping by 2012. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. It is at least fairly debatable that the objective and policy are in compliance. Objective 6.6 requires the County to "protect, conserve and appropriately use Outstanding Florida Waters, Class I waters and Class II waters." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-6. Its purpose is to ensure the quality and safety of the County's primary drinking water supply. Id. The objective was not amended and remains unchanged since 1999. Except for a recommendation that the County give a land use designation to water bodies, there were no recommended changes for this objective or related policies in the EAR. Because land use designations are for land, and not water, the County logically did not assign a land use to any water bodies. Petitioner contends that the objective and related policies are not based on the best available data and analysis and are not measurable, and that they fail to protect Lake Powell, an Outstanding Florida Water, whose quality has been declining over the years. Because no changes were recommended, it was unnecessary to amend the objective and policies. Therefore, Petitioner's objections are misplaced. Notably, the Plan already contains provisions specifically directed to protecting Lake Powell. See, e.g., policy 6.6.1(1), which requires the County to specifically enforce LDRs for Lake Powell, and objective 6.21, which requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, pp. 6-6 and 6-24. Petitioner's expert also criticized the objective and related policies on the ground the County did not adequately identify karst areas in the region. However, nothing in the EAR, chapter 163, or chapter 9J-5 requires the County to collect new data on the existence of karst areas. Petitioner also points out that objective 6.6 and policy 6.6.1 are designed to protect Deer Point Lake but were not amended, as required by the EAR, and they fail to adequately protect that water body. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 55, this contention has been rejected. Objective 6.7, which was not amended, provides that the County "[c]onserve and manage natural resources on a systemwide basis rather than piecemeal." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-8. Related policies, which were not amended except in one minor respect, require that the County implement programs in "Ecosystem Management Areas." These areas are illustrated on Map 6.1 of chapter 6. Petitioner contends that even though they were not amended, the objective and policies are not supported by adequate data and analysis, they fail to contain measurable standards, and they are not responsive to a recommendation in the EAR. Because no changes were made to these provisions, and the EAR does not recommend any specific changes, the contentions are rejected. The 17 water bodies comprising the Sand Hill Lakes are identified in policy 6.9.1. Policy 6.9.3, which also implements objective 6.9, continues the practice of prohibiting development with a density of greater than one unit per ten acres on land immediately adjacent to any of the Sand Hills Lakes outside designated Rural Communities. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6- (The three Rural Communities in the County have been designated as a STZ and are described in FLUE policy 3.4.4.) The policy has been amended by adding new language providing that "[p]roposed developments not immediately adjacent to, but within 1320 feet of a Sand Hill Lake, and outside of a designated Rural Community, will provide, prior to approval, an analysis indicating that the development will not be too dense or intense to sustain the lake." Id. Other related policies are unchanged. The amendment was in response to a recommendation in the EAR that all goals, objectives, and policies be amended to more clearly define the area around the Sand Hill Lakes within which densities and intensities of land must be limited to ensure protection of the lakes. See County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 6. Petitioner contends that the amended policy is inconsistent with various statutes and rules because it contains no specific standards for site suitability assessment and does not restrict density bordering on the lake; it does not implement the EAR; it is not based on EAR data and analysis; and it does not contain procedures for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of all policies. Policy 6.9.3 applies to agricultural areas outside of rural communities where the maximum density is now one dwelling unit per ten acres, and to properties that are designated as agriculture timber, which allows one dwelling unit per 20 acres. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, it does not change the established densities on those land use categories. Before a property owner can convert a land use affected by the policy, the applicant will be required to provide an analysis that the new development will not be too intense or dense to sustain the lake. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendment responds to the EAR recommendation, that it will not increase density, that it is based on sufficient data and analysis in the EAR, and that adequate standards are contained in the policies to ensure proper implementation. Objective 6.11 requires the County to "[p]rotect and conserve wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-14. A challenge to an amendment to policy 6.11.3(3), which relates to setbacks or buffers for wetlands, has already been addressed in Case No. 10-0859GM. Policy 6.11.3 provides that in order "[t]o protect and ensure an overall no net loss of wetlands," the County will employ the measures described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the policy. Petitioner contends that by using the standards employed by state and federal agencies for wetlands in paragraph (2), the County has abdicated its responsibility to protect natural resources. However, as previously discussed, the recent assumption of jurisdiction over isolated wetlands by the Northwest Florida Water Management District allows the County to extend these measures to all wetlands in the County. Petitioner also contends that the term "no net loss" in policy 6.11.3 is not measurable. Through its GIS system, though, the County can monitor any loss of wetlands. This was confirmed by County witness Garlick. In addition, the County will know at the development order phase whether any federal or state agency requires mitigation to offset impacts to wetlands. It is at least fairly debatable that the amendments to policy 6.11.3 will protect all wetlands, including isolated wetlands. Objective 6.12 requires that by the year 2012, the County will "develop a GIS layer that provides baseline information on the County's existing wetlands. This database will be predicated on the USFWS [United States Fish and Wildlife Service] National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al 1979) hierarchy of coastal and inland (wetlands) represented in North Florida. This inventory shall be developed through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-15. Related policies 6.12.1, 6.12.2, and 6.12.3 require that the County (a) use the GIS database to identify, classify, and monitor wetlands; (b) adopt LDRs which further the objective and policies; and (c) track in the GIS database the dredge and fill permits issued by DEP. Id. Petitioner criticizes the County's decision to wait until 2012 to develop a GIS layer; contends that policy 6.12.2 improperly defers to LDRs; asserts that the policy lacks meaningful standards; and contends it is not responsive to the EAR. The evidence presented on these issues supports a finding that it is at least fairly debatable that the amendments are in compliance. The EAR-based amendments deleted objective 6.13, together with the underlying policies, which related to floodplains, and created new provisions on that subject in the Stormwater Management Sub-Element in Chapter 5E. This change was made because the County concluded that floodplain issues should more appropriately be located in the stormwater chapter. The natural resource values of floodplains are still protected by objective 5E-9 and related policies, which require that state water quality standards are maintained or improved through the County's stormwater management programs. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 5E, p. 5E-7. Also, "flood zones" are retained as a listed "significant natural resource" in Conservation Element policy 6.2.1. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 6, p. 6-3. It is at least fairly debatable that the transfer of the floodplain provisions to a new element does not diminish protection of that resource. Finally, Objective 6.21 (formerly numbered as 6.23) requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve water quality and bio-diversity in the Lake Powell Outstanding Florida Water (OFW)." Except for renumbering this objective, this provision was not amended, and there is no specific recommendation in the EAR that it be revised. Therefore, the contentions that the existing policy are not in compliance are not credited. Coastal Management Element - Chapter 7 The recommended changes for this element of the Plan are found on pages 7 and 8 of Section 4 of the EAR. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner contends that the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County did not follow the recommendations in items 1, 2, and 4. Those items generally recommended that the County update the data and analysis supporting the element to reflect current conditions for, among other things, impaired waters. This was done by the County. Accordingly, the County adequately responded to the recommendations. Petitioner also contends that policy 7.1.1 improperly deferred protection of coastal resources to the LDRs. The policy reads as follows: 7.1.1: Comply with development provisions established in the [LDRs] for The Coastal Planning Area (Chapter 10, Section 1003.2 of the Bay County [LDRs] adopted September 21, 2004) which is hereby defined as all land and water seaward of the landward section line of those sections of land and water areas seaward of the hurricane evacuation zone. County witness Crelling established, however, that there are numerous other policies in the element that govern the protection of natural resources. Petitioner contends that no changes were made to provide additional guidance in policy 7.2.1 (formerly numbered as 7.3.1) to improve estuarine water quality even though multiple water bodies are listed as impaired. Except for a few clarifying changes, no revisions were made to the policy. Policy 7.2.1 does not reduce the protection for impaired waters. The minor rewording of the policy makes clear that the protective measures enumerated in the policy "will be taken" by the County to maintain or improve estuarine water quality. It is fairly debatable that the element and new objectives and policies are in compliance. Petitioner contends that amended objective 7.2 (formerly numbered as 7.3) will lead to less protection of water quality. The objective requires the County to "[m]aintain or improve estuarine water quality by regulating such sources of pollution and constructing capital improvements to reduce or eliminate known pollutants." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-2. Its purpose is to regulate all known potential sources of estuarine pollution. The evidence fails to establish that the amended objective will reduce the protection of water quality. Policy 7.3.1 was amended to delete the requirement that areas with significant dunes be identified and mapped and to provide instead that the County may impose special conditions on development in dune areas as a part of the development approval process. See County Ex. 1A, Ch. 7, p. 7-4. This change was made because the EAR recommended that a requirement to map and identify dune systems be deleted due to the "extremely dynamic nature of beach and dune systems." County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 7. A similar provision in the Conservation Element was transferred to the Coastal Management Element to respond to the recommended change. The County adequately responded to the recommendation. Petitioner contends that amended policy 7.3.2 (formerly numbered as 7.4.1) does not include sufficient standards to protect significant dunes. The amended policy requires that where damage to dunes is unavoidable, the significant dunes must be restored and revegetated to at least predevelopment conditions. It is at least fairly debatable that the standards in the policy are sufficient to protect dunes. In summary, the evidence does not establish beyond fair debate that the revisions to chapter 7 are not in compliance. Housing Element - Chapter 8 Petitioner contends the entire element is inconsistent with section 163.3191(10) because the County failed to react to recommendations in the EAR; and that new objective 8.16 and related policies 8.16.1, 8.16.2, and 8.16.3 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(9)(e) and rules 9J-5.005(6) and (7) because they fail to identify how the provisions will be implemented and thus lack specific measurable objectives and procedures for monitoring, evaluating, and appraising implementation. Petitioner focused on item 4 in the Recommended Changes for the Housing Element. That recommendation reads as follows: 4. The revised data and analysis should also include a detailed analysis and recommendations regarding what constitutes affordable housing, the various state and federal programs available to assist in providing it; where it should be located to maximize utilization of existing schools, medical facilities, other supporting infrastructure, and employment centers taking into consideration the costs of real property; and what the likely demand will be through the planning horizon. The objectives and policies should then be revised consistent with the recommendation of the analysis, including the creation of additional incentives, identification on the Future Land Use Map of areas suited for affordable housing, and, possibly amending the County Land Development Regulations to require the provision of affordable housing if no other alternatives exist. County Ex. 1C, § 4, p. 8. Item 1 of the Recommended Changes states that "[t]he County should implement those policies within the Housing Element which proactively address affordable housing, and in particular Policy 8.15.1 outlining density bonuses, reduced fees, and streamlined permitting, to provide incentives for the development of affordable housing." Id. Policy 8.15.1 was amended to conform to this recommendation. The new objective and policies address incentives for the development of affordable housing. While item 4 is not specifically addressed, the new objective and policies address the County's housing concern as a whole, as described in the Recommended Changes. Also, the new objective and policies contain sufficient specificity to provide guidance to a user of the Plan. It is fairly debatable that the element as a whole, and the new objective and policies, are in compliance. Intergovernmental Coordination Element - Chapter 10 Although discussed in the Element Reviews portion of the EAR, there are no recommended changes for this element. See County Ex. 1C, § 3, pp. 1-5. Petitioner contends that because the County deleted objective 10.5, the entire element conflicts with the EAR recommendations, and it is inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, sections 163.3177(6)(h)1. and (9)(b) and (h), and rules 9J-5.015 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)8. The deleted provision required the County to "establish countywide resource protection standards for the conservation of locally significant environmental resources." Besides deleting this objective, the County also deleted objective 10.1, which provided that the County "will take the lead role toward the creation of an 'intergovernmental forum' as a means to promote coordination between various jurisdictions and agencies." County Ex. 1A, Ch. 10, p. 10-1. To support her argument, Petitioner relies upon a concern in the Issues part of the EAR that states that "countywide resource protection standards have not been established" and that "consistency of regulation between jurisdictions" must be observed. See County Ex. 1C, § 2, p. 45. Mr. Jacobson, the County Planning and Zoning Director, pointed out that the County currently has numerous interlocal agreements with various municipalities and does not require authorization from the Plan to adopt these agreements. Objective 10.5 was deleted because the County cannot implement its regulations in the various municipalities, and protection of natural resources is addressed in other portions of the Plan. He also noted that the "intergovernmental forum" discussed in deleted objective 10-1 is not required by any statute or rule. It is at least fairly debatable that the element is in compliance and does not violate any statute or rule. (i) Capital Improvements Element - Chapter 11 Petitioner contends that the County failed to implement three recommended changes in the EAR and therefore the entire element is in violation of section 163.3191(10). Those recommendations include an updating of information on the County's current revenue streams, debts, commitments and contingencies, and other financial matters; a revision of policy 11.6.1 to be consistent with Recreation and Open Space Element policy 9.71 with regard to recreational levels of service (LOS); and the development of a five-year schedule of capital improvements. See County Ex. 1, § 4, p.9. Policy 11.6.1 has been substantially revised through the EAR process. Table 11.1 in the policy establishes new LOSs, including one for local parks, regional parks, and beach access points. The County has also adopted an updated five-year Capital Improvement Plan. See County Ex. 36. That exhibit includes a LOS Analysis for recreational services. The same exhibit contains a breakdown of financial matters related to capital improvements. It is fairly debatable that the element is in compliance. Petitioner also contends that objective 11.1 and policy 11.1.1 are not in compliance. Both provisions remain unchanged from the 1999 Plan, and the EAR did not recommend that either provision be amended. The contention is therefore rejected. Other Issues All other issues not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit, contrary to the more persuasive evidence, or not subject to a challenge in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the EAR-based amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 09-36 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011.
