The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.
Findings Of Fact NOTICE In compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, notice of the hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on October 2, 1992. A news release containing notice of the hearing was given to the media on September 21, 1992, and October 21, 1992. A copy of the public notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the chief executives of the local authority responsible for zoning and land use planning in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the public notice was posted at the site in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, notice was published on September 25, 1992, in the Miami Review, a newspaper of general circulation in Dade County, in compliance with Rule 17-17.151(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. LAND USE AND ZONING CONPLIANCE The proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility, as set forth in its Site Certification Application, will be within the confines of the certified site of the existing resource recovery facility. Hence, that existing site carries a presumption that its current use is consistent with land use considerations. The site of the proposed expansion is consistent with the Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (Dade Master Plan) pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1985. More particularly, the site has a land use designation of "Institutional and Public Facility" on the Future Land Use Plan Map of the Dade Master Plan. The "Institutional and Public Facility" designation permits the construction and operation of a resource recovery facility. Also, the proposed expansion of Dade County's Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with: Objective 5 and Policies 5-A and 5-B as set forth in the interpretive text to the Land Use Element of the Dade Master Plan; Objective 3 and Policies 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E and 3-F of the Conservation Element of the Dade Master Plan; and Policies 1-K and 4-B of the Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Elements of the Dade Master Plan. The existing site is presently within the GU interim district. Resolution R-569-75, which granted county approval for the existing site, satisfies the need to show compliance with the zoning ordinance. The proposed expansion of the Dade County Resource Recovery Facility is consistent with the zoning code found in Chapter 33 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County as well as Resolution R-569-75.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order determining that the site of the proposed Dade County expansion of its resource recovery facility is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMNENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4672EPP The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Applicant, Dade County Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1); 5(2); 6(4); and 7(5). Proposed finding of fact 1 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross McVoy, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 215 South Monroe, Suite 804 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1859 Stanley B. Price, Attorney at Law Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash & Block 100 Southeast 2nd Street Suite 3600 Miami, Florida 33131-2130 Representing the Applicant Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Gail Fels Assistant County Attorney Metro Dade Center, Suite 2800 111 Northwest First Street Miami, Florida 33128 Representing Dade County Lucky T. Osho Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA William H. Roberts Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Toni M. Leidy Attorney at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Representing SFWMD Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson IV Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 630 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director Sam Goren, Attorney at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Representing South Florida Regional Planning Council David M. DeMaio Attorney at Law One Costa del Sol Boulevard Miami, Florida 33178 Representing West Dade Federation of Homeowner Associations Honorable Lawton Chiles Honorable Jim Smith Governor Secretary of State State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Honorable Tom Gallagher Attorney General Treasurer and Insurance State of Florida Commissioner The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Honorable Gerald A. Lewis State of Florida Comptroller The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Background The Parties Respondent, City of Hialeah (City), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments thereto. Petitioners, Edmond J. Gong and Dana L. Clay (petitioners), reside in Coconut Grove, Florida and own at least two parcels of property within the City. The parties have stipulated that petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to challenge the remedial amendment in issue here. The Nature of the Dispute In 1991 and 1992, the City adopted three sets of land use amendments to its comprehensive plan known as amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1. Each set of amendments generated objections by the DCA, and the matters were later sent to the Division of Administrative Hearings and were assigned Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM, respectively. Petitioners did not participate in any of these proceedings. To resolve the objections raised by the DCA, the City and DCA negotiated a stipulated settlement agreement in December 1993, which was executed by the City on January 28, 1994. Pursuant to that agreement, on April 21, 1994, the City adopted a remedial amendment (Ordinance 94-27) known as amendment 94R-1. After reviewing the amendment, on June 2, 1994, the DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent to find such amendment in compliance. On June 7, 1994, the South Florida Regional Planning Council also found the amendment to be in compliance. Finally, on July 11, 1994, the DCA's motion to dismiss Case Nos. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM and 92-7517GM was granted. Petitioners, who participated in the local hearings concerning the adoption of amendment 94R-1, timely filed their petition for administrative hearing on June 23, 1994, challenging the propriety of that amendment for various reasons. The petition was assigned Case No. 94-3506GM. Although petitioners failed to plead any procedural issues in the initial petition, respondents have agreed that petitioners may raise certain procedural objections regarding amendment 94R-1 since the procedural issues were raised in their objections and comments filed with the City during the adoption process of the amendment. Procedurally, petitioners argue that the local government did not comply with all statutory requirements in noticing its proposed approval of the settlement stipulation and its later intent to adopt an ordinance. As to the DCA, petitioners argue that the state agency did not comply with the law in publishing its cumulative notice of intent on June 2, 1994, and that the notice contained erroneous rule citations and lacked a geographical map. Substantively, petitioners complain that before final approval of amendment 94R- 1 was given, the local government and DCA did not consider the enactment of Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, which created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district known as the Blockbuster Park Special District, and they did not consider the traffic impacts of a recently opened connector to Interstate 75 and an interchange within the City that connects traffic from the connector to the Florida Turnpike. Finally, they contend that the amendment improperly redesignated more than ten acres of land from residential to commercial land use. Amendments 91-1, 91-2 and 92-1 involve ten amendments to the plan, all originally found not to be in compliance by the DCA. To cure three of those deficiencies, the City rescinded three ordinances leaving seven plan amendments to be remediated. Petitioners challenge the validity of these seven amendments but none change the use on their property. In reality, though, petitioners rely principally on their procedural objections in seeking to have a determination made that the amendment is not in compliance. Were the Notice Requirements Met? After the DCA and City reached an agreement in principle to resolve the DCA's objections to the plan amendments, a settlement agreement was prepared for execution by the City's mayor and DCA Secretary. Before the mayor could sign the agreement, however, the City Council's approval and authorization were required. Such approval and authorization to sign the agreement came in the form of a resolution adopted at a public hearing held on January 25, 1994. The agreement was later signed by the mayor and DCA Secretary on January 28 and March 3, 1994, respectively. The City had originally intended to consider the item at its January 11, 1994 meeting. Timely publication of notice was given for that meeting on December 27, 1993, in the regular edition of The Miami Herald, a newspaper of general paid circulation published daily in Dade County. At the January 11 meeting, however, the City discussed the matter but then deferred final action on the item until its next meeting on January 25, 1994. Accordingly, it republished a notice of its January 25 meeting in the Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section of the Herald. The Zone 4 Northwest Neighbors section is an insert in the Herald each Thursday and Sunday and contains news pertaining to the northwest portion of Dade County, including the City. Because all copies of the Herald delivered and sold in northwest Dade County contain this particular Neighbors insert, the City complied with the requirement that the advertisement be published in a newspaper of general paid circulation within the jurisdiction of the City. Since petitioners reside and work outside of northwest Dade County, they say they did not receive the Neighbors insert in their paper and thus they were not aware of the January 25 hearing. There is no requirement, however, that the advertisement be published in other parts of Dade County. It is noted that even though they should have received notice of the January 11 hearing through the advertisement published in the regular edition of the Herald on December 27, 1993, they did not attend the hearing. The four-inch notice published on page 15 of the January 16, 1994 edition of the Neighbors section reads as follows: At its regular meeting of January 25, 1994, the Hialeah City Council will consider the following Resolution in addition to other business. Members of the public are invited to attend; the meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. at Hialeah City Hall, 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIALEAH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN CASE NOS. 91-6340GM, 92-3113GM AND 92-7517GM, ENTITLED "DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS VS. CITY OF HIALEAH" NOW CONSOLIDATED BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPART- MENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. Applicable state law (s. 163.3184(16), F.S.) called for the notice to be published at least ten days prior to the hearing. In addition, general provision 3 of the settlement agreement provided in part as follows: This agreement has been approved by the governing body at a public hearing advertised in an adver- tisement published at least 10 but not more than 15 days prior to the hearing in the format prescribed for advertisements in Section 163.3184(15)(c) and Section 163.3187. Assuming the day of the hearing is not counted in computing the ten days, the City would have had to publish the notice by Saturday, January 15, 1994, in order to meet the ten-day requirement. Because the Neighbors section was not published on Saturdays, but rather only on Thursdays and Sundays, the City opted to publish the notice on Sunday, January 16, 1994, or just nine days before the hearing. This was necessary since the item was deferred at the January 11 hearing, and the City presumably was unable to meet the deadline for having an ad published only two days later in the Thursday, January 13, 1994 edition of Neighbors. Even so, petitioners were unable to show any prejudice by virtue of the City failing to meet the ten-day notice requirement. The settlement agreement called for the City to adopt certain remedial amendments by ordinance. These amendments are contained in Ordinance No. 94-27. Although state law (s. 163.3184(16)(d), F. S.) requires that the City hold only one advertised public hearing on a compliance amendment at the adoption stage, in accordance with the City Charter, two hearings were scheduled for that purpose on March 22 and April 12, 1994. A single one-quarter page advertisement in the regular edition of the Herald was published on March 17, 1994, or five days before the first hearing. The law (s. 163.3184(15)(b)2., F. S.) also requires that the hearing be "approximately 5 days after the day that the second (i. e., adoption stage) advertisement is published." The advertisement referred to both hearing dates and noted that their purpose was "to receive comments from interested parties on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City of Hialeah and the Florida Department of Community Affairs related to the 1990 and 1991 Cycles I and II plan amendments to Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan." The advertisement also contained a list of the ten plan amendments and a map showing the portion of the City affected by each of those amendments. Although petitioners contended that the map was illegible in some respects, they nonetheless read the notice in the newspaper and attended both hearings to voice their objections to the ordinance. Notwithstanding petitioners' objections, on April 12, 1994, the City adopted the ordinance. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the City complied with the notice requirements for both hearings. Assuming arguendo that the statutory notice requirements were not strictly met, petitioners failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by such an error. After reviewing the ordinance, on June 2, 1994, the DCA published in the Neighbors section of the Herald a cumulative notice of intent to find the plan amendments and remedial plan amendment in compliance. The advertisement was one-quarter page in size, identified the plan amendments in issue, advised readers that the amendments were in compliance, gave a location where such amendments and comments could be reviewed, and offered a point of entry to affected persons. Therefore, its content was sufficient to inform the public of the action being taken. The DCA concedes that in the notice, however, it cited rule 9J-11.012(8) as the provision dealing with the contents of a petition to challenge the amendments found to be in compliance when in fact the correct citation should have been rule 9J-11.012(7). There is no section (8) in the rule. The notice also cited former rule 22I-6.010 as the rule dealing with intervention when in fact that rule has been renumbered as rule 60Q-2.010. Even so, petitioners were unable to show how they were prejudiced by these minor errors, especially since they knew the nature of the action being proposed by the DCA, and they timely filed their petition for hearing to challenge the amendment. The DCA policy is to publish its notice of intent to find an amendment in compliance in the same local newspaper as the local government uses for its publication. The DCA also pointed out that by advertising in the Neighbors section as opposed to the regular edition of the Herald, it saved several thousand dollars. Therefore, the DCA used the Neighbors section of the Herald. At the same time, the DCA has never included in its advertisement a map showing the location of the land use changes being proposed. This is because the local government advertisements have already included a map, and the DCA notice is simply for the purpose of advising the public which ordinances are in or out of compliance. In the absence of any showing of prejudice, and in view of petitioners' failure to demonstrate to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment as a whole is incompatible with, does not further or take action in the direction of realizing, the goals of the law, the cited procedural errors are insufficient to support a finding that amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance. The plan amendment Since 1986, petitioners have owned two parcels of undeveloped property in the southern one-half and northwestern one-quarter of Tract 24 of Section 28, which is located in the western part of the City. The property consists of approximately six acres located at the northeastern intersection of West 76th Street and the Hialeah-Hialeah Gardens Boulevard. The property has been designated on the future land use map as low density (single-family) residential, which allows up to twelve units per acre. Petitioners have not specifically pled or shown how amendment 94R-1 adversely affects their property. Instead, they simply argue that the plan amendment is not in compliance because the City did not consider the impacts of "drastically changed circumstances" before adopting the remedial ordinance, and the City improperly reclassified a small tract of land. These claims will be considered below. Effective June 3, 1994, Chapter 94-338, Laws of Florida, became law. That law created a multijurisdictional tourism, sports and entertainment special district more commonly known as Blockbuster Park. That legislation, however, is not relevant to this proceeding for several reasons. First, there is no mechanism to consider multijurisdictional impacts in the local planning process. Second, the special act did not become law until after the amendment process here had been completed. Since the City was only required to consider the best available data present at the time the amendment was being reviewed and adopted, consideration of the special law was neither necessary or appropriate. Third, the act itself does not authorize a development. If and when a development order is approved, the City can update its plan to take into account any impacts from the project. As to the contention that the City and DCA failed to take into account the six-lane connector road completed on December 31, 1993, or two years after the plan amendments were adopted, the impact of the connector road is identified and discussed on pages 21 and 23C of the future land use element contained in the remedial amendments. At hearing, it was further explained that the connector road is a limited access regional road under the control of Dade County, and not the City. This means that there is no access to the connector from properties which front on the road, and local access will be limited to three major road intersections. No land use changes along the road have been proposed, and the City has adequately addressed the circulation map requirements in the plan and how the internal circulation routes would be compatible with the major connectors. This being so, it is found that the City and DCA gave adequate planning consideration to the connector. Finally, petitioners contended that certain land was improperly redesignated from single-family residential to multi-family and commercial use. They complain that this is inappropriate since the land is close to a school and does not lie near a major intersection. The evidence shows, however, that such redesignation was appropriate since the land is located at an intersection and lies just across the street from an existing five-acre commercial tract. Moreover, the multi-family part of the tract will serve as a buffer between the commercial use at the intersection and the existing single-family use to the south. Then, too, the proximity of a nearby school to the west will serve to reduce trip time for persons shopping in the area while dropping off or picking up children from the school. Finally, some types of commercial use in residential neighborhoods can serve valid planning purposes, and the City has already established a pattern of having some schools located near commercially designated property. The redesignation is found to be reasonable and based on appropriate planning considerations. Although no proof was submitted by petitioners regarding any other parts of the plan amendment, respondents demonstrated that all remaining parts are supported by adequate data and analysis and are in compliance. Accordingly, petitioners have failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that remedial amendment 94R-1 is not in compliance.
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 the City of Hialeah comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3506GM Petitioners: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4-20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5-8. 21-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 27-29. Covered in preliminary statement. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-35. Rejected as irrelevant. 36-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 39-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent DCA: 1-12. Covered in preliminary statement. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 14. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 13. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 16-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6-8. 20-22. Partially accepted in finding of 9. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 10 and 11. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 31-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 13-17. Respondent City: Because the City's proposed recommended order was not timely filed, the undersigned has considered the contents of the proposed order but has not made specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact. See Sunrise Community, Inc. v. DHRS, 14 F.A.L.R. 5162 (DHRS, 1992), affirmed 619 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993). Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edmond J. Gong Ms. Dana L. Clay 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 370 Miami, FL 33126 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William M. Grodnick, Esquire 501 Palm Avenue, 4th Floor Hialeah, FL 33010 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue Whether the Plan Amendments to the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance Number 2001-18, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or are not "in compliance" as alleged in the petitions of The Sierra Club (Sierra) and Ellen A. Whitmer (Whitmer).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Sierra Club. Sierra alleged in its Petition that it "does business in St. Johns County and has a substantial number of members who reside in and own property in St. Johns County." Sierra is registered as a California corporation and maintains offices in St. Petersburg and West Palm Beach, Florida. The National Organization of Sierra publishes Sierra Magazine, which members receive in the County. Sierra's basic mission is to provide an opportunity for its members to explore, enjoy, and protect the outdoors and natural systems, including those which exist in the County. The Florida Chapter of The Sierra Club (Florida Chapter) is subdivided into 10-12 "groups," including the approximately 1,400-member Northeast Florida Group, serving Duval, St. Johns, and Clay Counties, with approximately 325 members living in St. Johns County. There are approximately 24,000 Sierra members in the State of Florida. Sierra holds monthly meetings in the County. Speakers discuss various educational subjects with members attending the monthly meetings. Sierra members hike in the County, and canoe and kayak on, for example, the Tolomato and Guana Rivers. These activities can be expected to be enhanced if the Plan Amendments are approved and the approximately 1,630-acre preserve area dedicated as planned. Sierra has held fundraisers in the County for the benefit of the three-county Northeast Group. The Northeast Florida Group sends out monthly newsletters, published in and mailed from Duval County, and publishes the Sierra Sentry: Standing Watch on Northeast Florida. Sierra does not maintain a business address or bank account in the County; nor does Sierra own or lease real property, offices or buildings in the County. The Plan Amendments are not reasonably expected to constrain, inhibit, or prevent activities of Sierra's members, including their educational and permitting activities, although a Sierra member testified that the Plan Amendments would potentially "be adverse to [Sierra's] mission in terms of experiencing outdoors and the wildlife associated with the outdoors " Sierra submitted timely oral and written comments to the St. Johns County Commission between the time the County transmitted the Plan Amendment for review and the time the County adopted the Plan Amendment. Sierra made a presentation at the public hearing related to the Plan Amendments. Ellen A. Whitmer. Whitmer resides and owns property within the County and submitted timely oral and written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. The parties agreed Whitmer has standing. Intervenors. SONOC owns the property which is the subject of the future land use map (FLUM) Plan Amendment being challenged in these proceedings. SONOC submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. SONOC has expended approximately $3.5 million in the approval process. The PARC Group is the agent of SONOC, and is the applicant/developer of the Nocatee development, which is the subject of the Plan Amendments. The PARC Group submitted oral and/or written comments to the County regarding the Plan Amendments. St. Johns County. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Section 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the County prepared an evaluation and appraisal of the Plan and an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (the "EAR") in January 1998. The EAR process allows local government to periodically assess the success or failure of their comprehensive plan. The EAR is subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department. In May 2000, the County adopted the EAR-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR-Based Plan Amendment), with supporting data and analysis, which the Department found to be "in compliance." This included the data and analysis for the future land use element (FLUE), which was adopted as part of the Plan. (Joint Exhibit 7-A). This is part of the data and analysis used to support the Plan Amendments at issue in this proceeding. The Department's "in compliance" review became final agency action without challenge. St. Johns County is located in the northeast portion of the State of Florida, south of Duval County and Jacksonville. The St. Johns River separates the County from Clay and Putnam Counties to the west. Flagler County borders the County to the south. There are three (3) incorporated municipalities located within the County, i.e., St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach, and the Town of Hastings. The County comprises approximately 423,580 acres. St. Augustine is the largest municipality in the County. Agriculture and silviculture are the leading industries in the County. The County has a large portion of silviculture lands and there are more than 2.5 million acres in Northeast Florida. The intensive agriculture areas of the County are located in the southern part of the County. The Plan Amendments will not adversely affect the economic viability of agriculture or silviculture in the County. A barrier island runs the length of the County, from the Flagler County line to Duval County. Interstate 95 runs north and south through the County and is west of St. Augustine. U.S. Highway 1 also runs north and south and east of Interstate 95 and runs parallel to Interstate 95. The Tolomato and Matanzas Rivers form the majority of the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern portion of the County and separate the barrier island from the mainland portion of the County. The Guana River State Park and Guana River State Wildlife Management Area form a significant part of the barrier island adjacent to the Tolomato River. The Department. As the state land planning agency, the Department reviewed the Plan Amendments and timely filed a Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments "in compliance." The Challenges While Petitioners cite to numerous statutory and rule provisions in their petitions, the principle allegations, that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," may be placed into three general categories: "need" and urban sprawl; natural resource protection; and economic feasibility. Under each of these general subject headings, Petitioners raise allegations that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapters 163 and 187, Florida Statutes, and that they are internally inconsistent with the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. The Nocatee Plan Amendments On February 23, 2001, the County amended its Comprehensive Plan by Ordinance No. 2001-18. The Ordinance contains four changes to the Plan. First, the Ordinance creates a new FLUE category known as "New Town Development" (Text Amendment). Second, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to New Town (Map Amendment). Third, the Ordinance changes the FLUM designation for approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation (Preserve Amendment). (Petitioners are not challenging the designation of the Nocatee Preserve as "Conservation.") Fourth, the Ordinance adds text (Policy H.1.6.6) to the Plan authorizing the Nocatee DRI "to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in [Section 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes] to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee [DRI] Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts." (This latter provision allows the use of "pipelining" and is referred to herein as the Transportation Amendment.) These Plan Amendments are related to a proposed development known as "Nocatee." The New Town category was crafted to provide criteria and guidelines for large projects such as Nocatee. The acreage designated New Town by the Map Amendment is the proposed site of the Nocatee development. The acreage designated Conservation by the Preserve Amendment is for the purpose of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee development will utilize the Transportation Amendment to address anticipated development impacts on the roadway system. These amendments and the Nocatee development are discussed in more detail below. Ordinance No. 2001-18 provides that "[t]he data and analysis supporting [these Plan Amendments] includes, but is not limited to, the Nocatee Application for Development Approval, Sufficiency Responses, and Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order adopted concurrently with this Ordinance, application materials submitted by the Applicant and reports generated by the County Growth Management Department." Pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, projects which must undergo Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review are subject to a multi-agency, multi-issue review of the proposed development's impacts and a process for mitigating those impacts. A DRI is a development order issued by a local government. It pertains to approval for a specific type of development for a particular site. A comprehensive plan is a different type of document, which considers long-term planning for an entire jurisdiction, taking into account the cumulative effect of many developments, including consideration of projected supply and demand in the future. DRIs are subject to the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. One of the requirements for a DRI is that it be consistent with the requirements of the local government's comprehensive plan, a determination that is separate from that undertaken here. On the other hand, comprehensive plans and amendments, as here, must comply with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which defines "in compliance" as being consistent with Sections 163.3177, 163.3178, and 163.3191, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. A plan amendment does not have to be consistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to be "in compliance." A DRI development order does not guarantee that the site will be developed or developed as approved. For example, the development order may be amended through the substantial deviation process, or a development order may expire. Applications for DRI approval are prepared and submitted to the appropriate regional planning council by the developer. These applications are submitted in response to a set of criteria that differ from those applicable to a plan or plan amendment. Some of the information provided by a developer in support of a DRI request may be relevant to the review of a plan amendment, as here. However, a DRI development order, in general, and the Nocatee DRI Development Order specifically, are not subject to an "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding conducted pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At the conclusion of the DRI process, if project approval is attained, the local government issues a development order. Section 380.06(15), Florida Statutes. The development order must include, among numerous other information, a detailed listing of each land use by acreage and magnitude. Rule 9J-2.025(3)(b)(5), Florida Administrative Code. This land use information from the DRI development order is incorporated into the County Plan for any approved New Town. See Finding of Fact 33. In this case, the Nocatee DRI Application for Development Approval (ADA) was reviewed by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council as required by Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, (and by other agencies), and the Council recommended that the ADA be approved, with conditions. It was stipulated that "[i]n considering comprehensive plan amendments, there is no requirement that favorable consideration be provided to a proposed amendment solely because it is a DRI." See generally Section 163.3187, Florida Statutes. The Nocatee DRI "is a proposed mixed use development on approximately 13,323 acres, of which approximately 11,332 acres are located in northeastern St. Johns County . . . and approximately 1,991 acres are located in southeastern Jacksonville, Florida." On February 22 and 23, 2001, concurrent with its consideration of the Plan Amendments, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners considered the merits of the Nocatee DRI ADA and approved same through Resolution No. 2001- 30. Accordingly, while Ordinance No. 2001-18, adopting the Plan Amendments, expressly relies on, in part, the data and analysis in the Nocatee DRI ADA and related documents, including the Nocatee DRI Development Order, and Policy A.1.19.15 expressly refers to the Nocatee DRI and incorporates the "allowable uses and mix of uses within the Nocatee" DRI,1 the Nocatee DRI is not subject to "in compliance" review in this administrative proceeding. See 1000 Friends of Florida and Robert Jenks v. City of Daytona Beach and Department of Community Affairs, et al., 16 F.A.L.R. 2428 (DCA June 16, 1994). See also Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(discussing the scope of Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes). The Text Amendment The Text Amendment adds Objective A.1.19, "New Town Development," to the Plan, which is a new future land use category. The purpose of this new land use category is described as follows: The New Town Future Land Use category shall guide development into a series of clearly identified and distinct villages that together form a larger New Town. Within the New Town there is a clear hierarchy of development types utilizing neighborhoods as the basic development unit. Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town. A central village functions as the Town Center Village, and includes the main employment[,] shopping, and cultural activities for the New Town. Villages shall have central focal points of higher densities and intensities that create an identity and a sense of place. The planned mix of uses of New Towns shall help to provide a positive fiscal impact for the County. New Towns shall offer a wide range of housing choices, including affordable housing. The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested for any Development of Regional Impact that meets the policies set forth herein. The Board of County Commissioners may approve or deny any New Town on a project-by-project basis, after the New Town review. The Text Amendment is proposed to be included in the County's Plan as FLUE Objective A.1.19 – which is quoted in full immediately above – and fifteen (15) implementing policies (Policies A.1.19.1 through A.1.19.15). Unlike many of the other land use categories in the Plan, which are defined only by the statutorily-required minimum list of allowable uses and standards, the New Town land use category contains detail on a wide spectrum of issues ranging from fiscal impact analysis, affordable housing, to the "[i]nterconnectivity of pedestrian and vehicular routes through the [New] Town to encourage multi-modal circulation." The detail contained in the Text Amendment is necessary to ensure that a specific form of development occurs on land bearing the New Town future land use designation. The land use pattern of this category is a tool to combat urban sprawl, as further explained below, and was crafted with guidance from the following Rule definition. "New town" means a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct from existing urban areas and other new towns. A new town shall be of sufficient size, population and land use composition to support a variety of economic and social activities consistent with an urban designation. New towns shall include basic economic activities; all major land use categories, with the possible exception of agricultural and industrial; and a centrally provided full range of public facilities and services. A new town shall be based on a master development plan, and shall be bordered by land use designations which provide a clear distinction between the new town and surrounding land uses. Rule 9J-5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The New Town category in the Text Amendment is consistent with and furthers the concept embodied in this definition, i.e., the creation of an efficient urban level of mixed-use development in a rural area. The Text Amendment sets 2,500 acres as the minimum size for any parcel to be eligible for designation as a New Town. The Text Amendment then establishes general land use standards applicable to the overall New Town parcel, which are embellished by more specific controls for the different components of the New Town. "At least 35% of lands within a New Town development shall be reserved for Open Space/Conservation and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system," and shall be provided for public uses. "The greenway system will serve the additional goal of surrounding and defining villages and the Town Center Village." ("Greenways, wetlands, and similar natural areas are open space/conservation. Open space/conservation does not include parks, golf courses, and other designated recreational lands.") At least 40 percent of the net developable acreage of a New Town must be residential units and, of the total residential units, at least 20 percent must be multi-family, and at least 50 percent must be residential single-family. Workplace land uses, i.e., retail, service, office, and industrial, must comprise at