The Issue Miami-Dade County's Krome Avenue is a two-lane, undivided highway. In October 2002, the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County (the Commission) passed Ordinance No. 02-198. The ordinance adopted an amendment composed of several parts to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Among the parts of the amendment were changes and additions to the CDMP initiated by an application ("Application No. 16") that relate to Krome Avenue (the "Plan Amendment.")1 Quite detailed, the Plan Amendment, in essence, makes changes that re-designate a substantial segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The Plan Amendment's additions add all of Krome Avenue as a Major Route among the CDMP's designated evacuation routes in the year 2015, create new policies related to approval of use of land in the vicinity of Krome Avenue designated as a four-lane roadway and create a new policy related to planned capacity improvement to the roadway, including widening to four lanes. The issue in this growth management case is whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance" as defined in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Preliminary Statement Under cover of a letter dated January 17, 2003, the Department of Community Affairs (the "Department" or "DCA") forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a petition that requested a formal administrative hearing. The petition was "forwarded [to DOAH] for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes." The petition was filed by the Sierra Club and John S. Wade, Jr., against the Department and Miami-Dade County (County) after the Department had issued a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendment transmitted by the County "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the "Act" or the "Growth Management Act") contained in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The petition alleges that the Plan Amendment is "not in compliance as defined in section 163.3184(1), Fla. Stat., because it is inconsistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, the state comprehensive plan, with appropriate strategic regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, FAC." Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, p. 4, paragraph 16. For relief, the petition requests, inter alia, that the administrative law judge enter a recommended order finding that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance. Upon receipt of the petition, DOAH assigned it Case No. 03-0150GM. Charles A. Stampelos was designated as the Administrative Law Judge to conduct the proceedings. A Notice of Hearing was issued that set the case for final hearing in March and April 2003. In February, the case was continued until September 2003 and in July 2003, the case was re-assigned to the undersigned. Prior to final hearing, two petitions to intervene were filed: the first, by Monroe County in support of Petitioners2; the second, in support by the City of Homestead in support of DCA and Miami-Dade County.3 Both were granted subject to proof of standing. Prior to hearing, a number of unopposed motions for continuances were granted. In addition, three motions were filed by the County: one for summary final order, a second to relinquish jurisdiction and issue a recommended order and the third a motion in limine. The three motions were denied. The case proceeded to final hearing in September 2005 in Miami, Florida. The evidentiary portion of the final hearing opened with the introduction and admission of most of the joint exhibits admitted over the course of the hearing. All in all, 60 joint exhibits were offered and admitted. They are marked as Joint Exhibit Nos. 1-17, 19-27, 29-31, 34-44, 46-49, 51-57, and 59-67. Petitioners commenced the presentation of their case-in- chief first. They presented the testimony of seven witnesses: Dickson Eazala, Comprehensive Planner with Miami-Dade County; Kay Bismark, an expert in the Redland area real estate market; John S. Wade, Jr., Petitioner; Rodrick Jude, Chair of the Sierra Club's Miami Group Executive Committee; Thomas Van Lent, an expert in the field of southern Everglades hydrology and restoration; Charles Pattison, Executive Director and Planner for One Thousand Friends of Florida and an expert in comprehensive planning and compliance under the Growth Management Act; and, Diane O'Quinn, Director of Miami-Dade County's Department of Planning and Zoning, an expert in the field of comprehensive planning. Petitioners offered 13 exhibits, marked as Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 9-13, 17-19, 21-23, and 29-30. Petitioners' Nos. 18 and 23 were rejected and then proffered by petitioners. The rest of the exhibits offered by Petitioners were admitted. Intervenor Monroe County presented the testimony of Timothy McGarry, Director of Growth Management in Monroe County and an expert in land planning. Monroe County offered two exhibits, marked as Monroe County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. Miami-Dade County presented the testimony of Thomas Pelham, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and review of plans and plan amendments for compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5; Alice Bravo, District Planning and Environmental Management Engineer for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and Jonathan Lord, Emergency Management Coordinator with Miami- Dade County's Office of Emergency Management. Miami-Dade County offered two exhibits, marked as Miami-Dade County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. The Department of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Paul Darst, Senior Planner in the Department, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and the review of comprehensive plan amendments with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 97-5. The Department offered one exhibit, marked as DCA Exhibit No. 1. It was admitted. After a number of motions granted to extend the time for the filing of proposed orders, the parties filed timely proposed recommended orders on February 3, 2006. This Recommended Order follows.
Findings Of Fact Krome Avenue Less than a mile south of downtown Florida City, at a "fork in the road" for a driver headed north, Krome Avenue branches off of US 1 (South Dixie Highway). It heads in a northwesterly direction for a short distance, turns due north through Florida City and the City of Homestead and then bolts northward across a considerable stretch of western Miami-Dade County. With only a slight directional variation at an intersection with Kendall Drive, the road continues its due north run until its last several miles when it turns northeasterly before it merges with US 27 (Okeechobee Road) just shy of the Broward County line. Over its 37-mile span, there are a number of significant features of the two-lane undivided roadway. Known also as 177th Avenue, it serves as the main street for the City of Homestead, a municipality hard-hit by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It treads along the edge of the Everglades Protection Area. In the south, Krome Avenue's locus varies in distances relatively close to Everglades National Park. In the case of Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3) to the north, the roadway abuts the Everglades sector's politically-drawn east border. For most of its length north of US 41 or the Tamiami Trail it fragments wetlands designated as "Environmental Protection" with WCA-3 to the west and an extension of the historical Everglades to the east. It also traverses the Redland, an expansive tract of prime agricultural land packed between suburbs and the fabled River of Grass. Krome Avenue's cross of the Redland renders it a route essential to agricultural interests in the area. The roadway is used to transport harvested row crops and as a means to get produce from fruit and vegetable groves to market in the face of competitive pressure from Mexico and Central America, competition generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) since its adoption during the Clinton Administration. Lately, Krome Avenue has been a shipping lane for bush, flower and tree products from recently-arisen container nurseries dedicated to ornamental horticulture. The burgeoning nursery business supports the landscaping needs of the real estate and building industries in a county that has experienced explosive residential and commercial growth recently due in substantial part to stimulation from a financing environment of low interest rates that has persisted for more than half a decade. Due to Krome Avenue's proximity to the Everglades, any proposed and adopted amendments to the CDMP or local zoning action that might promote improvement of the roadway draws attention of some involved in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (the "Project" or "CERP"). The Project, called for by Congress to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a joint effort with the state and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) involves the expenditure of prodigious governmental funds and utilization of ground-breaking science. Of considerable interest to many communities, residential, commercial, environmental, agricultural, and scientific, to name some of the more obvious, CERP is the subject of government involvement at all levels. Of concern is anticipation that improvement to Krome Avenue supported by CDMP amendments threatens to contribute to rises in the value of property that is being sought or may be sought for governmental acquisition to further CERP at a time when there are various forces in play to reduce funding for the Project. A Significant Roadway Krome Avenue's is Miami-Dade County's westernmost roadway of statewide significance. The CDMP recognizes this status: it classifies the roadway as a state principal arterial roadway. The state likewise recognizes Krome Avenue's significance. FDOT has designated Krome Avenue a corridor in the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS)4 developed to address requirements for a National Highway System imposed by the Congress' Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Plan Amendment makes it is a hurricane evacuation route for residents and the transient population of south Miami-Dade County and provides an alternative evacuation route to Monroe County and the Florida Keys, an area sensitive to effects generated by residential development in south Florida. Despite its import to local, state and national transportation systems and the recognition of that import in the last several decades, the roadway has remained an undivided rural two-lane highway. Its configuration and the transportation demands that have increased in recent years have led to concerns about safety on much of Krome Avenue. Krome Avenue Safety The 33-mile segment of the corridor between Southwest 296th Street and US 27 exhibits a vehicular crash rate that is consistently higher than the statewide average for highways with the same characteristics. A significant portion of those crashes have resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. Between 1995 and 1999, there were 966 total vehicular crashes, of which 106 resulted in severe injuries and 16 resulted in fatalities. The number of crashes resulting in fatalities increased significantly after 1999. Between January 2000 and July 2002, there were an additional 26 crashes resulting in fatalities. Between 1995 and 2002, a total of 59 people died on Krome Avenue in the 42 crashes involving fatalities. Fatal crashes occurred in four segments of Krome Avenue as indicated here: Road Segment Crashes Deaths Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 16 26 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 3 4 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 16 21 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 7 8 Of the 42 fatal crashes between 1995 and 2002, 15 were the result of head-on collisions. Another 15 were the result of centerline crossovers, where a vehicle traveling in one direction crossed over the roadway centerline and struck a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Crossover collisions differ from head-on collisions in that the point of impact is usually at an angle. Head-on collisions and crossover collisions on Krome Avenue are due at least in part to its configuration as a two- lane, undivided road. Because crashes occurred throughout the 33-mile corridor and not just at intersections, independent transportation engineering consultants retained by FDOT to analyze conditions on Krome Avenue recommended that a safety improvement plan should be considered for the entire corridor. (See paragraphs 18. to 28., below.) Daily traffic volumes on Krome Avenue increased steadily between 1995 and 2001, growing at a rate of over 10 percent per year. In 2001, weekday traffic volumes were approximately 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles between S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 296th Street and approximately 9,000 vehicles between US 27 and Southwest 8th Street, as illustrated in the following table: Road Segment Avg. Daily Traffic 2001 Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 14,100 Long-range traffic projections indicate that by the year 2020, weekday traffic volumes will be between 18,000 and 21,000 vehicles south of S.W. 8th Street, and approximately 12,000 vehicles to the north. No projection suggests that traffic will decrease. Indeed, traffic models for Miami-Dade County have systematically underestimated actual traffic volume. Many intersections on Krome Avenue operate with unacceptable levels of delay, which affect drivers’ overall travel times. These conditions are reasonably expected to degrade over the coming decades. The increased traffic volume and attendant diminution in Level of Service mean that a large percentage of motorists on Krome Avenue are not able to travel at desired speeds. Slow- moving vehicles impede drivers’ forward progress, but because Krome Avenue is a two-lane road with a high volume of traffic traveling in both directions, drivers are not able to pass those vehicles. The result is an increase in driver frustration. The number of head-on crashes on Krome Avenue indicates that many drivers, as they get frustrated, are more willing to attempt risky passing maneuvers. Because passing generally involves higher speeds, crashes that result from risky passing maneuvers are more likely to result in fatalities or severe injuries. The problems associated with driver frustration are further exacerbated by the increasing volume of large trucks on Krome Avenue. The number of trucks as a percentage of overall traffic varies between 26 percent and 32 percent of daily traffic. Trucks contribute to delays at intersections and, thus, to overall delays in travel times. Trucks have difficulty turning off of Krome Avenue, thereby encouraging vehicles to attempt to pass them; those vehicles in turn pose a hazard to oncoming traffic, because they are obscured by the truck. Finally, the high percentage of trucks on the road contributes to an increase in the severity of crashes involving trucks. In general, because of the difference in size and speed between trucks and automobiles, the two types of vehicles should be separated as much as possible especially by a median separating lanes of traffic proceeding in opposing directions. The 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan In 1999, FDOT produced the Krome Avenue Action Plan (the "Action Plan.") The Action Plan followed by nine years the Florida Legislature's adoption of the FIHS of which Krome Avenue is a part. FIHS standards require that FIHS roadways be designated as controlled access facilities and that they be configured with a minimum of four lanes divided by a restrictive median (the "FIHS Directive"). Attempts to bring Krome Avenue into compliance with the FIHS Directive met with difficulties described in the Executive Summary of the Action Plan: To begin the long-range planning process required to achieve this directive, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) programmed various phases of improvement for Krome Avenue in their tentative work program. This work program was adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the Miami-Dade County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and provides funding for a more detailed study of the corridor. This action set off a string of controversial meetings and hearings regarding the consistency of the TIP, the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), and local government comprehensive plans. In response to the controversy, the MPO modified their TIP to eliminate consideration of Krome Avenue as a four (4) lane divided roadway with landscaped medians throughout the facility. In February 1997, FDOT began analyzing the Krome Avenue corridor and developing the Krome Avenue Action Plan. During the public involvement process, several alternatives were developed to preserve Krome Avenue as a two (2) lane roadway. The results of sixteen (16) months of public involvement activities and engineering analysis identified the need to preserve the rural character of the corridor while providing safety and operational enhancements to the existing roadway. Joint Exhibit 19, pgs. i-ii, (emphasis supplied). In light of difficulty in reaching "consensus and public acceptance for any improvement alternative," id., p. ii, the Action Plan was conducted "as a precursor to the requisite Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to avoid the expenditure of the large sums of public funds in a study effort, with no resulting project." Id. The Action Plan required that Krome Avenue be maintained as a two-lane road, and it recommended improvements, such as adding additional lanes and traffic signals at intersections; implementing an access management plan to limit the number of driveways and cross-street connections to Krome Avenue and to restrict turns off of the roadway; enhancing road shoulders; providing passing zones; adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities; improving pavement markings and signs; and widening the areas from the edge of the roadway that are free of obstructions, known as clear zones, to prevent crashes that result from drivers running off of the road. The Action Plan was premised on traffic volume projections for the year 2010 that were exceeded or were nearly exceeded by the traffic actually observed in 2001, nine years before the final projection. In addition, the amount of traffic observed in 2001 was close to the amount of traffic projected for 2020: Road Segment 2010 KAAP Forecast 2020 KAAP Forecast 2001 Avg. Daily Traffic Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,349 10,475 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 12,730- 16,351 13,486- 18321 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 11,921- 16,917 12,629- 17,921 14,100 Furthermore, after the Action Plan, that is, after 1999, the number of fatal crashes increased significantly. The increase was noted in an "Existing Level of Service Study" prepared for District VI of FDOT by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., (the "Kittelson Report"). The Kittelson Reports In 2002, FDOT retained Kittelson & Associates (“Kittelson”), independent transportation planning and engineering consultants, to report on Krome Avenue. Kittelson produced two reports in August and October of that year (the "First Kittleson Report" and the "Second Kittleson Report"). The First Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service Study” and the Second Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Future Conditions Analysis and Mitigation Measures.” See Joint Exhibits 15 and 49. The 1999 Action Plan, prepared in the wake of public controversy and concerns regarding consistency between the CDMP and the FIHS Directive, directly addressed those concerns and reached a compromise in the conflict. As stated in the last paragraph of its Executive Summary: Although the improvements in the Krome Avenue Action Plan do not result in a facility that meets all FHS standards, the Action Plan represents the best compromise among a wide range of diverse interests including hundreds of interested residents, agency staff, and elected officials. Joint Exhibit 19 (emphasis supplied). Unlike the Action Plan, however, Kittelson's focus, as stated in the opening sentence of its Executive Summary in the First Kittleson Report, was squarely on level of service and safety issues: "The purpose of this study is to perform a detailed Level of Service and safety analysis for existing conditions along the SR 997/Krome Avenue (177th Avenue) corridor." Joint Exhibit 15, pgs. II and 2. In the Second Kittleson Report, Kittleson summarizes its finding with regard to the increase in the number and severity of crashes on Krome Avenue: . . . [I]t is clear that traffic volume growth and increasing levels of congestion have contributed to driver frustration and attempts to make risky passing maneuvers on Krome Avenue. This has probably led to an increase in the number and severity of crashes in the corridor. Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Second Kittleson Report recognized that short of widening to a divided, four-lane roadway, there are a number of congestion and safety measures that could be considered to enhance mobility and safety, some of which were recommended by the 1999 Action Plan and some that were in addition to that plan. But the Second Kittleson Report argued for consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four-lane divided roadway: . . . [T]here are four factors that, in combination, argue for the consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four lane divided section: The fact that Krome Avenue is on the Florida Intrastate Highway System and the requirement that it be designated as controlled-access facility with a cross-section that provides for at least four lanes with a restrictive median. The likelihood that the high percentage of trucks that use the entire length of the corridor Id. contribute to an increase in crash severity when trucks are involved in crashes. The increasing levels of roadway and intersection congestion and the difficulty in mitigating these levels of congestion short of providing for additional north-south through movement capacity. The crash experience on Krome Avenue exceeds the statewide average for this type of roadway. The high number of crashes and the increase in crash severity (as demonstrated by an increase in the number of fatal crashes largely due to head-on and angle collisions) that likely would be mitigated by physically separating the directions of travel with a median. In a section of the Second Kittelson Report under the heading of "Availability of Passing" Kittelson details the problems with passing on a two-lane undivided Krome Avenue, the contribution these problems make to head-on collisions and the high speeds at which passing maneuvers occur. The report concludes that several measures should be considered to counter safety issues associated with passing maneuvers, among them, the addition of passing lanes and a median separated two-lane section. The first countermeasure recommended, however, is the creation of a four-lane section: A four-lane section eliminates the need for drivers to judge the adequacy of gaps in opposing traffic and use the opposing lane to perform the passing maneuver. The length and placement of a four-lane section can vary (for example, a four-lane section can be located between intersections or on a specific stretch of roadway). It is noted that in areas where access to roadside properties exists or is planned, a four-lane section should be median separated and that left-turn lanes need to be provided to minimize crossover crashes and rear-end crashes. A properly designed four-lane section can be expected to nearly eliminate head-on crashes (a crash type that often results in severe injuries or fatalities) and reduce the total number of roadway crashes associated with passing maneuvers. Joint Exhibit 49 (emphasis supplied). The Second Kittleson Report notes that "[w]hen considering potential countermeasures, it is important to note that one treatment does not have to be applied to the entire corridor." Joint Exhibit 49, p. 36. The reason is that there are a number of issues including safety that should be examined. The Second Kittelson Report reaches the conclusion, therefore, that "[a]n alternative analysis that considers issues such as available right-of-way, environmental impacts, safety benefits, operational benefits, and community concerns should be completed in order to decide what the preferred treatment should be." Id. In light of four factors stated above and specifically, the solution to head-on collisions offered by upgrading a two-lane undivided highway to a four-lane divided highway, Kittelson in the Second Kittleson Report recommends, "that a Project Development and Environment process be conducted to consider the range of solutions for improving the operational and safety characteristics of Krome Avenue." Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Kittleson reports, therefore, went a step beyond the 1999 Action Plan. They call for improvement of some or all of Krome Avenue to a four-lane section with a restrictive median as one of the solutions, among a range of solutions, to safety on Krome Avenue. Before such an improvement can take place, however, FDOT must conduct a Project Development and Environment Study (a "PD&E Study.") FDOT's Position FDOT is solely responsible for funding and building improvements to Krome Avenue. FDOT has neither a rule nor an un-codified policy that it will not consider funding or building an improvement to a road under its jurisdiction when improvement would be inconsistent with an applicable local comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, as made clear in the 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, FDOT is plainly sensitive to undertaking expensive studies necessary to roadway improvements that are inconsistent with local comprehensive plans. A PD&E Study is resource-intensive in time, money and FDOT commitment. Inconsistency with a local comprehensive plan is not a prescription for action on roadway improvement; rather it tends to produce a situation laden with complication as FDOT's District Engineer testified at hearing: (Tr. 768) Q. . . .[I]f this plan amendment which authorizes the widening, on the comprehensive plan, to four lanes, if this amendment is rejected, what happens next? A. . . . [W]e would have to stop and consider the circumstances, the situation, a lot of different factors before we decided whether or not to proceed with the ... study. FDOT has long been aware of safety problems on Krome Avenue. In the wake of the Kittelson Reports commissioned after a rapid rise in life-threatening traffic accidents on Krome suspected to be due, at least in part, to its configuration and a strong recommendation that widening and median placement be considered among a range of improvements, a PD&E Study was not commenced. As of the time of hearing a PD&E Study had still not been commenced. Evacuation Route In considering the data related to safety on Krome Avenue, including the Kittelson Report, the Commission considered Krome Avenue's status as an evacuation route. Since the early 1990s, Miami-Dade County has experienced significant population growth along its southern and western fringes, between the Broward County line and the Homestead/Florida City area. This growth is reasonably expected to continue. Because Krome Avenue is one of only three continuous north-south routes in Miami-Dade County, it is important to persons evacuating the City of Homestead and other surrounding areas in southern and western Miami-Dade County and Monroe County. Krome Avenue is an evacuation route not only for hurricanes but also for “all hazards,” such as a meltdown at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plan. Nonetheless, it is not designated by Monroe County as part of the official evacuation route. Krome Avenue had been used to evacuate southern Miami- Dade County during Hurricane Andrew. It had also been used to transport relief personnel, vehicles, and supplies in the aftermath of that storm. Given the growth of Miami-Dade County’s population, the other north-south routes, the Florida Turnpike and US 1, would be extremely congested if all of southern and western Miami-Dade County evacuated—much more so if Monroe County evacuated at the same time. Moreover, it is not only people who live in mandatory evacuation zones who evacuate during an emergency: an increasing number of people evacuate voluntarily. Additional capacity on Krome Avenue is necessary to accommodate both mandatory and voluntary evacuees. Miami-Dade County’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, prepared by the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”) in October 2000 and adopted by the County Commission, currently designates Krome Avenue as a primary north-south evacuation route for the Florida Keys and south Miami-Dade, in the event of a hurricane or an emergency related to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. Designated evacuation routes are roads that OEM encourages people to use in an emergency, and they are selected based on recognizability, carrying capacity, and where they end. To maintain consistency between the Emergency Management Plan and the CDMP, the Plan Amendment amends the map of “Designated Evacuation Routes-2015” in the Transportation Element to add Krome Avenue as a “Major Route.” Monroe County’s Director of Growth Management, Timothy McGarry, opined that Krome Avenue was not necessary to accommodate evacuation from Monroe County, because the Florida Turnpike provided adequate capacity. But McGarry based his opinion on the amount of Monroe County’s population that has historically evacuated, which is 50 percent. McGarry would not say that the Florida Turnpike would provide adequate capacity if 100 percent of Monroe County’s population were to evacuate. Moreover, McGarry conceded that, in formulating his opinion, he had not considered what would happen if both Monroe County and southern Miami-Dade County evacuated at the same time. A four-lane Krome Avenue would increase the capacity of Miami-Dade County’s Primary Evacuation Route System and facilitate relief efforts to south Miami-Dade and Monroe County. Moreover, if residents of both Miami-Dade County and Monroe County are evacuated, the additional capacity would allow OEM to direct Miami-Dade residents to Krome Avenue, thus opening the Turnpike and US 1, which provide the only exit routes from the Florida Keys, for residents and tourists evacuating Monroe County. The CDMP and the UDB Miami-Dade County is one of the only counties in the State of Florida to have an “urban development boundary" (UDB.) In the Land Use Element of the Adopted Components of the Year 2000 and 2010 CDMP dated December, 1988, the UDB is described: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from areas where it should not occur. * * * The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accommodate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. Joint Exhibit 56-A, pgs. I-35 and I-36. Thomas Pelham, Miami- Dade County's expert in comprehensive planning, explained the difference between a UDB and an Urban Services Area: The urban service area concept is the local government's designation of the areas in which it . . . will provide urban services. The urban growth boundary is a technique by which a line is drawn beyond which urban development will not be allowed. Tr. 662-3. With regard to the UDB, the parties stipulated, The CDMP currently contains policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the Urban Development Boundary (the "UDB"), particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Pre-hearing Stipulation, p. 14, para. 13. The UDB appears on the CDMP's Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map ("LUP map") as a broken line that on its northern end commences on the border with Broward County. It runs primarily north-to-south along the breadth of developed Miami-Dade County, within several miles of the Everglades and environmentally protected lands, and through the Redland to a point southwest of Florida City and Homestead where it turns sharply east for five to six miles and then heads in a primarily northeast direction around Homestead Regional Airport to meet the coast along Biscayne Bay near Black Point Park. Other counties have at most an “urban service area” or “urban service boundary,” which merely designates the areas in which the government will provide urban services. In contrast to the UDB, an urban service area does not prohibit urban development outside its boundary. A comprehensive plan with an urban services area typically provides only that the landowner, rather than the government, is responsible for providing urban services outside the urban services area. Miami-Dade County had the UDB before the Florida legislature adopted the laws requiring comprehensive plans, in 1985. The UDB thus predates the CDMP, which was adopted in 1988. Neither Chapter 163 nor Rule 9J-5 requires an urban development boundary. In providing a UDB in the CDMP, therefore, Miami-Dade County is making use of a technique to discourage urban sprawl that exceeds the requirements of Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. Miami-Dade County has rarely expanded the UDB in areas not designated as Urban Expansion Areas (“UEAs”). In the last 10 years, the UDB has only been expanded once. That amendment, for the Beacon Lakes project, approved an industrial use where rock mining and cement manufacturing had already taken place. All along its path, Krome Avenue is outside (or to the west of) the UDB. The CDMP does not specify any procedures for applications to move the UDB, beyond the requirements applicable to plan amendments generally. Instead, the procedures for moving the UDB are set forth in Section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County Florida (the “County Code”). That section requires an affirmative vote from two-thirds of the total membership of the County Commission. There are no restrictions on how frequently the County Code may be amended. Changes to the County Code may be accomplished by ordinance at any legislative meeting of the County Commission. The entire process can take as little as three months. Changes to the CDMP, by contrast, are subject to more rigorous procedures: applications may only be filed twice a year; they require review by the Regional Planning Council and DCA; they require two public hearings before the Planning Advisory Board; they require two public hearings before the County Commission; and the entire process takes one year. In its “Statement of Legislative Intent,” the CDMP provides: 3. The CDMP is intended to set general guidelines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. * * * 6. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and necessitate a choice between, different goals, priorities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the Land Use Element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board’s responsibility to provide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 14. The CDMP currently contains substantive policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the UDB, particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Land Use Objective 1 provides: The location and configuration of Miami-Dade County’s urban growth through the year 2015 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity, development of well designated communities containing a variety of uses, housing types and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 15. Land Use Element Policy 1P provides: Miami-Dade County shall seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 16. Land Use Element Policy 1Q provides: While continuing to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County, Miami-Dade County shall explore and may authorize alternative land uses in the South Dade agricultural area which would be compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, and which would promote ecotourism related to the area’s agricultural and natural resource base including Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 17. Land Use Element Policy 2B provides: Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial resource for services and facilities in Miami-Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 18. Land Use Element Policy 8C provides: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, economic development, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Miami-Dade County shall continue to promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 19. Land Use Element Policy 8F provides: Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objective and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period of headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective 7, herein. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 20. Land Use Element Policy 8G provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of the EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy 7F. The adequacy of non-residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 21. Land Use Element Policy 8H provides: When considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a countywide need exists, The following areas shall not be considered: The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area located west of the Turnpike Extension between Okeechobee Road and NW 25 Street, and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW 157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street; Water Conservation Areas, Biscayne Aquifer Recharge Areas, and Everglades Buffer Areas designated by the South Florida Water Management District; The Redland area south of Eureka Drive; and The following areas shall be avoided: Future Wetlands delineated in the Conservation and Land Use Element; Land designated Agriculture on the Land Use Plan map; Category 1 hurricane evacuation areas east of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge; and The following areas shall be given priority for inclusion, subject to conformance with Policy 8G and the foregoing provision of this policy: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Land contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 22. Interpretation of the LUP Map: Policy of the Land Use Element provides: Urban Development Boundary (p. I-45) The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2005 from areas where it should not occur Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process . . . . [U]rban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Transportation Element. . . . Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated-Managed Growth (p. I- 59) [C]ritical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2005 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2015 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single- purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Ultimate Development Area (p. I- 64) The 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map identified the areas that will be urbanized within those time frames. As indicated throughout this Plan, these are the areas of the County where financial resources should be directed from the maintenance and construction of urban infrastructure and services. Growth of Dade County, however, is not projected to cease after the year 2015. Therefore, prudent long-term planning for infrastructure may need to anticipate locations for possible future extension. For example, it may be desirable to reserve rights-of-way in certain growth corridors as well as on section, half-section, and quarter-section lines, well in advance of need so that opportunities to eventually provide necessary roadways are not irrevocably lost. It is difficult to specify where and how much of Dade County’s total area may ultimately be converted to urban development. . . . It is reasonably safe to assume, however, that the areas least suitable for urban development today will remain least suitable. Theses areas include the remaining high-quality coastal and Everglades wetland areas in the County, and the Northwest Wellfield protection area. The areas more appropriate for, and more likely to experience sustained urban pressure are the heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands in the Biscayne-Snake Creek and Bird-Trail Canal Basins, the agricultural areas of southwestern and southeast Dade, and the impacted wetlands south of Homestead and Florida City. When the need for additional urban expansion is demonstrated after the year 2015, such expansion should be carefully managed to minimize the loss of agricultural land and to maximize the economic life of that valuable industry. Accordingly, urban expansion after the year 2015 in the South Dade area should be managed to progress westerly from the Metrozoo area to Krome Avenue north of Eureka Drive, and on the west side of the US 1 corridor southerly to Homestead only when the clear need is demonstrated. . . . Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 23 (emphasis supplied). Of particular import to this proceeding, Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement requires avoidance of improvements which encourage development in certain areas. With regard to development in Agriculture and Open Land areas, transportation improvements which encourage development are to be avoided but avoidance is subject to an exception, "those improvements necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urbanized areas." Areas designated Environmental Protection, on the other hand, are to be "particularly avoided." Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement provides: Dade County’s priority in the construction, maintenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged development of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transportation improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 24 (emphasis supplied). Policy 1A of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, and sanitary sewage disposal, and for committing financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 25. Policy 1H of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: New water supply or wastewater collection lines should not be extended to provide service to land within the areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map. New water or wastewater lines to serve land within these areas should be approved or required only where the absence of the facility would result in an imminent threat to public health or safety. The use of on- site facilities should be given priority consideration. In all cases, facilities should be sized only to service the area where the imminent threat would exist, to avoid inducing additional urban development in the area. This policy will not preclude federal, State or local long-range planning or design of facilities to serve areas within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) or Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Public health and safety determinations will be made in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County (Environmental Protection) and Section 2-103.20, et. seq., (Water Supply for Fire Suppression) Code of Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 26. Policy 5A of the Capital Improvements Element provides: As a priority, previously approved development will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority for investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 27. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment consists of several components grouped as follows: a. changes in Plan designations in the Land Use Element on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Subelement that increase the lanes on a segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (the "Lane Increase Changes"); b. changes in the Transportation Element's Traffic Circulation Subelement that add Krome Avenue as a Major Route in the Designated Evacuation Routes 2015 (the "Evacuation Route Change"); c. addition of new policies that require among other matters a super-majority of the County Commission for zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve certain uses within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes (the "New Super-Majority Policies"); and d. addition of a new policy that requires adoption of a binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor before capacity improvements to Krome Avenue outside the UDB (the "New Binding Access Control Plan Policy"). The parties stipulated to the following narrative description of the Plan Amendment: 31. As part of the October 2002 Plan Amendment, the County Commission approved Application 16. Application 16 made the following changes to the CDMP: Changed the Plan designations of Krome Avenue (SR 997/SW 177 Avenue), between US 27 and SW 296 Street, as follows: In the Land Use Element, on the Land Use Plan map change from Minor Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes); and in the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, Figure 1, “Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network”: Change from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. In the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, added Krome Avenue between US 27 and US 1 to Figure 7, Designated Evacuation Routes 2015, as a Major Route. Added the following new Policy 3F to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production and permitted residential uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinate use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. The term “direct agricultural production” includes crops, livestock, 15 nurseries, groves, packing houses, and barns but not uses such as houses of worship, schools, sale of produce and other items, and outdoor storage of vehicles. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3G to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than limestone quarrying, seasonal agriculture or permitted residential use in an area designated as Open Land on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3H to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than seasonal agricultural use in the Dade-Broward Levee Basin or permitted residential use in an area designated as Environmental Protection, on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 4E to the Traffic Circulation Subelement: Notwithstanding the designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway on the CDMP Land Use Plan Map or as a four-lane roadway in the Traffic Circulation Subelement, no construction associated with the four- laning, or other capacity improvement, of Krome Avenue outside the Urban Development Boundary shall occur until FDOT has prepared, and the Board of County Commissioners has adopted, a detailed binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor. This plan should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations. Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 28. Land Uses Near Krome Avenue North of S.W. 56th Street, the bulk of land uses around Krome Avenue are Environmental Protection and Open Land with almost all of the adjacent land north of US 41 designated Environmental Protection. South of S.W. 56th Street the land is designated as Agriculture and Environmental Protection except for near Homestead and Florida City where the land use designations are Residential Communities (of mostly low density), Business and Office and some Industrial and Office. Krome Avenue currently provides the western boundary of an Urban Expansion Area (UEA) for the year 2015 between what would be an extension of S.W. 42nd Street and an extension of S.W. 112th Street. The CDMP directs that urban infrastructure and services be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, as far west as Krome Avenue, sometime between 2005 and 2015. In addition, the area two miles east of Krome Avenue, between S.W. 12th Street and S.W. 8th Street, is designated as UEA. What the Plan Amendment Does Not Do Of particular import to this proceeding, given the case presented by Petitioners, is what the Plan Amendment does not do. The Krome Avenue Amendment does not change any land uses. It does not alter the existing Conservation Element or any other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources. It does not add Krome Avenue to the Capital Improvements Element or provide funds for or authorize construction on Krome Avenue. Furthermore, any future attempt to change land use in the vicinity of Krome Avenue, if anything, will be more difficult because of the New Supermajority Land Use Policies contained in the Plan Amendment. The New Supermajority Policies work in tandem with the substantive policies to provide the standards for land use changes within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes. For example, existing Land Use Policy 8H states that the areas surrounding Krome Avenue, particularly areas west of the road, be avoided or not be considered if Miami-Dade County proposes expanding the UDB. Because the only procedural requirements for moving the UDB are currently contained in the County Code, which may be amended from time to time, adding the Supermajority Requirement to the CDMP with its more rigorous amendment procedures, tends to make it more difficult to change the planning and zoning designations on a property. The Lane Increase Changes There are serious safety problems that rise to the level of literally "life-or-death" on the segment of Krome Avenue subject to the Lane Increase Changes. The Lane Increase Changes do not mandate that the portion of Krome Avenue that they govern be four-laned. They simply allow four-laning if a PD&E Study is conducted by FDOT that determines four-laning is the best way to address the safety issues. While the Lane Increase Changes give a designation to the Changed Segment of Krome Avenue that would allow it to be four-laned, it will not be four-laned until it is determined on the basis of further study in the future that four-laning is the best alternative for improving the Changed Segment. The Lane Increase Changes, without regard to the New Supermajority Policies, are supported by adequate data and analysis. This data and analysis consists of studies and commentaries by FDOT, including the Kittelson Reports and the 1999 Action Plan. The Lane Increase Changes do not authorize construction of improvements to the road. They do not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." (Tr. 671) It is only actual development that would cause potential urban sprawl that might threaten agriculture or pose a danger to the Everglades. Before any development could take place, additional amendments would have to be made to the CDMP. Those amendments would be subject to the same process as the Plan Amendment has undergone and is now undergoing. In other words, the potential dangers feared by Petitioners could not materialize without adoption of additional plan amendments. Furthermore, the fears held by Petitioners are mitigated by the New Supermajority Policies. DCA Review The entire package of amendments in the second round of 2002 for the CDMP, which included Application 16, is referred to by DCA as "Miami-Dade County 02-2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments." See Joint Exhibit 11. Initial staff review of Miami-Dade County 02-2 culminated in a August 5, 2002 memorandum (the "Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum") to the Chief of the Bureau of Comprehensive Planning from a Senior Planner. The staff analysis is summarized in the memorandum: Staff has identified two potential ... objections with the Krome Avenue (FIHS facility) segment[5] amendment concerning internal inconsistency with the CDMP objectives and policies, and lack of supporting data and analysis addressing public safety. Joint Exhibit 11, p. 1. With regard to the "safety" data and analysis, staff wrote, "the amendment is not supported with adequate data and analysis which demonstrates consistency with the CDMP policies which allow for capacity improvements outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) only upon showing the amendment is 'necessary' to address public safety." Id., p. 3. The CDMP objectives and policies were summarized as follows: The corridor runs through Agriculture and Open Land use categories. In order to promote the agricultural industry, the CDMP clearly states, under its Agriculture land use category, facilities which support or encourage urban development are not allowed in the amendment area. The subject segment of the roadway currently runs north-south through an extensive area of active farmlands, except the northern portion between US 41 (SW 8th Street) and SW 56th Street which is designated as Open Land in the CDMP's FLUM. The CDMP also states that Open Land designated land, is not simply surplus undeveloped land, but rather land that is Id. intended to serve for production of agriculture, limestone extraction, resource- based activity such as production of potable water supplies or other compatible utility and public facilities or rural residential development at no more than 1 du/5 acres. The amendment area is also a prime candidate for conservation, enhancement of environmental character, and for acquisition by federal, state, regional, county or private institutions that would manage the areas for optimal environmental functions. Beyond SW 8th Street to Okeechobee Road is the environmental and wellfield protection areas through which the upper Krome Avenue runs. One mile west of the segment is the Everglades National Park Expansion Area (Attachment 3) which is authorized by the Congress for federal acquisition. Agriculture is the existing primary use of the corridor area as shown in (Attachment 4). The concern with regard to inconsistency was expressed in this way: Id. Staff is concerned that expansion of Krome Avenue will increase market pressure in the western MSA's within the UDB, resulting in the premature extension of the UDB. Staff concurs with County staff that the widening will cause appraisals to increase property values in the corridor, causing farmers to sell agricultural lands for urbanization. It is also likely that property values will increase on environmental/open lands which should be maintained for water management, resource protection and other functions related to Everglades protection. Within two weeks of the Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum, DCA issued the ORC Report. In a cover letter, Bureau Chief Charles Gautier wrote the following synopsis of the ORC: The Department is concerned that the widening of Krome Avenue or a segment of it will undermine the County's ability to control urban sprawl and impacts to agriculture and environmental lands. While we share concerns regarding accidents and fatalities on Krome Avenue, we recommend that the County fully evaluate all possible alternatives designs, including implementation of the FDOT 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, before considering the four lane option to address public safety. Department staff is available to assist your staff as they formulate the County's responses to the objections and recommendations for the amendment. Joint Exhibit 20, 1st page of the cover letter dated August 16, 2002. Miami-Dade County responded to the ORC Report by clarifying its interpretations of provisions in the CDMP, particularly LUE 2B, and by providing additional data and analysis. Department staff struggled with the response, but ultimately concluded that Miami-Dade County's interpretations were defensible and recommended the Plan Amendment be found in compliance. See Joint Exhibit 16. On December 18, 2002, the Department wrote to Miami- Dade County that it had determined the Plan Amendment to be in compliance. Accordingly, a Notice of Intent to determine the Plan Amendment in compliance was published in the Miami Herald on December 20, 2002. The Petition After the issuance of the notice of intent by the state land planning agency (DCA) to find the Plan Amendment in compliance, this proceeding was initiated by the filing of a petition as allowed by Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The petition was filed by Sierra Club and John S. Wade and joined by Intervenor, Monroe County. The issues presented by the petition that remain after the parties entered a preheating stipulation filed with DOAH are stated in a section of the stipulation entitled, "D. Issues of Law and Fact That Remain to Litigated." Material Issues of Ultimate Fact While not exhaustive, the parties agree that the following are the major issues of disputed fact: Whether the amendment is consistent with legal provisions concerning the discouragement of urban sprawl. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the agricultural industry in south Miami-Dade County. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the restoration of the Everglades. Whether the plan amendments is necessary to address public health and safety and serve localized needs. Issues of Law Whether the Plan Amendment is in compliance. Whether the Plan Amendment maintains the Plan's internal consistency and reflects the plans goals, objectives and policies, per 163.3177(2) Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a)&(b), F.A.C., specifically in regard to: Transportation Element Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 2B. FLUE Policy 8F. Transportation Element(TE) Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 3B. Whether the Plan Amendment is supported by data analysis as required by Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8), and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), F.A.C. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(g)(1)-(10) and (13), and Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(h), (i), and (j)(6), (18), and (19) because it fails to coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services; ensure the protection of natural resources; and discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d), (f), (i) and 9J-5.019(4). Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(6), FAC because it fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fails to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations that would prevent the urban sprawl and impacts to agricultural, rural and environmentally sensitive lands caused by the four-laning of Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3177(6)(a)- (g), (8) & (10(e), Fla. Stat. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council as a whole, and directly conflicts specifically with: Strategic Regional Goal 2.1 (1) Policy 2.1.4 (2) Policy 2.1.10 (3) Policy 2.1.14 Strategic Regional Policy 2.2.1 Strategic Regional Policy 3.9.1 Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, including: Goal 15 (a) (LAND USE); Policy 15(b)1; Policy 15(b)6 Goal 16(a) & (b)(URBAN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION) Goal 17(a) (PUBLIC FACILITIES); Policy 17(b)1 Goal 19(a); Policy(b)12 Goal 22(a) & (b) (AGRICULTURE) Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section D. The Parties The Sierra Club is a national organization with close to 800,000 members. Qualified to do business in the State of Florida, 30,000 or so of the Sierra Club's members are in its Florida Chapter. About 2800 Sierra Club members live and work in Miami-Dade County where the Miami Group of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club holds regular meetings. The Miami Group is a "wholly owned subsidiary . . of the national organization." (Tr. 235) "[A]s opposed to some other organizations which may have separate chapters . . . separately . . . incorporated in their local jurisdictions," the Miami Group, the Florida Chapter and the national organization of the Sierra Club "speak with one voice . . . ." Id. Organized to explore, enjoy and protect particular places around the globe, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystem, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives, the Sierra Club has taken numerous actions in support of restoration and preservation of the Everglades. The Sierra Club has been involved on many occasions in growth management issues in different parts of the state. It is particularly concerned about public policy issues that affect Miami-Dade County, including increased urban sprawl, the loss of agricultural lands, clean water, clean air, open space, parks and recreation and the associated loss of quality of life. A substantial number of Sierra Club members use areas surrounding Krome Avenue to recreate and regularly traverse the area on their way to the Everglades, Biscayne National Park, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as well as using the area for biking, hiking, bird watching, and picking tropical fruits and vegetables. A substantial number of members also regularly use and enjoy Everglades National Park and Florida Bay and use Krome Avenue en route to these destinations. Representation of its members' interests in administrative proceedings to enforce growth management laws is within the corporate purposes of Sierra Club. In keeping with its purposes, the Sierra Club commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of its transmittal to DCA and its adoption. John S. Wade, Jr., operates an interior foliage or a "container" nursery business at 20925 S.W. 187th Avenue "in the center of the Redlands area," tr. 210, one mile due west of Krome Avenue. Mr. Wade has been extensively involved in county planning issues for many years. A member of the Sierra Club, he is also an individual Petitioner in this proceeding. Mr. Wade commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of transmittal to DCA and their adoption. Mr. Wade believes that the Plan Amendment affects his interests in that it will have a negative impact on wildlife which he enjoys and on his nursery business. The parties stipulated that Mr. Wade is an "affected person" with standing to bring and maintain this action under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Roads and Land Use: General Impact Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, establishes an important link between planned road infrastructure and future land use decisions. The future transportation map, furthermore, plays a critical role in the future land use pattern of a local government, particularly with regard to roadways. The impact of a road-widening amendment is relevant to land use or environmental policies. There is, moreover, no question that improved or expanded transportation infrastructure does nothing to diminish the potential for development in surrounding areas as a general matter. In general, widening a roadway promotes development in surrounding areas served by the roadway. Growth management laws, therefore, generally discourage the provision of roadway capacity in areas where a local comprehensive plan discourages development. The general principles of the effects of roadway capacity and improvements to roadway infrastructure, including road widening, are also reflected in the State Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5, and the CDMP, itself. Petitioners and Monroe County emphasize this point in the following paragraphs of their proposed recommended order now found as fact in this Recommended Order: []. Goal 19(a) of the SCP requires that future transportation improvements aid in the management of growth. Fla. Stat. 187.201(19)(a). []. Policy 19(b)(12) of the SCP requires that transportation improvements in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands be avoided. Fla. Stat. 187.201 (19)(b)(12). The Regional Policy Plan states that "roadways also aid in attracting development to new areas." Jt. 7@ 36. Rule 9J5 recognizes limits on extending infrastructure as a development control that can inhibit sprawl. Conversely, making improvements or extensions to infra- structure [when considered in isolation] can encourage urban sprawl. Darst V9@ 972. The CDMP's data and analysis contains the following language: Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated- Managed Growth (p. I-59) "Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary.Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single- purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives." (Pre- Trial Stip. @ 18) (emphasis added) Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7. Miami-Dade County, the Department and the City of Homestead do not contend otherwise. In the words of Thomas Pelham, distinguished expert in comprehensive planning whose testimony was presented by Miami-Dade County, the transportation map is "always relevant" (tr. 709) to issues of encouragement and discouragement of urban development. Furthermore, as Miami-Dade County concedes and as Mr. Pelham testified, new roads and improvements in roadway infrastructure "can aid in attracting development in new areas anywhere." Tr. 713 (emphasis supplied). For that basic reason, if a local government adopts a plan amendment that increases roadway capacity and the intent is not to attract development to the area around the roadway, the local government may opt to adopt additional protective policies. For example, in such a situation, the local government could take a clarifying step toward discouragement of urban development in areas served by the roadway planned for improvement: simultaneous adoption of a policy that prohibits consideration of the additional planned capacity of a roadway in subsequent future land use map decisions. Such an additional policy was not adopted as part of the Plan Amendment. In Mr. Pelham's opinion, however, it was not necessary, because of "the strong policies that already exist in the [CDMP]." Tr. 714. These strong policies include, of course, the existence of the UDB, a planning concept associated with Miami-Dade County in a unique manner in the State of Florida due to its strength and the length of existence over time. They also include CDMP policies related to lands designated as "Agriculture" or "Environmental Protection" whose purpose is to preserve and protect. The impact of roads on land use patterns in general, moreover, does not necessarily translate into expected impact in any specific case because of facts peculiarly associated with the specific case. As Mr. Pelham testified, "[t]here is absolutely nothing inconsistent with the four-lane divided highway in rural areas and agricultural areas. We have them all over the country, and in fact, you can identify numerous ones in this state alone." Tr. 676. Three prominent examples in Florida of four-lane divided highways that have not led to development were provided at hearing: Alligator Alley (the segment of Interstate 75 known also as Everglades Parkway) that stretches nearly the width of the Florida Peninsula from Collier County not far from the City of Naples at its western terminus through Big Cypress National Preserve across the boundaries of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation and the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation into Broward County on the east; the Florida Turnpike running from deep in South Florida northward and westerly to Wildwood in Sumter County; and Veteran's Parkway, US 19, from Pasco County to Crystal River "that goes through vast stretches of rural and agricultural lands . . . ." Tr. 677. The construction of these four-lane divided highways have not promoted urban development in lands immediately adjacent to significant sections of these highways. That these highways did not promote urban development flows from their purpose. Their purpose, quite simply, is other than to support urban development. Their purpose is to provide efficient commercial transportation and to be safe for the transportation of people or as expressed at hearing, "to be conduits for people to go from one [point] to another without interruption in an efficient manner." Id. Furthermore, access to these rural, divided four-lane highways is restricted or tightly managed for several reasons. One of the benefits of restricted access is that it discourages urban development. While Miami-Dade County did not adopt a policy that a widened Krome Avenue was not to be taken into consideration in subsequent decisions to amend the future land use map, as Petitioners suggest it could have, New Transportation Policy 4E was added to the Plan Amendment in order to discourage urban development. That policy requires a detailed, binding controlled access plan for the Avenue corridor to be prepared by FDOT and adopted by Miami-Dade County prior to the commencement of any construction associated with four-laning or a capacity improvement. Adoption of such an access control plan will have a deterrent effect on urban development along whatever part of Krome Avenue may at some point in the future be widened to four lanes. The effect of the adoption of a binding access control plan was explained at hearing by Mr. Pelham: It means that most of the traffic on it is not going to be entering or leaving the highway to shop at retail commercial establishments or to go into office parks to work, or to frequent any of the other kinds of urban development that could spring up along the road. It will be a deterrent to anyone who wants to seriously talk about locating a business there because they're going to realize that the public does not have readily easy access to it. [New Transportation Policy 4E] will certainly help insure that [Krome Avenue] remains a primarily rural facility rather than the typical urban highway that's lined with urban development. Tr. 679. From a planning perspective, in addition to being an impediment to urban development, the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy is also a sufficient guideline to discourage urban development. Incorporation of the professional land planning concept of access control makes the policy clear to transportation planners and FDOT and to any party or entity called on to implement the plan especially when the last sentence of the new policy is considered: "[The binding access control plan] should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations." This sentence indicates that while access to Krome Avenue is not prohibited, access is to be governed by "a strictly limited access plan," tr. 681, a "strong benefit [of the Plan Amendment] and a strong disincentive or deterrent to urban development." Tr. 679. Urban Sprawl Internal DCA memoranda and the ORC Report reflect a concern by Department staff that the re-designation of Krome Avenue could encourage urban sprawl with serious negative impacts to the Redland and agricultural lands and the Everglades and areas designated to be protected environmentally. The concern of staff is not to be taken lightly. Re- designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway with four-lane capacity will allow parties who seek to develop along Krome Avenue in the future to point to the new "planned" capacity as a factor in support of an amendment to the CDMP that would allow such development. "That's a . . . common argument for why a plan amendment . . . increasing densities in that area . . . [would be] appropriate." Tr. 494. The planned roadway will be more than just fuel for argument. According to Charles Pattison, Petitioners' comprehensive planning expert with significant credentials and experience, the planned capacity increase is without doubt a "key factor," tr. 494-5, for consideration of decision-makers in support of future CDMP amendments that allow urban development. Still, the existing policies that protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, including the UDB and related policies, will also have to be taken into consideration. So will the results of FDOT's PD&E Study and the actual improvement undertaken under the guidance of the study by FDOT, if any, and in whatever form it may take. The policies should not fail to protect agricultural and environmentally protected land merely because of this plan amendment. The policies will not cease to be operative because of the re- designation of Krome Avenue even if FDOT ultimately decides to improve Krome Avenue by widening all or part of it to four lanes. Stated alternatively, in Mr. Pelham's words, existing policies "militate strongly against any urban development ... [outside] the urban growth boundary." Tr. 675. For this reason, among others, Mr. Pelham characterized the concerns of DCA staff and the fears of Petitioners, as "sheer speculation, suspicion and mistrust of . . . government . . . [of] a county that has a strong record of not extending its urban growth boundary." Id. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind what the re- designation of Krome Avenue does and does not do. It does not constitute the ultimate decision or authorization necessary to widen or improve the capacity of Krome Avenue. It does not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." Tr. 671. It is that development which "would cause potential urban sprawl problems that might threaten agriculture, that, theoretically, might pose a danger to the Everglades." Id. Development of that property would require plan amendments, vulnerable to challenges like this one and subject to scrutiny under the Growth Management Laws, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5. Amendment of the CDMP, therefore, to "allow widening of an existing road to address safety or congestion or level of service or evacuation problems, in and of itself, does not pose any of those threats or harms." Tr. 672. Rule 9J5 Urban Sprawl Indicators Urban sprawl is evaluated according to 13 "primary indicators" set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) (the "Primary Indicator Rule.") Applying the Primary Indicator Rule, the Department analyzes first, "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality" whether a plan amendment "trips" or "triggers" any of the 13: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g). If a plan amendment trips or triggers one or more of the Primary Indicators, the Department then considers the extent to which the tripped indicators suggest that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, or put conversely, induces sprawl. If the Department determines from review of the tripped indicators that the amendment does not discourage urban sprawl proliferation or in induces sprawl, then it turns its attention to the development controls in the comprehensive plan or in the proposed plan amendment. Evaluation of the development controls is made to determine whether they offset the amendment's inducement of urban sprawl. If the inducement is not sufficiently offset by development controls, then, the Department determines the amendment is not: consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and the remainder of [Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5] regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(a). It is possible that if only a few of the 13 Primary Indicators were clearly "tripped" then a determination could be made that a plan amendment "does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Normally, however, if few primary indicators are tripped, "it's going to be a tough argument to make that [there is] sprawl inducement." Tr. 919. The Department's Position re: Primary Indicators The Department's position is that the Plan Amendment does not trip in any way 10 of the 13 primary indicators listed in the Primary Indicator Rule. The main reason they are not tripped, in its view, is because the amendment, in and of itself, does nothing more than plan for the improvement of Krome Avenue up to a capacity of four lanes. For example, the first primary indicator is whether the plan amendment "[p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. As Mr. Darst testified, "[T]his is an amendment for the widening of the road and it's not a land use amendment." Tr. 913-4. In and of itself, the amendment does not allow or designate any development. Primary Indicator 4 is not tripped because "premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses" is not at issue in this case. An analysis of Primary Indicator 5 can only take place "within the context of features and characteristics unique" to Miami-Dade County, including the UDB and the protective policies of the CDMP and the Plan Amendment, itself. Primary Indicators 9 through 13, are not tripped. Primary Indicators 9 through 12 are not relevant to this case. Primary Indicator 13 is not tripped because although small amounts of functional open space might be taken for widening Krome Avenue, the amount would not be significant relative to the amount of functional open space adjacent to Krome Avenue. Of the other three primary indicators tripped in the Department's view by the Plan Amendment, they are tripped only minimally. Primary Indicator 6 is tripped because with Krome Avenue widened "trips shift there from another road," tr. 916, so that maximum use is not made of the other road, an existing public facility. The same is true of Primary Indicator 7, which relates to future public facilities. Primary Indicator 8 is tripped because funds will have to be expended to construct any widening and because of an increase in law enforcement expenses. The involvement of Primary Indicator 8, however, is minimal and without significant impact. Despite the Department's position, the re-designation of Krome Avenue, at a minimum, has at least the potential to "promote" development so as to trip Primary Indicators 1, 2, and As Mr. Pattison testified, the planned increased capacity of Krome Avenue is, by the very nature of increased roadway capacity, a key factor for consideration of proposed amendments that would allow increased development of lands surrounding Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is not in compliance for failure to comply with urban sprawl requirements depends on whether the tripped Primary Indicators are offset by development controls. Development Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j, (the "Development Controls Rule") states "[d]evelopment controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determination in (5)(g) above," that is, whether a plan amendment does or does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Determination that urban sprawl indicators have been tripped, therefore, is not, standing alone, sufficient to find that a plan amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. The Development Controls Rule lists 22 types of development controls to be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl. The CDMP contains development controls to discourage urban sprawl and development in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection. They are the UDB, see Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j)21., and the two policies related to it: Land Use Element Policies 8G and 8H. Evaluation of the development controls in the CDMP leads to a determination that the tripped Primary Indicators, Primary Indicators 1, 2, and 3, triggered by the Plan Amendment's potential to promote development that could lead to urban sprawl and Primary Indicators 6, 7 and 8, all "minimally" tripped, are offset by the development controls. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment, itself, contains additional policies that constitute development controls: the New Land Use Policies requiring super-majorities of the Board of County Commission for approval of re-designations near Krome Avenue and the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(j)15. and 22. Petitioners view the New land Use Policies as inadequate development controls because they do not set forth measurable or predictable standards to govern county commission decisions. Other than to require super-majorities for re- designation of land uses near Krome Avenue ("procedural" standards), the New Land Use Policies do not contain standards that govern county commission decisions. But there are a plethora of standards elsewhere in the CDMP. These other standards have been determined to be meaningful and predictable and there is nothing in the New Land Use Polices that allows the commission to disregard them. New Policy 4E which requires an access control plan prepared by FDOT prior to construction of any capacity improvement to Krome Avenue is viewed by Petitioners as "so vague as to fail to meet the definition of an objective or policy or to provide meaningful or predictable standards." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 18. But a reading of the policy contradicts the allegation. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with land use policies requiring coordination with the surrounding environment and requiring meaningful standards for more detailed regulations, and, therefore, that it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(6). The CDMP contains meaningful and predictable restrictions on land use in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. The Plan Amendment does nothing to deter those restrictions. Furthermore, among new policies in the Plan Amendment is the addition of procedural safeguards to the substantive criteria, thereby strengthening the existing standards. The Plan Amendment, therefore, retains meaningful and predictable standards for more detailed regulation, and if anything, strengthens the chance for their application to protect lands designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. Increasing Land Values and Speculation Petitioners argue that widening Krome Avenue to four lanes will adversely affect farming in the Redland and the Everglades by increasing land values and speculation. These arguments do not take into account that regardless of improvements to Krome Avenue, most of the area north of 42nd Street has little appeal to developers. Its designation as Environmental Protection makes it difficult if not impossible to develop. Despite extreme development pressure elsewhere in the county, to date there has been little pressure to develop the area due to the success of the comprehensive plan, particularly its policies against development in the area. Asked at hearing about such pressure, Miami Dade County's Director of Planning and Zoning, Diane O'Quinn responded, ". . . I haven't seen it. Not at all . . . because we've got very strong environmental policies in the comp plan." Tr. 625. Furthermore, considerations of increasing values and land speculation are not compliance issues under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Were they compliance issues, there are other forces at work that are encouraging an increase in land values in the Redland: in particular, the economics of the agriculture industry and the increasing demand for residential housing throughout Miami-Dade County. Agricultural uses in the County have been declining since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Up to then, the predominant forms of agriculture had been row crops (tomatoes, for example) and lime, avocado and mango groves. Andrew destroyed many groves. They were not replanted because of expense and the length of time it takes from planting for the groves to bear fruit and increasing competition from foreign producers. Within a year or two of the hurricane, the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was passed and produce from Mexico and Central America was introduced in great volume into U.S. markets. The south of the border competition generated by NAFTA, especially with regard to tomatoes and limes, reduced the value of the type of produce that had been predominant in the Redland prior to Andrew. Ten years later, the University of Florida's Florida Agricultural Market Research Center in the Summary and Recommendations Section of its Miami-Dade County Agricultural Land Retention Study (the "Agricultural Land Retention Study") described the market for agricultural commodities produced in Miami-Dade County as "fiercely competitive," Joint Exhibit 55, p. xiv, because of Latin American produce and predicted, "[e]conomic globalization and trade liberalization will continue. It is unlikely that the U.S. trade policy will be altered to any appreciable degree in the foreseeable future to protect domestic fruit and vegetable industries." Id. at xiii. Testimony at hearing established that these predictions have been accurate through the time of final hearing in late 2005. The Study, completed in April 2002, also reached this conclusion: Population growth and concomitant urban development appear inevitable for Miami-Dade County. Based on the capitalization of relatively low financial returns to agriculture in recent years, especially row crops, only about twenty-five percent of the current land prices is justified by returns to land in agricultural uses. The remaining seventy-five percent represents future anticipated value in non-agricultural or I agricultural residential use. Further, as supply of developable land dwindles, prices will undoubtedly increase. These price increases, if accompanied by chronically low financial returns to agriculture, will motivate landowners to convert to agricultural land to higher-valued uses. Joint Exhibit 55. p. xiii. This observation continued to have validity more than three years later at the final hearing in this case in late 2005. Following Andrew, land prices that had been stagnant for many years at $5,000 per acre or so increased three and four fold. The increases made it relatively expensive to buy land, plant and grow. The combined effects of Andrew and NAFTA reduced row crop and grove produce profitability. The agricultural industry shifted to ornamental horiculture nurseries. At the time of hearing, land prices had risen so much that even the nurseries whose products have been in demand for residential development have begun to become economically infeasible. Soon after 1992, the SFWMD also began buying property for Everglades restoration projects west of a levee on the west side of Krome that runs parallel to the roadway. These purchases too increased land values in the area. The recent rise in prices is also due to the low interest rate environment that began to have a wide-spread effect in early 2000. The low interest rate environment spurred demand for single-family homes. Furthermore, with the stock market decline that commenced in early 2001, investors began shifting from equities to real estate and demand for second homes increased. Miami-Dade County's excellent weather attracts people from all over the world and this has fostered increased foreign investment in the local real estate market. The combination of all these events led to acquisition of land for residential development throughout Miami-Dade County by developers. The diminution in the amount of vacant residential land naturally turned the attention of developers to agricultural areas and to the Redland where