least five percent of the net developable acreage. This proportion of mix of uses is further refined in Policy A.1.19.9, where square footage requirements for each of the non-residential land uses are linked to the number of approved dwelling units, e.g., a minimum of 50 square feet of retail space for each dwelling unit and 30 square feet of civic space per dwelling unit in a Town Center Village and five square feet per dwelling unit for each Village. Other "specific use standards" are provided. New Towns are also required to provide land for libraries, fire stations, local government annexes, school sites and similar public uses and shall provide minimum park acreage equivalent to Comprehensive Plan LOS [level of service] requirements. In addition to this overall guidance, the Text Amendment directs a specific community form by assembling the several mixed uses into components which together will form the New Town. The "neighborhood" is designed to be the "basic development unit" within the New Town. Neighborhoods are to be compact residential areas with a mix of housing types. "Several neighborhoods and one or two village centers combine to form a village, and several villages form a New Town." Village Centers are areas designed to provide civic, service, limited retail, and elementary school uses for the surrounding neighborhoods. "A village shall contain distinct neighborhoods that will each have a central neighborhood park, which shall be called the neighborhood commons." At least 10 percent of each village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. While residential uses (at least 10 percent of net developable acreage) are also allowed in village centers, at least 45 percent of net developable acreage of the uses must be non-residential. Villages composed of these centers and neighborhoods are to be surrounded by greenways, golf courses, and natural features, and linked to the remainder of the New Town through interconnected roads and a pedestrian/bikeway system. Also, within villages, low density residential must have an overall net residential density between 1-2 units per acre. Medium density residential development must have an overall net density between 2-6 units per acre. Traditional neighborhoods must have an overall net density of 4-6 units per acre. In addition to the villages, each New Town is to contain a "Town Center Village," which "is intended to serve as the cultural, shopping, employment and civic center for the New Town, and shall include office uses, light industrial areas, and higher density residential uses surrounding a mixed-use core." In addition to some single-family residential and retail, the Town Center Village must contain at least 30 percent multi-family residential (percentage of units) and 45 percent (percentage of square feet) office use in order that "[t]he mixed-core shall have the characteristics of a downtown." The most intense of these uses are to be concentrated in the "Town Center Village Mixed-Use Core," which is to be the "pedestrian-oriented 'Main Street' area of retail, service, office, residential, and civic uses." Both the Town Center Village and its Mixed-Use Core are governed by specific design standards addressing matters such as sidewalks, signs, porches, and on-street parking. Overall, the Objective and Policies contained in the New Town land use category provide meaningful and predictable detail.2 The specific Policies describe the types and uses and how these uses will relate to one another, the mix of uses, transportation issues, interconnectivity, design, and urban features of New Towns. The Map Amendment In the same Ordinance in which the Text Amendment was adopted, the County adopted a Map Amendment changing the FLUM designation of approximately 11,332 acres from Rural/Silviculture to New Town. The Map Amendment was adopted to allow development of a project known as "Nocatee." As required by the Text Amendment, Nocatee has been designated as a New Town on the FLUM, and has been reviewed and approved as a DRI. The "allowable uses and mix of uses" within the Nocatee DRI Development Order have been incorporated into the County Plan Amendments. The Nocatee project includes approximately 11,332 New Town acres in St. Johns County. ("The Nocatee site consists of approximately 15,000 acres, with approximately 2200 acres in Jacksonville and the remainder in St. Johns County. The site is generally bounded on the west by [U.S.] 1, on the east by the Intercoastal Waterway, on the south by Pine Island Road, and extends north of CR 210 approximately 1.5 miles.") However, the portion of Nocatee in the southern portion of Duval County (Jacksonville) is not subject to the instant challenges. The land uses adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order and incorporated into the St. Johns County Plan are as follows: 2,872,000 square feet, 336 acres of office uses; 968,000 square feet, 150 acres and 3,900 parking spaces for retail commercial uses; 250,000 square feet, 29 acres and 500 parking spaces for light industrial uses; 12,579 total dwelling units, comprising 8,811 single family units, 3,228 multi-family units (including single-family attached units), and 540 assisted living units; 54 golf course holes, 485 hotel rooms, 5,531 acres of recreation/open space (including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses), churches, schools, and civic uses. The uses described above are to be developed in five phases, each anticipated to last five years, with various combinations of uses allowed in each phase. Individual phases may be extended pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, or accelerated provided that all mitigation requirements have been satisfied for the particular phase to be accelerated. The Nocatee DRI includes a Town Center Village, a secondary town center, seven other villages, and up to two village centers in each village. Village centers may include limited intensity office and retail commercial uses and an elementary school. However, "[t]he specific location of all land uses will be determined through the [Planned Unit Development] PUD approval process." The Nocatee DRI Development Order contains a "conversion table" which authorizes the conversion, at a defined rate, of one type of land use to another, but prohibits the conversion of non-residential land uses to residential uses during the first two phases of development. The conversion tables cannot be used to convert the Nocatee DRI land uses below those established in the New Town land use category. The Preserve Amendment Along with the Text and Map Amendments, the County adopted the Preserve Amendment, which re-designated approximately 1,630 acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Conservation for purposes of establishing the "Nocatee Preserve." The Nocatee Preserve is an area of over 2500 acres including close to 1800 acres of land above the mean high water line. This strategic location with over 3 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River complements the Guana State Park and the Guana Wildlife Management area directly east of the river. The Nocatee Preserve will expand preserved environmental lands to both sides of the Tolomato River. This expansion of environmental lands will provide additional protection for the northern Tolomato River Basin and will provide passive recreation opportunities for both the Nocatee community and the entire region. Additionally, the Preserve will serve as a buffer between the Tolomato River and future development within Nocatee–a buffer that is between 1 and 1 1/2 mile wide. The Preserve includes the most ecologically significant (and economically valuable) part of the [Nocatee] property. Transportation Amendment The last change to the County Plan (Policy H.1.6.6) here at issue, the Transportation Amendment, provides: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payments of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition 25, entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. Pursuant to operation of the Transportation Amendment, Nocatee "will contribute up to $99,741,366 in cash payments and funded transportation improvements to offset the impacts of the Nocatee development upon the regional transportation system " Agency Review and Notice The Department is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Among the responsibilities of the Department under the Act is the duty to review plan amendments and determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. On or about June 1, 2000, the Department received the County's proposed Plan Amendments, and copies were distributed to various state, regional, and local agencies for their review and comments. On August 10, 2000, the Department submitted its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Comments from the Department of Environmental Protection and the St. Johns River Water Management District were attached to the ORC. On or about January 22, 2001, the Applicant, The PARC Group, submitted its response to the Department's ORC. On February 22 and 23, 2001, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners held noticed hearings on the Nocatee DRI and related Comprehensive Plan Amendments and enacted Ordinance No. 2001-18 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-01D), adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and also enacted Ordinance No. 2001-30, approving the Nocatee DRI. On March 5, 2001, the County furnished the Department with a submission package including documents relating to the Plan Amendments. On April 18, 2001, the Department caused to be published its Notice of Intent to find the Text Amendment, Map Amendment, Preserve Amendment, and Transportation Amendment "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. Need and Urban Sprawl The nomenclature "New Town," adopted as the title of the Text Amendment, is a reference to a form of land use described in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. By definition, a "New Town" means, in part, "a new urban activity center and community designated on the future land use map and located within a rural area or at the rural-urban fringe, clearly functionally distinct or geographically separated from existing urban areas and other new towns." In addition, a "New Town" will necessarily contain a full range of uses in order to support a variety of economic and social activities "consistent with an urban area designation." See Rule 9J- 5.003(80), Florida Administrative Code. The new town land use generally described in Rule 9J-5.003(80), is a category expressly designed to combat urban sprawl. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(l), Florida Administrative Code, recognizes new towns as one of the "innovative and flexible" manners in which comprehensive plans may discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The weight of the evidence demonstrated that the New Town development form contained in the Text Amendment will discourage urban sprawl. For example, Dr. Downs and Mr. Porter, both of whom are national growth management experts with decades of experience, testified that new towns in general, and specifically, the Text Amendment adopted by the County, serve to discourage urban sprawl. Mr. Pennock, the primary author of the urban sprawl rule, which is now a part of Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, testified that the types and mix of uses in the Text Amendment are appropriate for a new town and will serve to discourage urban sprawl. The designated Nocatee New Town is located on the St. Johns County/Duval County line in the Northeast Planning District, and lies east of U.S. Highway 1, and straddles County Road 210. The Nocatee New Town lies in the rural/urban fringe, within the fastest growing sector of the County, in the regional growth corridor emanating from southeast Duval County and Ponte Vedra. This is an advantageous location because it is close enough to the main employment center in the area (Jacksonville), to afford residents employment opportunities. Additionally, the Nocatee New Town is a master-planned community, unlike piecemeal fragmented development which has occurred in other parts of the County. Consistent with the Text and Map Amendments, the Nocatee New Town is planned to include preserved natural areas and greenways and villages. Each village is expected to consist of neighborhoods and a village center, which will include elementary schools, civic and retail uses, and higher density housing. The Nocatee New Town serves as a cultural center, providing for a mix of higher density residential, retail, restaurant, hotel, office, and light industrial, schools, churches, a fire station, a library, a county annex, a police complex, parks and public spaces, and as athletic complex. The Nocatee New Town is geographically separated from existing areas by U.S. Highway 1 and preserved greenways, and is a functionally distinct land use. The Nocatee New Town is functionally similar in size and land use composition to other successful new towns, and includes basic economic activities in all major land use categories. Further, the Nocatee New Town is innovative planning, especially for a rapidly urbanizing county like St. Johns. In addition, it provides for flexibility in land use mixes by designating minimum land use percentages, but not requiring fixed percentages. This flexibility