density is limited to one hours per five acres. The increased demand for housing led to price escalation so that five-acre parcels in the Redland became relatively inexpensive. The confluence of these factors accelerated the subdivision of agricultural properties into five-acre residential estates in the Redland. This trend began with Krome Avenue as a two-lane road and it is reasonably expected to continue, regardless of whether Krome is improved to four lanes or not. The trend toward development of five-acre residential estates will likely stave off further urbanization of the Redland. As the area is developed at one house per five acres, it becomes difficult to reassemble acreage to create subdivisions of higher density. For properties in the Redland that do not directly abut the road, the price of land is unrelated to Krome Avenue. Rather, it is based on the increasing demand for five-acre estates. The New Land Use Policies will likely restrain speculation based on the re-designation of Krome Avenue. One of the components of value is the probability of rezoning. Often much more important to land values are other factors: the land use plan designation and the history of land use in the surrounding areas. The planning and zoning restrictions, particularly in the light of the New Land Use Policies, send a signal to the market that the area around Krome Avenue is not slated for urbanization. The restrictions thereby limit increase in value and dampen speculation based on the potential widening of Krome Avenue. The trend in converting agricultural lands to residential uses has been in the making in Miami-Dade County for at least 30 years. The interplay between the agricultural and housing markets is the result of far larger forces than whether Krome Avenue is re-designated for improvement up to a divided four-lane roadway making any such re-designation of minor impact. As Mark Quinlivan, an expert in the field of real estate valuation in particular with regard to the areas along the Krome Avenue Corridor and the Redland, summed up the situation at hearing: So the trend is and has been for the last few years . . . to convert [the Redland] to five acre estates. Once they are converted to five acre estates and the homes are actually built, there is really not much else that can be done. Now you can't tear down the house and re-subdivide it if you could rezone. . . . [W]hether you put Krome as two lanes, four lanes, six lanes this trend is way beyond this amendment . . . Tr. 264. Environmental Impacts Although whether Krome Avenue will ever be improved to four lanes north of US 41, most of which crosses lands designated Environmental Protection depends on an environmental evaluation and other factors subject to an FDOT PD&E Study, it must be assumed for purposes of this compliance determination that it is allowed to be four lanes. The same assumption must be made for all of Krome Avenue subject to the Plan Amendment. Were a new plan amendment to be applied for, however, to re- designate land adjacent to Krome Avenue, road capacity would be a "minor" consideration because development control "policies in the plan are very strong and they're much more important and that would override the fact that there happens to be road capacity available." Tr. 737. The County recognizes the importance of maintaining a buffer between urban development and the Everglades. This recognition is reflected in CDMP policies. The CDMP, moreover, attempts to prevent the loss of environmentally sensitive lands. In the 1990's Congress required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to reverse as much as possible the anthropogenic damage inflicted upon the Everglades. The result was CERP, a joint federal/state plan to restore the Everglades by completing sixty-eight individual projects by 2038 costing many billions of dollars. Adopted by an Act of Congress in 2000, CERP directs the Corps to restore the Everglades using CERP as a guideline. With the exception of 10 of the projects authorized by the act, each of the other 58 individual CERP projects must undergo a specific process of planning and then Congressional authorization and appropriation. There have been no Congressional authorizations since 2000. The 58 projects not authorized in 2000 still await final planning and design and Congressional authorization and appropriation. Because of a design of Krome Avenue improvement has not been proposed, it is not possible to determine whether the widening of Krome Avenue will physically impact CERP projects. The concern advanced by Petitioners is that improvement to Krome Avenue will not only decrease the availability of land availability to CERP but will also raise land values. The concern is appropriate because, in general, the primary strategy of CERP is the acquisition of privately-owned land to dedicate to water storage, wetland restoration, and other related uses. "Most [CERP] projects have land acquisitions as the single largest factor in their cost." Tr. 415. Escalating real estate costs is a significant issue for CERP project managers attempting to stay within budget. As land acquisition costs increase, it becomes more difficult to get adequate funding or even authorization of a project. Furthermore, the federal authorization law requires a re- authorization by Congress if projected initial costs are exceeded by more than 20 percent. One of the critical aspects of CERP is water storage for which significant amounts of land must be acquired. There are numerous water storage restoration projects planned in the vicinity of Krome Avenue dependent on land acquisition. Petitioners recognize, however, that there is a certain amount of speculation in any anticipation of a rise in land values in the area of Krome Avenue. "If widening Krome Avenue raises the value . . . of surrounding lands it will have an adverse affect on the success of the Everglades restoration project." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 95, p. 16 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, as found already, the rise is dependent on re- designation of lands in the area of Krome Avenue, which are subject to policies in the CDMP, such as the existing Conservation Element, that discourage re-designation in a manner that would stimulate a rise in land values. It is sufficient for the CDMP to have policies that direct development to minimize impacts to environmental resources and guide the more detailed analysis that will be performed pursuant to the PD&E Study and further regulations. As Thomas Pelham explained: The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish policies that will be applied to and will govern actual development proposals that come in under the plan. It's not the purpose of a comprehensive plan to do a development permit level analysis. You do that when development permits are applied for . . . until you have . . . a specific proposal for a road, actual alignment, design features, you can't really fully analyze the impacts of it, anyway. . . . [T]he comprehensive plan . . . establish[es]] in advance policies that are reviewed for adequacy for protecting natural resources, the environment, so, that when someone comes in with an actual development proposal, then, it has to be evaluated in terms of the policies in the plan, and if it's not consistent, the law requires that it be denied. Tr. 686-7. The existing Conservation Element and other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources adequately address the potential impacts of the Krome Avenue Amendment vis-à-vis the environment and environmental considerations. South Florida Regional Policy Plan Amendments must be consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) in order to be in compliance. § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. SRPP Goal 2.1 is to achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment into area which are most intrinsically suited for development. This includes areas where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal and where public facilities/services already exist, are programmed, or on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically. SRPP Policy 2.1.4 requires development to be directed away from environmentally sensitive areas. Strategic Regional Goal 2.2 is designed to revitalize deteriorating urban areas. SRPP Policy 2.2.1 requires priority for development in blighted areas characterized by underdevelopment/under- employment that are in need of re-development. SRPP Policy 3.9.1 is designed to direct development and uses of land inconsistent with restoration away from Everglades and adjacent natural resources of significance. State Comprehensive Plan Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes, states the following with regard to the construction of the State Comprehensive Plan: The [state comprehensive] plan shall be construed and applied as a whole, and no specific goal or policy in the plan shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plan. Petitioners do not ignore this provision of the statutes, citing to it in their proposed recommended order. See Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 41. Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole and that it is specifically inconsistent with the following provisions in the State Plan: LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. 6. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. URBAN AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.-- (a) Goal.--In recognition of the importance of Florida's vital urban centers and of the need to develop and redevelop downtowns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally acceptable manner, Florida shall encourage the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. PUBLIC FACILITIES.-- Goal.--Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for an finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.-- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. TRANSPORTATION.-- Goal.--Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. 12. Avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. AGRICULTURE.-- (a) Goal.--Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Id. at pgs. 41-43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the October 2002 Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan of Miami- Dade County adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County as reflected in Ordinance No. 02-198 be determined to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Petitioner is the owner of a vacant 89.52-acre parcel of property in Council District 11, which is located in the northern reaches of the City. More specifically, the property lies around four or five miles east of the airport and Interstate 95, just south of Starratt Road between Dunn Creek Road and Saddlewood Parkway, and within a "couple of miles of Main Street," a major north-south State roadway. Dunn submitted oral and written comments to the City during the plan amendment process. As such, it is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The City is a local government that is subject to the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. It adopted the amendments being challenged by Dunn. Except for the challenged plan amendment, the City's current Plan is in compliance. Intervenor Britt owns property and resides within the City. The parties have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish that she is an affected person and therefore has standing to participate in this matter. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Background On May 14, 2007, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, which amended the FLUM by changing the land use category on Dunn's property from LDR to RPI, which would allow an increase in the density and intensity of use on the property. (The LDR land use allows up to seven dwelling units per acre, while RPI is a mixed-use category that allows up to twenty dwelling units per acre if built to the maximum development potential.) On July 9, 2007, the Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent finding that the Ordinance was not in compliance on the ground the map change was not supported by adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that the City would achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standards for the roadways within its jurisdiction. The Department further determined that the traffic study submitted by the City was not based on the maximum development allowed under the RPI category. On August 1, 2007, the Department initiated this case by filing a Petition, which tracked the objections described in its Notice and Statement of Intent. The City, Dunn, Department, and Britt later entered into settlement discussions. As part of the settlement discussions, Dunn submitted a revised traffic study and coordinated with other applicants for map changes to perform cumulative traffic impact studies. The parties eventually entered into a proposed settlement agreement which would limit development of the property to 672 condominiums/townhomes and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses through an asterisk to the Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 25. Also, the proposed settlement agreement noted that the data and analysis confirmed that certain future road improvements in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Plan would offset the traffic impacts of the new RPI land use. These were improvements to the East-West Connector (U.S. Highway 17 to New Berlin Road) and Starratt Road. Id. Finally, Dunn agreed to pay $4.3 million in "fair share money" to the City to offset the proportionate share of the development's traffic impacts. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The proportionate share agreement was intended to match the trip count anticipated from the RPI development. On September 3, 2008, the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment were presented to the City Council Land Use and Zoning Committee (Committee) for approval as Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628, respectively.3 At that meeting, the Committee heard comments from several members of the public who opposed the amendment, a Dunn attorney, and the City's Director of Planning and Development, William B. Killingsworth. The City Council member who represents District 11 and is a member of the Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal. Based primarily upon data in a new traffic study prepared on August 28, 2008, by a member of Mr. Killingsworth's staff, and the opposition of the District 11 Council member, the Committee voted unanimously to revise the proposed settlement agreement and remedial amendment by changing the land use designation on the property back to LDR, its original classification. The revised settlement agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 627-E, while the remedial amendment changing the land use was approved by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. The two Ordinances were then forwarded to the full City Council, which approved them on September 9, 2008. The revised settlement agreement was later executed by the City, Department, and Britt, but not by Dunn, and is known as the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The essence of the revised agreement was that by changing the land use back to its original designation, the potential adverse impacts to transportation facilities would be resolved. Id. The remedial amendment package was transmitted by the City to the Department for its review. On December 18, 2008, the Department issued a Cumulative Notice of Intent to Find Ordinance Nos. 2007-383-E and 2008-628-E in compliance. On January 8, 2009, Dunn filed a Motion to Amend Petition to Intervene pursuant to Section 163.3184(16)(f)1., Florida Statutes. Because Dunn objected to the revised settlement agreement and challenged the remedial amendment, the parties were realigned, as reflected in the style of this case. On June 1, 2009, Senate Bill 360, engrossed as Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, became effective. That legislation amends Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, in several respects. Among other things, it designates the City as a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA).4 See § 163.3180(5), Fla. Stat. The new law also provides that plan amendments for land uses of a local government with a TCEA are deemed to meet the LOS standards for transportation. See § 163.3177(3)(f), Fla. Stat. Therefore, after a TCEA becomes effective, the Department no longer has the authority to review FLUM amendments in the TCEA for compliance with state-mandated transportation concurrency requirements. However, Senate Bill 360 contains a savings clause, which provides that "this subsection does not affect any contract or agreement entered into or development order rendered before the creation of the [TCEA] except as provided in s. 380.06(29)(e)." See § 163.3180(5)(f), Fla. Stat. The City, Department, and Britt contend that this provision "saves" the Sixteenth Partial Stipulated Settlement Agreement executed by them in November 2008, and that the Department still retains jurisdiction to consider the remedial amendment. Conversely, Dunn contends that the savings clause does not apply to the revised agreement, that the Department no longer has jurisdiction to review the challenged amendment, that the remedial amendment was not authorized, and that because the remedial amendment never became effective, the Department's Petition should be dismissed as moot. Objections to the Remedial Amendment Besides the contention that the proceeding is moot, Dunn raises three issues in its challenge to the amendment. First, it contends that the amendment is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis related to traffic impacts and therefore is not in compliance. Second, Dunn contends that the amendment does not address the concerns raised in the Department's original Notice and Statement of Intent regarding the City's achieving and maintaining the adopted LOS of affected roadways. See § 163.3184(16)(f)2., Fla. Stat. Third, Dunn contends that due to procedural errors in the amendment adoption process, it was unduly prejudiced. Data and analysis Because almost all of the unresolved FLUM amendments in this case involved "traffic issues," on September 4, 2007, a Department employee, Melissa Hall, sent an email to counsel for a number of applicants, including Dunn, describing "what the department would be looking for in terms of traffic analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 12, p. 1. The email required those applicants to submit revised traffic studies. Id. Among other things, the applicants were advised that the revised traffic impact analysis for each amendment had to use "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology." Id. Dunn followed the requirements of the email in preparing its revised traffic study. At the time Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted, based on total background traffic, which includes existing traffic plus reserve trips for approved but not-yet-built developments, eight road segments in the study area already failed to meet LOS standards. (LOS E is the adopted passing standard on those roadways.) The study area includes affected roadways within a two-mile radius of the boundaries of the proposed project site where project traffic consumes more than one percent of the service volume. If the Dunn project is built, six segments impacted by the development will continue to fail. According to the City's expert, as a general rule, an applicant for a land use amendment is not required to bring a failing segment back up to its adopted LOS. Rather, it is only required to pay its proportionate share of the improvements for bringing it up to compliance. The unique aspect of this case is that the City has simply reclassified the property back to what it was, LDR, when Ordinance No. 2007-383-E was adopted. At that time, the Plan was in compliance. In response to Dunn's contention that Ordinance No. 2008-628-E is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, first contends that, given the unique circumstances presented here, no data and analysis were required. Alternatively, it contends that there are sufficient relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support maintaining the LDR land use designation. The data and analysis include the traffic study prepared by Dunn's consultant in October 2007, the additional traffic analysis performed by the City staff just before the Committee meeting, and the testimony provided at the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008. At hearing, the City first pointed out that the RPI designation was never determined to be in compliance, Ordinance No. 2007-383-E never became effective, and the property has remained LDR throughout this proceeding. See § 163.3189(2)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[p]lan amendments shall not become effective until the [Department] issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9), or until the Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance"). Therefore, the City takes the position that Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E did not need to be supported by data and analysis because the LDR category was the land use designation on the property at the time of the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-628-E. In the same vein, it argues that the remedial amendment is the equivalent of a repeal of the prior ordinance (2007-383-E), which would not require any data and analysis support. While at first blush these arguments appear to be plausible, the City could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-55 that relieves a local government from the requirement that a plan amendment be supported by data and analysis. The City also argues that even if Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E is deemed to be a change in the land use (from LDR to LDR), the net impact of the change would be zero. This argument is based on the accepted testimony of Mr. Killingsworth, who stated that the City, Department, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed upon a methodology which entitled the City to give "credit" for uses permitted under the existing land use category.6 Under that methodology, the City subtracts the number of trips that the existing land use (LDR) generates from the additional trips generated by the proposed land use (LDR). Therefore, the net transportation impact of a change from LDR to LDR, in effect, would be zero. The methodology is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 15, a memorandum authored by Mr. Killingsworth and sent on October 4, 2007, to Dunn and other parties seeking map changes in this case. The memorandum stated that the methodology described therein was "developed in coordination [with] FDOT District 2" and "is the suggested methodology for use in determining traffic impacts of proposed land uses for the City." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, p. 1. Mr. Killingsworth could not cite any provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5 allowing for such a credit for traffic generated by a prior permitted land use in the data and analysis required for a FLUM amendment. At the same time, however, Petitioner could not cite any rule or statute that prohibits the Department from allowing this type of methodology when deemed to be appropriate. Even though it differed from the methodology described in Ms. Hall's earlier email by allowing credit for the existing land use, it was nonetheless "a professionally acceptable traffic impact methodology" approved by the Department and FDOT and could be used as data and analysis to support a change back to the property's original land use classification. Therefore, it constitutes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to demonstrate that the net traffic impact of the change in land use from LDR to LDR is zero. The City further argues that if it was required to provide other data and analysis, the traffic impacts of the new ordinance are offset by the two roadway improvements negotiated with the Department in the proposed settlement agreement for Ordinance No. 2008-627. See Finding 7, supra. Based upon the City staff's analysis, which is found in City Exhibit 3, the LDR land use generates less trips than the RPI land use. (This study was prepared a few days before the Committee meeting in response to an inquiry from a Committee member.) More specifically, page 3 of that exhibit reflects that there are 169 less afternoon peak hour trips for LDR than RPI with the development cap of 672 dwelling units and 128,000 square feet of non-residential uses. It is fair to infer, then, that if the proposed mitigation in the original settlement agreement offsets the impacts of the more intense RPI land use, the mitigation also offsets the impacts of the less intense LDR land use. City Exhibit 3 is a comparative calculation of the difference in vehicle trips generated by development of the property under the LDR category approved by Ordinance No. 2008- 628-E and the development of the property under the RPI category approved by Ordinance No. 2007-383-E. Dunn points out, however, that the exhibit does not show how the trips generated are distributed on affected roadways or how those trips, as they may be distributed, affect LOS of any roadways. Despite the fact that the data in Exhibit 3 are limited to trip generation data, and establish no facts relating to the LOS of affected roadways, they support a finding that more trips will be generated under the RPI designation than the existing LDR designation. Also, they provide further support for a finding that if the proposed road improvements offset the impacts of the RPI use, the mitigation will offset the impacts, if any, of the original LDR use. For data and analysis relating to the LOS of affected roadways, the City, joined by the Department and Britt, rely upon a traffic study performed by Dunn's traffic consultant, King Engineering Associates, Inc. (King). That firm prepared a transportation analysis dated November 19, 2007, for the purpose of supporting a mixed-use development on the property under the RPI category. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. This study, however, does not apply to development of the property under the LDR category because it was based upon a mixed-use project which would allow for credit based upon the internal capture of some trips. (In other words, a portion of the new trips will be internal to the site, that is, trips between the residential and commercial land uses on the property.) Because of this, any reference to the King study and proposed mitigation therein was deleted from the revised settlement agreement. In this respect, the study does not support the amendment. The King study addresses impacted roadway segments, existing and background traffic, proposed traffic generated by the development, and LOS for the impacted roadways, as suggested by Ms. Hall in her email. Dunn's traffic engineer established that in the impacted study area, six out of eight roadway links will continue to fall below adopted LOS standards based upon existing traffic and that generated by the RPI development (segments 174, 372, 373, 374, 377, and 543). See Table 4, Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The study also identifies proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the project site that are intended to help cure or mitigate the failing standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8, p. 12. These improvements are listed in the CIE and will cost around $85 million. A "fair share" agreement has also been executed by the City and Dunn, which requires Dunn to pay more than $4.3 million to offset impacts of the RPI development. Those monies would be applied to improvements in Sector 6.1 (the North Planning District), which includes Starratt Road and the East-West Connector. The agreement notes that this contribution would offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts of the proposed RPI development. Notably, the City has already funded both the widening of Starratt Road and the improvements to the East-West Connector, U.S. Highway 17 to Berlin Road, through the Better Jacksonville Plan. Therefore, even if the Dunn fair share agreement is not implemented, the two improvements will still be made. According to Dunn's engineer, the completion of the four projects listed on page 12 of his traffic study, which are labeled as "mitigation," will not restore or cure any of the LOS failures that now exist on the six impacted segments in Table 4 of the study. However, two of the failing segments (373 and 543) may be "helped" by the projects listed on that page. Dunn's engineer also analyzed City Exhibit 3 and concluded that if the Dunn property is developed as LDR, rather than RPI, there would be potentially one less roadway segment (374) impacted by development, while five other segments would continue to fail. When the proposed mitigation in the King study is factored in, he opined that the East-West Connector may help two other failing segments. He further opined that if LDR development on the property occurs, probably three of the six impacted segments will continue to fail adopted LOS standards. Even so, the improvements identified in the CIE, including those already funded by the Better Jacksonville Plan, should offset the proportionate share of traffic impacts associated with any future LDR development.7 The foregoing data and analysis establish that the LDR land use category generates less traffic impacts than the originally-proposed RPI use; that a change from LDR to LDR should have zero effect in terms of traffic impacts; that even if there are impacts caused by a change back to LDR, the proposed mitigation in the CIE will offset the proportionate share of the impacts associated with any LDR use; that while it differed from other studies, a professionally acceptable traffic impact analysis was used by the City to support the remedial amendment; and that the proposed road improvements are fully funded without having to implement the fair share agreement. Finally, in adopting the amendment, the City has reacted to the data and analysis in an appropriate manner. Does the Remedial Amendment Resolve All Issues? Dunn also asserts that the amendment does not resolve the issues raised by the Department in its Notice and Statement of Intent dated July 9, 2007. Under Section 163.3184(16)(f)2., Florida Statutes, an affected party may assert that a compliance agreement does not resolve all issues raised by the Department in its original notice of intent. The statute allows an affected party to then address those unresolved issues in the realigned proceeding. In this case, Petitioner asserts that the Department's original objection that the change in land use would result in a lowering of the LOS in the study area was not addressed by the remedial amendment. In its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the amendment not in compliance, the Department cited the following rules and statutes as being contravened: Sections 163.3164(32) and 163.3177(3)(b),(6)(a), (8), and (10), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and (c), 9J-5.006(2)(a), (3)(b)1. and 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a)1. and 2., and 9J-5.019(3)(a) through (h) and (4)(b)2. Although these sources of authority were cited in a single generic notice of intent as a basis for objecting to all seventeen map changes, it is assumed that they have equal application to this proceeding. The cited statutes relate to funding of transportation projects and concurrency issues, while the rules relate to data and analysis requirements, concurrency issues, the capital improvement element, and required transportation analyses, all subjects addressed by Dunn at the final hearing. Assuming arguendo that the remedial amendment does not address all of the issues raised in the original notice of intent, Dunn was given the opportunity to fully litigate those matters in the realigned proceeding. Procedural Irregularities Rule 9J-5.004 requires that the City "adopt procedures to provide for and encourage public participation in the planning process." See also § 163.3181(1), Fla. Stat. ("it is the intent of the Legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible"). Dunn does not contend that the City failed to adopt the required procedures. Rather, it contends that the City did not follow those procedures during the adoption of the remedial amendment. More specifically, prior to the Committee meeting, Dunn says it spent "hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the millions that [it] had spent previously, working for fourteen months in conjunction with the City and [Department]" so that the parties could resolve the Department's objections. Dunn argues that it was unduly prejudiced by the last-minute revisions made by the Committee and City Council, and that it did not have an adequate opportunity to respond. Dunn points out that a City Planning Commission meeting was conducted before the Committee meeting, and that body unanimously recommended that Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 628 be approved. It further points out that when the Committee met on September 3, 2008, the proposed revisions to the settlement agreement, the accompanying remedial amendment, and the new traffic data were not discussed until after the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. (The transcript of that meeting reflects, however, that after the new revisions and traffic study were raised, Dunn's counsel was briefly questioned about Dunn's traffic study and the density/intensity of the project. Also, according to Mr. Coe, a copy of the City's newly-prepared traffic study was given to a Dunn representative just before the Committee meeting.) For both public meetings, the City's published notices indicated that the purpose of the meetings was to consider the proposed revised settlement agreement and remedial amendment allowing a cap on the development of the RPI property through the use of an asterisk, as reflected in Ordinance Nos. 2008-627 and 2008-628. See Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17. Dunn contends that it had insufficient time between the Committee meeting on September 3, 2008, and the final City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, in which to review and evaluate the new traffic information and respond to the comments of the Committee member who supported the revisions. It also points out that, like other members of the public, Dunn's attorney was only given three minutes to present comments in opposition to the revised agreement at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2009. Notwithstanding any procedural errors that may have occurred during the City's adoption process, Dunn received notice and attended both the Committee and City Council meetings, it presented written and oral objections to the revised plan amendment prior to and at the City Council meeting on September 9, 2008, and it was given the opportunity to file a petition to challenge the City's decision and present evidence on the revisions at the hearing in this case. Savings Clause in Senate Bill 360 In support of its position that the matter is now moot, and that the savings clause in Senate Bill 360 does not "save" the revised settlement agreement executed by the City, Department, and Britt, on November 10, 2008, Dunn submitted extrinsic evidence to show the Legislature's intent in crafting a savings clause, which include four separate analyses by the Legislative staff (Appendices A-D); an article authored by the Bill's Senate sponsor (Senator Bennett) and published in the St. Petersburg Times on May 23, 2009 (Appendix E); a similar article authored by the same Senator and published in the Sarasota Harold-Tribune on June 11, 2009 (Appendix F); a seven-page letter from Secretary Pelham to Senator Bennett and Representative Murzin dated July 23, 2009, concerning the new law and a two and one-half page summary of the bill prepared by the Department (Appendix G); a power point presentation for the Senate Community Affairs Committee on October 6, 2009 (Appendix H); and an article published in the October 2009 edition of The Florida Bar Journal (Appendix I). The Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix A was prepared on February 17, 2009, and does not reference the relevant savings clause. A second Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact contained in Appendix B and prepared on March 19, 2009, merely acknowledges that the legislation includes a savings clause but provides no further explication. See App. B, p. 9. Appendix C is the Florida House of Representatives 2009 Session Summary prepared in May 2009, while Appendix D is a Summary of Passed Legislation prepared by the House of Representatives Economic Development and Community Affairs Policy Council on an undisclosed date. Neither document addresses the issue of what types of agreements were intended to be saved. Appendices E through I are guest newspaper columns, correspondence, a power point presentation, and an article in a professional journal. None are authoritative sources of legislative intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-628-E, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007- 383-E, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2009.
Conclusions On March 10, 2010, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File in the above captioned case.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - CALDWELL BUILDING, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 2 Final Order No. DEO11-0006 FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this fopllriay of October 2011. : Miriam Snipes, Agency Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail: Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 300E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. Max Lohman, Esquire Corbett and White, P.A; 1111 Hypoluxo Road, Suite 207 Lantana, Florida 33462 Brian Joslyn, Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose, Casey, Cikin, Lubitz, Martens, McBane & O*Connell Northbridge Center, 19th Floor 515 North Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4626 By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Final Order No. DEO11-0006
The Issue The issue is whether two map changes on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Taylor County (County) by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 on December 15, 2009, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The Department is the state planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving amendments to comprehensive plans adopted by local governments. The County is a local government that administers a Plan. It adopted the two plan amendments that are the subject of this proceeding. It is considered a "rural" county with a current population of around 20,000 residents. Dr. Hutchins owns property in the County. Although his initial pleading alleges, and his Proposed Recommended Order states, that he "submitted oral comments regarding the subject amendments at transmittal and prior to adoption of the amendment," no evidence was presented at hearing that Dr. Hutchins did so during the adoption process. Ms. Redding and Mr. Wood are siblings and along with three other members of the Wood family jointly own property in the County. Like Dr. Hutchins, no evidence was presented at the hearing that either Intervenor submitted written or oral comments to the County during the adoption process. History Preceding the Amendments The process for adopting the County's first Plan, including the FLUM, began around 1988. For the purpose of drafting a FLUM, a Planning Board (Board) was created consisting of seven individuals, all of whom were volunteers with no formal planning experience. However, they received advice and assistance from two outside consultants, who also advised the County concerning the appropriate text to be used in the new Plan. Four members of the Board, including its former Chairman, testified at the final hearing. Over the next two years, the Board conducted meetings, spoke with numerous property owners, and collected information in order to assign each parcel an appropriate land use category. The collective efforts of the Board culminated in a large, hand- colored FLUM (consisting of numerous sections of aerial maps patched together) that was affixed to the wall of what is now the courtroom on the second floor in the County Courthouse. Testimony by former members of the Board established that the Hutchins parcel (then owned by Colin and Lucille Kelly) and the Bird Island parcel (owned by Wood, Redding, and other family members) were assigned a classification of Mixed Use-Urban Development. Because the County does not have a zoning code, the properties were never assigned a zoning classification consistent with that land use category. This classification was based upon the fact that at least two different businesses were being conducted on each parcel at the time, and the owners requested that they be given that classification. In the case of the Hutchins (then Kelly) property, it was being used to conduct a commercial fishing operation as well as a small construction company (with dump trucks, bulldozers, and front end loaders) that had a contract with Proctor & Gamble (now known as Buckeye Technologies, Inc.) to maintain roads. An office for the construction company was located in a separate mobile home placed on the property. Mr. Bird was a commercial fisherman and operated a wholesale fish business on Bird Island. Also, both he and his mother had separate homes on the property, another structure was used to store fish nets, and docking facilities for other commercial fisherman were maintained. Many of these structures were blown away during the so-called Storm of the Century on March 13, 1993, and never replaced. Except for property within the small communities of Keaton Beach, Dekle Beach, Denzel Beach, and Steinhatchee, and a few other small parcels, such as Dark Island, Cedar Island, and Intervenors' property, all of the remaining land along the coastline was placed in either Conservation or