is desirable to allow for market adaptation over the 25-year build-out period. The expert testimony at the final hearing was persuasive that the location chosen for the Map Amendment is appropriate for a New Town in the County. Just a short distance to the north of the Map Amendment is Jacksonville, which was accurately described as "the major economic engine for the northeast Florida area . . . ." The past two decades of economic success for Jacksonville have resulted in growth along a corridor to the southeast, i.e., directly toward the site of the Map Amendment and the proposed Nocatee New Town. From 1991 to 1996, approximately 42 percent of the growth in St. Johns County occurred in the area around the proposed Nocatee New Town. The Nocatee New Town can be expected to improve the current, incremental and piecemeal development patterns of the County. Unfortunately, the emerging development pattern in the northeast area of the County exhibits indicators of sprawl. Currently, growth is not occurring in the most compact fashion. Sprawl is often viewed as a single-use or low- density residential setting. Here, the New Town concept offers a mixture of uses and the Plan Amendments, in particular, require an overall residential density range of three to eight units per net developable residential acre, whereas most of the residential areas of the County appear to have two residential unit per acre, and the proposed density for Nocatee is higher than the existing average in the northeast portion of the County. If Nocatee is developed according to its approved plan, it will be a New Town and will be a useful tool to fight this undesirable land use pattern of current development and is an anti-urban sprawl alternative to the existing sprawl development in the County. Petitioners maintain that the Text Amendment will allow, and the Map Amendment will promote, urban sprawl for essentially two reasons; first, there is no "need" for a new land use approval; second, there are insufficient guarantees that Nocatee or any future approval will actually develop as a New Town. The "need" question is founded in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, which requires that "[t]he future land use plan shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth [and] the projected population of the area . . . ." This requirement is repeated in the statute's implementing rule, i.e., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code ("The comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and projections.") Finally, the "need" issue is one of the primary factors to be considered in any urban sprawl analysis. See Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code (urban sprawl may be present where a plan designates for development "uses in excess of demonstrated need"). The calculation of how much land is needed to accommodate the projected population involves comparing what is available for development under the comprehensive plan with the projected population over the same planning time frame applicable to the plan. An "allocation ratio" to express this need can be derived by dividing the development potential by the projected population. For example, if a comprehensive plan allocated 100 residential dwelling units over the planning time frame and the jurisdiction's population was projected to increase by 100 over the same time, there would be an allocation ratio of 1:1. This ratio would express an exact match between supply and demand. A ratio of 2:1, on the other hand, would demonstrate that the jurisdiction had twice as much land as designated for use as the projected population is expected to need. There is no allocation ratio adopted by statute or rule by which all comprehensive plans are judged. The testimony in this case from the planning experts is that there is no accepted "hard and fast" allocation ratio at which a local government would be required to deny all future plan amendments. (There is testimony from Department planners that there is a recommended guideline, which set a ratio of 1.25:1 of supply over demand. This ratio has not been adopted as a rule nor has it been proven to be an accepted ratio to be applied in this case.) Rather, the allocation ratio is a planning guideline to be used for two purposes: first, ensuring a local government has enough land to accommodate future population; second, discouraging urban sprawl. The County divides St. Johns County into four Planning Districts (part of the data and analysis of the Plan) for purposes of calculating allocation ratios of the amount of land needed for particular land uses compared to an amount of land so designated. (Disaggregating allocation ratios into planning districts is professionally acceptable.) Planning districts differentiate the County into different growth scenarios, development trends, and land use patterns. County staff explained the analysis performed regarding each of the four Planning Districts. Separate ratios were developed for each Planning District. Population projections were developed based on historical growth and compared to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) numbers. See footnote 5. In part, the County analyzed the amount of developable land designated in the FLUM, which was converted "into a very specific GIS map, so [they] had more definitive areas . . . ." Developable and un-developable land was analyzed. The County also examined the nature of the future land use densities existing on the developable lands to derive "a potential development for those developable areas and compare[d] those to the population projections which converted into housing units." A comparison was made "between population projections or need for housing units and the amount of dwelling units that can be accommodated in this developable area on the map."3 As otherwise noted further in Joint Exhibit 7-A, page A-37, in part: These population projections are then converted into housing demand by planning district as discussed in the Housing Element. The demand for these housing units will occur in different residential densities. However, as an aggregate measure, the total housing units needed is useful for comparison to the maximum net densities allowed for the various residential land use designations. It should be pointed out that rarely are the maximum net densities achieved, particularly at the higher density lands. For instance, while the Mixed Use Districts allow up to 13 units per acre, historically these acres have developed at much lower densities. This trend has been particularly significant due to the shortage of multi-family dwelling units constructed in the County. Single-family residential developments generally cannot achieve the densities at the high density level (6-13 units per acre), and rarely exceed the threshold for low density development (less than or equal to 2 units per acre). The May 2000, County EAR-Based Plan Amendment for the FLUE, provides residential land use allocation ratios for the year 2015 ranging between 1.63:1 for the Northeast Planning District to 11.59:1 for the Southwest Planning District, and an overall County allocation ratio of 3.08:1. These ratios appear in Joint Exhibit 7A at A-41, Table A-10, and were previously approved by the Department. ("A comparison of the allocation of dwelling units from the available developable land with the projected housing demand by planning district is provided in Table A-10.") Intervenors' expert independently calculated County allocation ratios, including the Nocatee New Town Map Amendment, and arrived at a ratio of 2.33:1 for the Northeast Planning District and 2.9:1 for the entire County, using data available as of February 2001.4 It is at least fairly debatable that these allocations ratios are supported by appropriate data and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Numerous witnesses testified that allocation ratios should not be used as a bright line test because there are no adopted rules or clearly defined professional standards which establish a maximum ratio above which a plan amendment may not go. In other words, use of a maximum allocation ratio as a set upper limit, without consideration of other relevant factors to establish need, would offer no concrete, professionally accepted standard. Sierra offered no independent allocation ratios. Rather, Sierra elicited testimony from County staff that, if a series of assumptions supplied by Sierra were used to calculate the allocation ratios, based on Sierra's concept of using maximum theoretical density, the allocation ratios would be as high as 4.36:1 and 6.1:1 for the Northeast Planning District of the County. In other words, Sierra sought to have the County's calculations redone using the maximum theoretical density allowed under each land use category.5 The allocation ratios offered by Sierra raise a concern that, with the Nocatee development, there is a projected over-allocation of supply to meet the projected demand in the County, and, in particular, in the Northeast Planning District of the County. However, there is no persuasive evidence that the strict maximum theoretical density methodology offered by Sierra was professionally acceptable for use in the County to project the future need in light of the Plan Amendments. In fact, the testimony was that an allocation ratio utilizing the maximum theoretical density may be appropriate if only urban lands are included in the calculation, and if appropriate restrictions on the ability to realize this density are made a part of the equation. Sierra did not so limit its inquiry. Also, the weight of the evidence indicates that the use of maximum theoretical densities, as calculated according to Sierra, is more likely than not to overstate the realistic densities that will be achieved on the land designated for residential use by the County. While not mandating that every subsequent plan amendment must be categorically denied, the presence of an over-allocation will trigger a heightened, more thorough review of the indicators of urban sprawl when considering further plan amendments. Only amendments subjected to this greater scrutiny and still found to discourage urban sprawl may be found "in compliance" in the presence of an over- allocation. On the other hand, a higher allocation ratio may be appropriate in relatively high-growth counties, like the County, to offset the difficulties inherent in forecasting growth. An allocation ratio which is set too low may tend to reduce market choice, resulting in increased housing prices and a reduced employment base. There is persuasive evidence that the Map and Text Amendments meet this heightened level of sprawl analysis. Urban sprawl involves, at its core, the spreading of low density or strip commercial development from urban areas into rural lands. The determination of whether any amendment or plan constitutes urban sprawl is undertaken pursuant to the criteria of Rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. The emerging development pattern in northeast St. Johns County exhibits numerous symptoms of sprawl. There is persuasive evidence that the Text and Map Amendments can be reasonably expected to make the situation better by providing "an anti-sprawl alternative to what's there now." The rule applicable to sprawl speaks directly to this situation. If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k), Florida Administrative Code (emphasis added). Neither Petitioner offered persuasive evidence to rebut the finding that the Map and Text Amendments improve the existing development pattern in northeast St. Johns County. Sierra attempted to imply that the Text and Map Amendments allow for the proliferation of urban sprawl in the form of low-density residential development. Contrary to this argument, the evidence shows, for example, that the three to eight dwelling units per net developable residential acre contained in the Text Amendment, coupled with the text provisions directing the location of higher density residential uses, affordable housing, and the myriad of non- residential uses, provide meaningful and predictable standards for the development of an anti-sprawl New Town. The flexibility built into the Text and Map Amendments afford a reasonable ability to change and meet the market demands over a long-term build-out. Natural Resource Protection Every New Town development must adhere to the Policies in the Plan. The Plan Amendment adds additional requirements to the Plan in the environmental section, Policy A.1.19.5, "Environmental Consideration." Policy A.1.19.5 of the Text Amendment affords natural resource protection by requiring that at least 35 percent of any land designated New Town shall be "reserved for Open Space/Conservation lands and shall preserve a connected system of environmentally sensitive and passive recreation areas that will form a greenway system." "At least 15% of this open space component must be uplands." At least ten percent of a village must be retained in open space/conservation areas. According to Policy A.1.19.5, "[s]ignificant environmental characteristics" must "be incorporated into the New Town design, particularly into the greenway system." The applicant for a New Town designation is required to "provide data and analysis regarding potential environmental impacts, including, but not limited to[,] impacts to wetlands, sub- surface waters, and surface waters and the presence of plant and animal species that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as threatened, endangered, or as a species of special concern." Natural resource protection is furthered through Objective A.1.19 which states: "The New Town Future Land Use category may be requested from any [DRI] that meets the policies set forth " in the Plan Amendments. The application form for a DRI requires a detailed listing of vegetation and wildlife. Rule 9J-2.010(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Any flora or fauna identified as listed must be protected in accordance with the Department's "Listed Plant and Wildlife Resources Uniform Standard Rule." Rule 9J-2.041, Florida Administrative Code. Master planning, such as in a DRI, better protects natural resource than piecemeal development. Moreover, there is persuasive evidence that natural resources can be better protected under the New Town category than in the existing Rural/Silviculture land use category. Pursuant to these provisions, there are 5,531 of the 11,332 acres designated as New Town set aside for recreation/open space, "including, but not limited to, parks, the Greenway, and golf courses." This set aside is based upon data and analysis compiled through the DRI review process. The Nocatee Preserve (an example of an "environmentally significant characteristic") is the most significant environmental resource on the Nocatee site and establishes additional resource protection. (The Plan Amendments designate approximately 1,630 acres (the Nocatee Preserve) lying above the mean high water line in the "Conservation" land use category. Petitioners do not object to this designation.) This Preserve is a mosaic of uplands and wetlands and includes tidal saltwater wetlands. It includes streams, uplands, and a variety of habitats. It fronts the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) of the Guana/Tolomato preserve areas. The Preserve adds protection for the aquatic preserve. The Nocatee Preserve is located between the Nocatee New Town and the Tolomato River and protects the parcel's approximately 3.5 miles of frontage on the Tolomato River (Guana-Tolomato Aquatic Preserve). It is likely to ensure the protection of wildlife habitat on both sides of the Tolomato River and a natural view for recreational boaters and others. In addition to the Nocatee Preserve, which is approximately 1 1/2 miles wide, "the greenways," comprising a minimum of 4,961 acres (at least 960 acres of uplands at build-out) in St. Johns and Duval Counties, will be preserved. Greenways will consist of wetlands and uplands. Vegetative communities currently found on site will be preserved. The County's FLUM series includes Map 9-B, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL)." Within the County, the ESL designation is given to OFWs, estuaries, wetlands, essential habitat to listed species, coastal barrier resources and beach and dune systems, and other areas specifically designated by the Board of County Commissioners.6 (Policy E.2.2.5 of the Plan also requires the County to protect ESLs "through the establishment of Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which address the alternative types of protection for each type of" ESL.) The weight of the evidence indicates that Map 9-B is a generalized depiction of these ESLs. On its face, the Map contains a disclaimer that the data are provided from multiple sources, with varying degrees of accuracy. In essence, Map 9-B is used by the County for "reference only" purposes, i.e., data and analysis only, and is not intended to be used as a predicate for decision-making, for example, a determination is made as to the "exact location of a wetland jurisdictional line." Map 9-B, although part of the data and analysis, is not the best available data for site-specific analysis. Policy A.1.11.7 of the Plan Amendment states that "[i]n the event of a conflict between any of the Maps and the text of the Plan, the text of the Plan shall control." Pursuant to the Plan Amendments, see, e.g., Policy A.1.19.5, the County requires applicants for New Town plan amendments to provide the County with site-specific information, including environmental, and wildlife surveys (conducted pursuant to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC) requirements),7 including vegetative surveys, in order for the County to determine the extent of ESLs on the property, proposed for New Town designation. See Finding of Fact 95. This information is part of the data and analysis required under the Plan Amendments and is required to be based on professionally accepted methodologies. Site visits by County personnel are also required. Sierra alleges that the protective measures mentioned above in the Plan Amendments fail to adequately address natural resources because the term "significant environmental characteristics" in the Text Amendment and the protections attendant such areas are uncertain, and the depiction of greenways, wetland impacts, and development of the "Sandy Ridge Village" as depicted in various maps attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, allow undue impacts. The operation of the Text Amendment as a whole, including the provision for the protection of "significant environmental characteristics," when read in conjunction with the protections required in the Plan and Plan Amendments, can be expected to afford protection of natural resources. The remainder of Sierra's allegations rest on the presumption that the maps of development areas and greenways attached to the Nocatee DRI Development Order are part of the County Plan and are subject to this compliance review. However, the only portion of the Nocatee DRI Development Order incorporated into the Plan and subject to this review is the provision that establishes the "allowable uses and mix of uses." Policy A.1.19.15. The location of those uses, as shown in the Nocatee DRI Development Order is not incorporated into the Plan. (However, Ordinance No. 2001-18, recognizes the importance of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. See Ordinance No. 2001-18, Section 2, paragraph 5). Accordingly, and as further set forth below in the Conclusions of Law, Sierra's allegations that the Plan Amendment must be found not "in compliance," e.g., because of the location of uses and their potential impact on natural resources, is beyond the scope of this proceeding. Nevertheless, the data and analysis supporting the Nocatee DRI have been considered herein in order to determine whether the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." The Nocatee site in Duval and St. Johns Counties is approximately 15,000 acres, of which "approximately 8,000 acres of uplands and wetlands will be preserved in the Greenway, the Preserve and within preserved jurisdictional wetlands in the villages and Town Center Village " Further, it was apparent that when several maps are reviewed together, up to 474 acres of wetlands may be impacted by the development, subject to further permitting. At present, it is speculative as to the precise number of wetlands which will be impacted by the development. However, there are general depictions of wetlands delineated on, for example, Maps H-1 and H-3, which are anticipated to be preserved. Ultimately, the wetlands impacts are required to be addressed on a site- specific basis in future permitting by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the St. Johns River Water Management District.8 Sierra's expert (Mr. Hoctor) opined that the proposed greenways were, in some instances, too narrow because protected areas should be located at least 330 feet from developed areas due to "edge effect." However, Mr. Hoctor also stated that the distance of the edge effect could be less than 330 feet, although he believed that 330 feet "is a good base-line estimate of edge effects." On the other hand, the County and Intervenors' experts opined that the greenways, as designated, are sufficiently wide, and can be expected to provide adequate habitat to sustain the environmental resources on site.9 In general, on the Nocatee site, buffers of upland areas ranging from 15 to 100 feet will be preserved in their natural state adjacent to wetlands systems. In some areas, the width of the proposed buffers will exceed current County requirements. The buffers serve to push incompatible land uses away from surface waters and protect wetland functions. Further, Deep, Durbin, Smith, and Sweetwater Creeks are proposed to be protected by a minimum 100-foot buffer along the Creeks, which is twice as wide as other County requirements for these areas. (Theoretically, estuary systems, require a 50-foot buffer, whereas the Nocatee project has committed to a 100-foot buffer.) The County Land Development Code requires upland buffers adjacent to contiguous jurisdictional wetlands, and the buffer sizes vary, dependent upon the location of the wetlands. For example, a 50-foot buffer is required along the Tolomato River in areas where the high water line can be set; and in all other areas with contiguous wetlands, a 25-foot buffer and a 25-foot setback are required. As noted in the Nocatee DRI ADA, Question 16, Second Sufficiency Response: "The state-of-the-art stormwater management system proposed for Nocatee will limit the 100-year flood plain to greenways, wetlands, and stormwater management facilities. No post-development developed areas in Nocatee will be in the 100-year flood plain." This representation is adopted in the Nocatee DRI Development Order. Further, the bald eagle is a protected species and the habitat for the bald eagle is an essential habitat. The bald eagle's nest on-the Nocatee site is being protected by means of a 1,500-foot management zone (360 degrees). (The United States Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines indicate that a 1,500-foot buffer should be utilized.) Petitioners also offered evidence, by and through the testimony of Mr. Hoctor, that "only about 60 acres of both sand hill and scrub are proposed for protection out of at least 180 acres of zeric communities on site. Most of it long leaf pine sand hill and xeric oak sand hill." According to Mr. Hoctor, these areas include a 70-acre sandy hill parcel in the proposed Sandy Ridge Village, which is not expected to be preserved, and a 25-acre parcel, which will be preserved. (A 17-acre parcel of scrub-type habitat will also be preserved in the southwest corner of the site.) The experts agree that gopher tortoises live in and need sandy soils to construct their burrows. Gopher tortoises will be impacted by the Nocatee development. One of the guidelines set by the FFWCC states that a minimum size patch of 25 acres is necessary for on-site protection of gopher tortoises. The experts disagree as to whether preservation of a proposed 25-acre site (to be incorporated into a 20-mile greenway on-site) is sufficiently large enough to accommodate the gopher tortoises (and gopher frogs, indigo snakes, and other species) on the Nocatee site. The County and Intervenors provided reasonable explanations for requiring the preservation of the 25-acre site (as a significant natural communities habitat) in lieu of the 70-acre site. At the very least, reasonable minds have differed on this issue. It is also subject to reasonable debate whether gopher tortoises will remain on-site given the preserved 25-acre site. On the other hand, the 25-acre site has canopy and good ground cover vegetation for the gopher tortoise community. Also, pursuant to the Nocatee DRI Development Order, "as mitigation for impacts to gopher tortoises and their commensals, the Developer will be responsible for off-site mitigation of the equivalent of approximately 66 acres of habitat, in conjunction with the permit requirements of the [FFWCC]." "This off-site mitigation will be accomplished by the Developer by issuance of an incidental take permit or by purchase of habitat at an off-site location within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council." Total preservation on-site is expected to be approximately 33 percent which exceeds the ten percent Plan requirement. Sherman Fox Squirrels are a species of special concern. It appears that two fox squirrels have been sighted on the Nocatee site in the general vicinity of the St. Johns County/Duval County lines. This species is "highly mobile" and "will very likely migrate to other suitable habitat when the [Nocatee site is developed]." "[F]ox squirrel habitat will be included in the incidental take permit." The preservation of the fox squirrels has been addressed in a general way, i.e., through preservation of significant natural communities and the 8,000 acres of land which is being preserved on-site. Petitioners also presented expert testimony that the Nocatee site is an essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear, which should be protected by preserving a "large swath" of most or all of the southern portion of the Nocatee site which "would serve as a potentially functional wildlife corridor." (The Florida Black Bear is a threatened species. The minimum acreage required to sustain a viable population for the Florida Black Bear is between 500,000 and 1 million acres.) The experts disagreed whether portions of the Nocatee site are essential habitat for the Florida Black Bear population and the extent of the impacts on the Florida Black Bear if the Nocatee