Agriculture. An unusual feature of the County is that it has one of the longest coastlines in the State (58 miles), stretching on the Gulf of Mexico from Jefferson County to Dixie County. Because around 88 percent of the coastline is owned by the State, very little waterfront land is left for development. In fact, Dr. Hutchins pointed out that except for his property and Bird Island, no other vacant, upland Gulf-front property within the County is in private ownership at this time. The FLUM, with the foregoing classifications, was adopted by the County by Ordinance No. 90-4 on June 19, 1990. Before it was submitted to the Department for its review, the County was advised by the Department that it would not accept the large, hand-colored FLUM in that format. Rather, the Department required that the map be reduced in size and digitized. To comply with this request, the original FLUM was dismantled into smaller sections and hand-carried to a firm in Crystal River that had the capability of reducing the large map into digital form. The original FLUM was then returned to the County Courthouse. When the larger map was reduced in size and converted to a digital format, it was not parcel-specific and failed to pick up the Hutchins parcel and Bird Island. Instead, except for larger tracts of land, especially in the small communities noted in Finding of Fact 8, the entire coastline was shown as being Conservation or Agriculture. This error was not detected by County officials or the affected property owners since they continued to rely upon the designations shown on the large, hand-colored FLUM in the Courthouse. The Department reviewed the FLUM, as digitized, assumed that the Hutchins and Bird Island property were Agriculture and Conservation, and found those parts of the FLUM to be in compliance. This agency action occurred on or about October 1, 1990. Thus, the Department never undertook a compliance review for either parcel with the intended higher density/intensity land use. In 1995, the room in which the original FLUM was mounted was taken over by another occupant of the Courthouse, and the original FLUM was moved to a different floor. During or after the moving process, it was lost or accidentally destroyed and its whereabouts have been unknown since that time. In 1993, Dr. Hutchins purchased his property from Colin and Lucille Kelly. Based on a conversation with a County employee, he purchased the property with the understanding that it was classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development. Although he had no specific plans to develop the property at that time, and still has none, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use category was the major inducement for him to purchase the property. In 2005, Dr. Hutchins was approached by an investor who wished to develop the property at a later time. When the investor contacted the County to confirm its land use designation, Dr. Hutchins learned for the first time that the digitized map approved by the Department reflected the property carried an Agriculture/Rural Residential land use. Because of this, the agreement with the potential investor was never consummated. In a similar vein, Mr. Wood, who served on the Board that assigned land use designations to property on the original FLUM, and knew that the Board had designated his property as Mixed Use-Urban Development, placed the Bird Island property on the market in 2005 representing that it was classified in that category. A prospective purchaser checked with the County to verify its land use and learned that it was Conservation. Mr. Wood was unaware of this error until that time. Because of this, the sale was never consummated. After 2005, the County and Department held numerous meetings in an attempt to resolve this dispute. The Department refused to allow the FLUM to be changed to reflect the original land use designations. This led to the County adopting the two challenged amendments to correct what it characterizes as a "scrivener's error." Besides the two parcels that are in dispute here, on an undisclosed date, two other parcels (in the interior part of the County) were discovered by the County to have the wrong land use category as a result of the digitizing process. Both should have been placed in the Industrial land use category, and after a review, the Department had no objection to those errors being corrected by an amendment. The Plan Amendments On December 15, 2009, the County adopted Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17, also known as CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3. The first amendment changed the land use on the 14-acre Hutchins parcel from Agriculture/Rural Residential to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The present land use allows one dwelling unit per 5 acres while the new land use designation allows up to 12 dwelling units per acre and a 60 percent impervious surface ratio for nonresidential development. See Department Exhibit 1, Future Land Use Policy I.3.2. Thus, up to 126 residential units and 96,476 square feet of non-residential development could be built on the Hutchins site. The second amendment changed the land use on the 3.36-acre Bird Island parcel from Agriculture-2 and Conservation to Mixed Use-Urban Development. The former land use allows one dwelling unit per 40 acres while the new land use would permit the same density/intensity as the Hutchins parcel. The new category would allow up to 30 residential units and 21,954 square feet of non-residential development. The amendments were transmitted by the County to the Department for its review in early April 2009. On June 5, 2009, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report. The Department lodged objections to both amendments generally on the grounds the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; the amendments authorize an improper increase in density within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) without proper mitigation; the amendments failed to discourage urban sprawl; and they are internally inconsistent with existing provisions within the Plan. The ORC recommended that the County not adopt the amendments. Besides the Department, DEP and the Regional Planning Council also provided written comments on the amendments. By letter dated May 8, 2009, DEP generally noted that it had concerns regarding development adjacent to the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) where the parcels are located, and that careful planning strategies should be used for any development on the land. See Department Exhibit 4. The Regional Planning Council issued a staff report on February 25, 2010, generally concluding that the amendments were consistent with the applicable Strategic Regional Policy Plan goals and objectives. See Department Exhibit 15; County Exhibit 1. The County did not respond in writing to the ORC. On December 15, 2009, it adopted the amendments without change. On March 10, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find the amendments not in compliance in the Taco Times. On March 16, 2010, the Department filed its Petition with DOAH raising the same grounds that are in its Notice of Intent. The Property The Hutchins parcel is located in the southwest part of the County, a few miles south of Keaton Beach, with around 500 to 600 feet fronting on the Gulf of Mexico. The 14 upland acres that are the subject of this case are a sub-site of a larger 25-acre parcel owned by Dr. Hutchins, with the remaining 11 acres being adjoining wetlands on the north and south sides. Dr. Hutchins has built a home on pilings on his property along with a smaller ancillary structure. Photographs indicate that except for trees, the remainder of the upland property is vacant. Bird Island also lies on the Gulf of Mexico just northwest of the Hutchins parcel and is surrounded by water on three sides. Photographs reflect one residence and a dock still on the property. The two parcels are separated by "marsh grass and a little water." Both parcels of property are easily accessible to, and just west of, County Road 361, a paved two- lane highway that begins south of the subject properties and runs adjacent to, or near, the coastline, eventually turning northeast and terminating on U.S. Highway 19 south of Perry. Both properties abut portions of the Gulf of Mexico that have been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The waters are a part of the Preserve, which was established in 1985 and is managed by DEP. The Preserve has exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. The two parcels are located in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). That is to say, they are in "the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. In order to increase density within the CHHA, the County must meet certain criteria set forth in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department's Objections As summarized in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department contends that the two plan amendments are not in compliance because the sites are not environmentally suitable for the proposed density and intensity increases; there is an improper increase in density within the CHHA without proper mitigation; and the amendments fail to discourage urban sprawl. Although the Notice of Intent also raised the issue of whether the amendments are internally inconsistent with other provisions in the County's existing Plan, the Proposed Recommended Order does not address any specific internal inconsistencies, and the evidence focuses on the first three concerns. Therefore, the undersigned has assumed that those objections have been withdrawn or abandoned. Environmental Suitability With the exception of an area in the middle part of the County's coastline (where the Fenholloway River flows into the Gulf), the Preserve extends along the County's entire coastline, including the area in which the two parcels are located. The Preserve, designated as an OFW, contains various types of seagrasses, whose function is to provide habitat for a number of species, improve water quality, and reduce currents or wave energy in the event of a storm. It is undisputed that the seagrass beds near the amendment sites are high-quality, healthy, and of high environmental value. Coastal marshes are prevalent in the area of the County where the amendment sites are located. They serve many functions, including cleaning water flowing into The Preserve, functioning as a habitat for a number of species, and acting as a coastal barrier against storm surge during large storm events. Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, requires that local governments protect and conserve natural resources through the conservation element of the local plan. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(3)(b)4. A Department rule also requires local governments to limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon water quality and living marine resources. See Rule 9J-5.012(3)(c)1. High-density development (up to 12 units per acre) on the parcels clearly has the potential to negatively impact coastal marshes and seagrasses adjacent to and near the subject sites. Although Dr. Hutchins indicated that he would develop his property only to the extent allowed by DEP so that the marshes and seagrasses would be safeguarded, the Department's practice for many years has been to assume that the property will be developed at its maximum allowable density and intensity. See, e.g., Sheridan v. Lee Cty, et al., Case No. 90- 7791 (DOAH Jan. 27, 1992; DCA June 28, 1993; Admin. Comm. Feb. 15, 1994)(compliance determination must be made based on maximum impacts authorized by the amendment terms, not speculation of a lesser impact). Mr. Wood's development intentions are not known. In any event, the two parcels potentially authorize 156 residential units and 113,430 square feet of non-residential uses adjacent to an OFW. Even so, the Mixed Use-Urban Development land use designation may still be permissible if specific conditions limiting the density/intensity on the parcels are incorporated into the Plan by asterisk or text language in conjunction with a new amendment. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, this planning practice has been used in other cases. Without any limitations, though, the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the maximum allowable density/intensity contravenes the cited statute and rules. CHHA Both parcels are located within the CHHA of the County. Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that the County establish mitigation criteria for plan amendments located in the CHHA. Probably because of its small size in terms of population, and the lack of development (or ability to do so) along the coastline, the County has no goals, objectives, or policies addressing criteria for mitigation. Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. requires that a plan "direct population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high-hazard areas." Also, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7. requires that a plan "maintain or reduce evacuation times." Prior to 2006, the Department would allow a local government to comply with the foregoing rules by allowing density increases in the CHHA if the local government decreased a similar type of density elsewhere. This practice was known as "offsets." In 2006, however, the Legislature amended the statute to include criteria for compliance with the two rules. Due to the change in the law, the Department no longer engages in the practice of offsets for land use changes in the CHHA. Instead, it requires a local government that proposes to increase density within the CHHA to meet the requirements of Section 163.3178(9)(a)1.-3., Florida Statutes. Under the statute, if the County can demonstrate a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter within the County for a category 5 storm event, an increase in density within the CHHA may be allowed. See § 163.3178(9)(a)1. and 2., Fla. Stat. Alternatively, the County may use one of the mitigation measures described in Section 163.3178(9)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Except for Coastal Element Objective IX-7 of the Plan, which provides that the County maintain a hurricane evacuation time of 9 hours for a category 1 storm, see County Exhibit 7, no data and analysis, such as a hurricane evacuation study for a category 5 storm event, was presented to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Dr. Hutchins' submission during the mediation process of an evacuation plan for a category 3 storm does not satisfy this criterion. Typically, a local government will have an adopted plan for a category 5 storm, as well as an evacuation model. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the mitigation measures in Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, have not been satisfied. At hearing, the County and Dr. Hutchins contended that offsets should still be used in this case to satisfy the mitigation requirements. They point out that the County has recently purchased property (totaling 51.7 acres) that is designated Mixed Use-Urban Development and more than compensates for any potential increase of residents needing to evacuate if the two amendments are found to be in compliance. As noted above, however, the practice of offsets was discontinued in 2006 with the passage of the new law. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, there was no legal requirement that the Department notify every affected local government and property owner that it was discontinuing that practice to comply with the new law.2 Urban Sprawl Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1.-13. identifies thirteen "primary" indicators of urban sprawl. The Department contends that eight indicators are "tripped" or "triggered" by the new amendments and collectively they indicate that the proliferation of urban sprawl is not discouraged. No evidence was presented regarding five indicators. According to the rule, "[t]he presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is tripped if the amendments allow uses in excess of demonstrated need. In this case no need analysis for additional land in the Mixed Use-Urban Development category was submitted by the County. The absence of a study is sufficient to trigger this indicator. Indicator 2 is tripped if the amendments allow "significant" amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas. The only true existing "urban" area in the County, as that term is commonly understood, is the City of Perry. Other residential and some commercial development (but to a much lesser degree) is found mainly in a few small communities on the coastline such as Steinhatchee, an unincorporated community perhaps 15 miles south of the subject parcels with probably around 1,500 residents, and Keaton Beach and Dekle Beach, both having no more than a few hundred residents each. (Official recognition has been taken of the population data.) Keaton Beach is around 2 or 3 miles north of the subject property and has condominiums and other limited residential/commercial development. In addition, Dark Island is located a short distance north of Bird Island and is classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, which authorizes the higher density/intensity development. Given this lack of "urban areas" in the County, virtually any development outside of Perry could arguably be considered "urban development . . . in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)2. Notwithstanding this unique (and perhaps unfair) situation, it is fair to characterize the potential addition of 12 units per acre as urban development and a total of around 150 residential units with associated commercial development as "substantial" when considering the County's size and existing development. Therefore, the second indicator has been triggered. Indicator 3 is triggered if the amendments allow urban development in "radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban development." Because urban development will occur in a rural, isolated area, this indicator is triggered. Indicator 4 is triggered if there is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. The evidence supports a finding that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of existing and future public services and facilities. The evidence shows that the area is not currently served by central sewer and is not near any fire or police stations. While no public facilities are planned for that area in the five year capital improvement schedule, at a meeting in March 2010 the Taylor County Coastal Water & Sewer District indicated that a request for partial federal funding to extend central sewer services to Fish Creek, which lies beyond and to the south of the subject parcels, would be placed on the April agenda. See County Exhibit 7. Whether a request was actually made at that meeting is not of record. In any event, Coastal Element Policy IX.6.5 provides that where central sewer is not available in an area classified as Mixed Use-Urban Development, septic tanks may be used within the CHHA. See Department Exhibit 1. As to fire and law enforcement support, there is insufficient evidence to establish that these services cannot be provided in an efficient manner. Given these circumstances, there is less than a preponderance of the evidence to support a finding that indicators 6 through 8 are triggered. Indicator 9 is triggered if the plan amendments fail to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this indicator is triggered. Collectively, the presence of four indicators is sufficient to support a finding that the County has failed to discourage urban sprawl. E. Scrivener's Error The County and Intervenors rely heavily upon the fact that the plan amendments are in compliance because the amendments simply correct an error that occurred when, at the Department's direction in 1990, the original FLUM was reduced in size and digitized. While at first blush this argument is appealing, it assumes that the Department would have approved the new land use classifications in 1990 when it performed a compliance review of the original FLUM. But this never occurred, and the new amendments give the Department its first opportunity to determine if the new land uses are in compliance. It is undisputed that on an undisclosed date the Department approved an amendment based on the same type of error. While the record is somewhat confusing, it appears that in that case, the two properties were Industrial, they were not located in the CHHA, and on-going business concerns were operating on the properties. Intervenor Hutchins also cited several instances where mapping errors were allowed to be corrected by subsequent plan amendments. Where final agency action in those matters is of record, however, it shows that approval was given only after a compliance review was made by the Department.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that Plan Amendments CPA 08-1 and CPA 08-3 adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2009-15 and 2009-17 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Poinciana Community Development District.