site is developed as proposed. (Mr. Hoctor suggested during cross-examination that the Florida Black Bear population, east of U.S. Highway 1 in the County, stood "only a fair to poor chance of being viable.")10 Part of the habitat data discussed by Mr. Hoctor indicates that bear road kills were more than 15 years ago. More recent bear kills have occurred in other parts of the County (west of the river or adjacent to the Twelve Mile Swamp property), but not east of Interstate 95 in the Nocatee area. Even if Florida Black Bears use the Nocatee site, more than one-half of the site (approximately 8,000 acres), which will be preserved for wildlife corridors, potentially may be used by Florida Black Bears for migration and foraging. It is at least fairly debatable whether the environmental components of the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." Land Use Suitability The Nocatee site plan was based upon a land use suitability analysis, considering soils, wetlands, vegetation, archeological sites, and topography. The Nocatee DRI ADA contains appropriate data and analysis, including testimony during the final hearing, related to such topics as "vegetations and wildlife," "wetlands," "soils," "floodplains," and "historical and archeological sites." The Nocatee scientists spent approximately 8,000 man hours in the field (on the Nocatee site) over a course of two and one-half years collecting detailed data related to these issues. The data was collected and analyzed in a professionally acceptable manner. Economic Feasibility In General The Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of a Comprehensive Plan identifies facilities for which local government has financial responsibility, which include roads, water, sewer, drainage, parks, and solid waste. (As noted herein, this does not include schools for which the School Board has financial responsibility.) Petitioners raise numerous issues relating to the "financial feasibility" of the Plan Amendments. The record contains detailed data and analysis of existing and future public facility needs. The data and analysis were conducted in a professionally acceptable manner. Further, the County conducted a cost benefit analysis of the Nocatee development and determined that the development can be expected to produce a positive revenue stream for capital expenditures in each year. (For example, the County's Budget Director calculated that as of build-out (twenty-five year period), Nocatee will result in a net financial gain to the County of approximately $114 million.) This study was bolstered by Intervenors' cost benefit analysis documenting a net positive cash flow. Public Schools Sierra contends that the Map Amendment runs afoul of the State's growth management laws by not providing a financially feasible development that adequately addresses its impacts on the public school system. As set forth in the Conclusions of Law, existing laws do not require local governments to address public schools as part of comprehensive planning. This link between land use and public schools is currently optional and the County has not elected to pursue the option; this election is supported by extant law. There is persuasive evidence that the County is not responsible for funding public school facilities. Rather, the St. Johns County School Board is responsible for such funding. For example, the only portion of the school facilities construction paid by the County occurs when the School Board requests the County to pay for the upgrading of a facility to provide for use as a hurricane shelter. The Nocatee developers agreed to construct at least two such shelters in accordance with the Department of Education's standards. However, the placement of hurricane shelters is a decision made by the County, not the School Board. Furthermore, the County has not adopted a Public School Facilities Element or a school concurrency funding program. (Examples of concurrency requirements for the State of Florida include transportation, potable water, sanitary sewer, parks and recreation, drainage, and solid waste.) The St. Johns County School Board is an independent taxing authority with an established budget for school construction and operation. Nevertheless, with respect to the New Town Category, elementary schools are allowed within or adjacent to village centers and the Town Center Village. The Nocatee development will require an additional eight schools in the County in order to meet the projected need. (Mr. Toner projected that over a period of 25 years, eight new schools would be needed and that during the five-year planning horizon after construction begins at Nocatee, one middle school would be needed for the projected number of students, i.e., 450 would start to materialize. Mr. Toner desires that schools be built concurrently with development, which does not appear to be required.) The Nocatee developers have agreed to donate, at no charge to the County (or the citizens of the County), land for the eight public schools and to waive a credit against the school impact fees to which the developers would otherwise be entitled. The value of the land donation credit is approximately $12 million. Additionally, by build-out (in the twenty-fifth year), according to Intervenors' data and analysis, the School Board can expect to receive annual net revenue or gain of approximately $9.6 million. It is also expected that over the life of the Nocatee development and, in particular, during the later phases of the development, revenues will "significantly exceed the costs," in light of expected commercial, industrial, and additional residential development "that's generating the student load on the system." Transportation The Plan Amendments add Policy H.1.6.6. to the County's Comprehensive Plan stating: The Nocatee Development of Regional Impact, a multi-use development meeting the criteria of Chapter 163.3180(12), Florida Statutes, is authorized by the County to utilize the standards and guidelines set forth in the Statute to satisfy the County's transportation concurrency requirements by payment of a proportionate share contribution is [sic] as stated in the Nocatee Development of Regional Impact Development Order, Special Condition No. 25 entitled Transportation Resource Impacts. (See Ordinance No. 2001-18) The "pipelining" method of mitigating transportation impacts has been selected in the Plan Amendments. This method allows the transportation mitigation funds to be used to increase the transportation capacity of some links of a regional roadway network beyond that necessary to offset projected impacts. It allows impacts on the regional roadway network to be handled on a proportionate share basis. Pipelining contemplates that various proportionate share impacts along the regional roadway network are assessed and all of the calculated dollars under the pipelining method are aggregated to create "a pot of money" which is used "to build one or more whole transportation improvements." The pipelining statute takes precedence over the conflicting concurrency requirements of the County. Here, the mitigation package is based upon a "proportionate fair share" calculation, under which Nocatee will pay $99.7 million. This amount is supported by appropriate data and analysis based upon the application of professionally accepted methods. In addition to the payment, the mitigation will include right-of-way donation and roadway construction. Petitioners do not challenge the concept of "pipelining." Rather, Petitioners question whether the transportation components of the Plan Amendments are "economically feasible." Overall, there is persuasive evidence, presented in the form of data and analysis, that with the Nocatee approval and the Plan Amendments, the County's transportation capital funds are likely to be improved both at the 25-year build-out and within the first five years. (State law requires that land use decisions and transportation facility planning be coordinated over the five- year planning time frame in order to maintain and achieve adopted levels of service. See Section 163.3177(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The persuasive evidence indicates that the Nocatee development will not cause any roadway segment to fall below its adopted level of service (LOS) standard during the five-year planning time frame.) Petitioners, largely through the testimony and exhibits offered by Mr. Feldt (a former employee with the County whose area of expertise is transportation), contend that the proportionate fair share calculation was incorrectly calculated and that the Nocatee DRI development data and analysis understates transportation impacts which are likely to arise as a result of the Nocatee development. However, while Mr. Feldt maintained that the $99.7 million allocation would not be sufficient to cover some of the improvements he deemed necessary, such as right-of way, most of his concerns regarding the transportation component of the Nocatee DRI had been satisfied during the DRI review process leading up to the County's approval of the Nocatee DRI Development Order. It is at least fairly debatable that the pipelining transportation component of the Plan Amendments is supported by appropriate data and analysis, which is professionally acceptable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Plan Amendments adopted by St. Johns County in Ordinance No. 2001-18 are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2002.
Conclusions This cause is before the Department of Community Affairs (Department or DCA) on an Order Closing File, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A. On July 23, 2008, Respondent Marion County (County) adopted multiple amendments to its comprehensive plan by Ordinance No. 2008-025 (Amendments). The Department reviewed the Amendments, determined that some did not meet the criteria for compliance set forth in Section 163.3184(1) (b), Florida Statutes, and caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find those Amendments not “in 1 Filed June 16, 2011 2:21 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Final Order No. DCA11-GM-107 compliance” and found the remaining amendments “in compliance” pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Department then instituted this administrative proceeding against the County pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes. The Department entered into a partial settlement agreement with the County with respect to one of the Amendments, published an Amended Notice of Intent finding Amendment 08-L21 as adopted by Ordinance 08-25 “in compliance,” and resolved this matter by Final Order No. DCA09-GM-256 issued on July 2, 2009. On February 10, 2011, the County Adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) based amendments to the Marion County Comprehensive Plan. The Adopted EAR was thereafter submitted to the Department for compliance review. The Department issued a Notice of Intent to find the EAR based amendments, adopted by Ordinance No. 11-01 and Ordinance Nos. 11-3 through 11-37 “in compliance,” pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187 and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. No petition to challenge the Notice of Intent was timely filed. The Future Land Use Map adopted by Ordinance No. 11-37 approves land uses similar to, or exactly the same as, the land uses proposed by the remaining map Amendments previously adopted by Ordinance No. 08-25. As a result of the update to the comprehensive plan through the EAR process, the adoption of a new 2 Final Order No. DCA11-GM-107 planning horizon, and the creation of an urban growth boundary, these amendments were now determined to be in compliance. Therefore, the remaining 2008 Amendments are superseded by the Future Land Use Map, and are rendered moot by the Department’s Notice of Intent and this proceeding must be dismissed. See Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Heredia, 520 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (dismissing case on appeal as moot where suspension of driver’s license was rescinded by the Department) . ORDERED that the remaining Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-025 have been rendered moot, and this case is hereby dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida. Counsel IRS Deborah K. Kearney, Gener DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 2555 Shumard Oak Bouleva' Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Final Order No. DCA11-GM-107
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (Cc) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT=S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS 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 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the matter described, on this pa day of June, 2011. Agency Clerk Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Matthew Guy Minter, Esq. Marion County Attorney 601 SE 25th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34471-9109 Final Order No. Richard T. Jones, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 1700 Tampa, Florida 33602-5803 Steven H. Gray, Esquire Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A. 125 Northeast lst Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, Florida 34470-6675 Landis V. Curry, Esquire Ayres, Cluster, Curry, McCall Collins & Fuller, P.A. 21 Northeast First Avenue Ocala, Florida 34470 L. Mary Thomas, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 DCA11-GM-107
The Issue The issues in this case are whether two City of Palm Bay Comprehensive Plan Amendments, one of which was "small scale development amendment" under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Brevard County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. See Section 7.05, Florida Statutes. The County is bordered on the north by Volusia County, on the west by Volusia, Orange, and Osceola Counties, on the south by Indian River County, and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City of Palm Bay (City) is a municipality in southeast Brevard County, just to the southwest of the City of Melbourne. In its extreme northeast, the City borders on the Intracoastal Waterway. From there, it fans out to the southeast, surrounded on all sides by the County. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Small-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On June 3, 1999, William Wilson submitted an application to amend the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) for a 1.1558-acre (small-scale) parcel of land in the unincorporated County at the southeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road (an east/west thoroughfare) and Babcock Street (a north/south thoroughfare), in anticipation of annexation by the City. In this vicinity, the unincorporated County lay to the east, across Babcock Street, between the City and the Intracoastal Waterway. The unincorporated County land to the north, east, and south of the parcel had a future land use designation of "Residential" on the County's FLUM; the City land to the west had a residential future land use designation on the City's FLUM. The requested amendment was from the existing County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial." A zoning change also was requested from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial). The parcel subject to the small-scale amendment request has a single-family home and free-standing residential garage located onsite. Projected impacts from commercial development on the parcel met all relevant City level of service (LOS) standards. (The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the parcel.) The City planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment; staff recommended approval of the zoning change but to City NC (Neighborhood Commerical). These requests were heard by the City Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the local planning agency (LPA), on October 20, 1999. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved and that the zoning change to City NC also be approved. By Ordinance 2000-08, adopted on March 2, 2000, the City annexed the small-scale parcel, effective immediately upon enactment of the Ordinance. By Ordinance No. 2000-09, also adopted on March 2, 2000, the City Council granted the request to change the future land use designation of the parcel on the City's FLUM to City "Commercial." By Ordinance No. 2000-10, zoning on the parcel was changed to City NC. The Large-Scale Amendment: Review and Adoption On July 6, 1999, Brian West submitted an application to amend the City's FLUM for a 19.57-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the intersection of Valkaria Road and Babcock Street (immediately north of the small-scale parcel, across Valkaria), in anticipation of annexation by the City. The requested amendment was from the existing Brevard County "Residential" designation to City "Commercial" future land use. A zoning change from County AU (Agricultural Residential) to City CC (Community Commercial) also was requested. This 19.57-acre (large-scale) parcel is vacant. The County has not put environmental suitability at issue with respect to the large-scale parcel. The City's planning staff recommended approval of the requested plan amendment, which was heard by the City's Planning and Zoning Board, sitting as the LPA, on October 20, 1999, along with the small-scale request. The LPA voted to recommend to the City Council that the large-scale amendment be denied. On February 15, 2000, the City Council conducted a special meeting to consider the requested large-scale annexation, plan amendment, and zoning change and voted to approve the requests. However, at the time, the City also was in the process of developing plan amendments in response to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR); as a result, transmittal to DCA was deferred until transmittal of the EAR-based amendments. On January 18, 2001, the City Council met in regular session and voted to transmit the requested large-scale amendment to DCA, along with the other EAR-based amendments. On May 17, 2001, DCA issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report regarding the transmitted comprehensive plan amendments. DCA raised several objections and made comments regarding the amendment. The ORC Report was received by the City on May 21, 2001. (The greater weight of the evidence was contrary to testimony of the City's Planning Manager that the ORC Report received on that date was incomplete.) On October 2, 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2001-65, which adopted the requested amendment for the large-scale parcel from County Residential to City Commercial future land use. The EAR-based amendments also were adopted on the same date by Ordinance 2001-66. By Ordinance 2001-86 adopted on November 1, 2001, the City annexed the large-scale parcel, effective immediately. Re-Adoption of Plan Amendments at Issue At some unspecified time after October 2, 2001, the City became aware of concerns voiced by DCA regarding the sequence and timing of the large-scale annexation and FLUM amendment. To address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-105 on December 20, 2001. This Ordinance repealed and re-adopted Ordinance No. 2000-65. At some unspecified time after March 2, 2000, the City became aware of concerns raised by DCA that adoption of the small- scale FLUM amendment took place before the City adopted plan amendments to comply with new school siting requirements, contrary to a statutory prohibition. In order to address these concerns, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2000-79 on January 4, 2001, to repeal and re-adopt Ordinance No. 2000-09, re-designating the small-scale parcel for "Commercial" future land use. DCA Notice of Intent and City's EAR-Based Amendments On January 21, 2002, DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the readopted large-scale amendment "in compliance." DCA subsequently caused to be published a Notice of Intent to find this readopted amendment "in compliance." The EAR-based amendments adopted on October 2, 2001, included certain text amendments, but these amendments had no direct bearing on the plan amendments at issue in this case. All plan text provisions relating to the plan amendments at issue in this case remained "substantially the same" after the EAR-based amendments. Need for Additional Commercial Future Land Use and Internal Consistency The County contends that analysis of the data in existence at the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue in this case does not support a need to change the future land use on these parcels from County Agricultural Residential to City Commercial. But the following Findings are based on these data and analysis. City data and analysis dated January 2001 indicated in pertinent part: In 2011 the City will need 719 acres of commercial land and at buildout, will need approximately 1,725 acres. The Future Land Use Map currently allocated approximately 1,612 acres for commercial and office development. This is slightly below the needs identified over the long term time periods. The expansion of existing Activity Centers and the development of new Activity Centers should easily accommodate this minor increase. Between now and the next required Plan update in 2007, the City should analyze the available commercial land to determine if existing designated lands are appropriately located or whether new areas should be established and existing designations converted to other land use types. Of particular interest in that regard would be the large amount of neighborhood commercial presently designated but which is primarily vacant. It was not clear from the evidence how the acreage figures in the data and analysis were calculated. It does not appear from the evidence that the figure for commercial acreage "needed" included any "cushion" or "margin of error." If the City has more land allocated for commercial future land use than is expected to be "needed" within the planning horizon of its Comprehensive Plan (the year 2011), it may be the result of pre-platting of the City by General Development Corporation. If so, the City also has an even greater excess of acreage allocated for residential future land use since approximately 90 percent of the City was pre-platted for small, quarter-acre residential lots. As a result of pre-platting, it now appears that, at build-out (expected in about 20-30 years), the City will have an excess of allocated for residential land use and a shortage of acreage allocated for commercial land use (among other non-residential uses.) As a result, there is a current need to begin to reduce the amount of acreage allocated for residential future land use and add commercial acreage (as well as other non-residential uses.) A disproportion of City land allocated to commercial future land use is in the northern part of the City, between Malabar Road and Palm Bay Road, a considerable distance from the intersection of Babcock Street and Valkaria Road. Before the plan amendments at issue in this case, there was hardly any commercial future land use in the City in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of what little commercial future land use could be found in the vicinity was in small parcels--the single exception being a 15-acre parcel at the intersection of Eldron and Grant approximately two miles to the south. There also was very little land allocated to commercial future land uses in the unincorporated County anywhere near the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Almost all of the unincorporated County in the vicinity had Rural Residential future land use. There was some County Neighborhood Commercial across Babcock from the 15- acre parcel of City Commercial two miles to the south of the intersection. There also was some County Neighborhood Commercial and a small amount of County Community Commercial future land use east of Babcock about a mile to the north of the intersection. A 40-acre parcel approximately 650 feet to the east of the intersection was changed from County rural residential to general commercial zoning in 1988. But at around the time the City began to process the plan amendments at issue in this case, the County purchased the land and re-designated it for Public future land use and GML (Government-Managed Land) zoning. Most of the City's population growth in the last 20 years has been in the southern and western part of the City, to the west of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection. Between 1986 and 1999, residential development within 2-3 miles of the amendment sites increased approximately 160 percent. As a result, whereas 17 years ago most of the City's population was east of Interstate 95, now approximately half the population resides west of Interstate 95 (although 60 percent still resides north of Malabar Road.) Due to the sparse commercial use in the vicinity, either in the City or the unincorporated County, there is a need for more land designated for commercial future land uses in the southern part of the City to serve the rapidly growing population in that area. The applicant for the large-scale amendment submitted a letter projecting a need for 1.5 million square feet of retail space in the City based on a comparison of "current space" with average retail space per capita in Florida. The County criticized the professional acceptability of this submission as data and analysis to demonstrate need for additional commercial acreage in the City. Standing alone, the submission may be fairly subject to the County's criticism; but considered along with the other data and analysis, the submission adds to the demonstration of need for the plan amendments. It was estimated that commercial uses at the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria will generate an additional 12,000 vehicle trips on Babcock in the vicinity of its intersection with Valkaria. This estimate further demonstrates a need for additional commercial future land use in the vicinity. At least some of the vehicle trips expected to be generated in the vicinity of the Babcock/Valkaria intersection as a result of adding commercial future land use there would correspond to a reduction in vehicular traffic from the southern part of the City to and from commercial areas in the northern part of the City. For that reason, by helping balance the amount of commercial land use available in the northern and southern parts of the City, adding commercial future land use in the southern part of the City could be reasonably expected to reduce traffic overall. Commercial land uses generally generate higher tax revenue and demand fewer government services than residential land uses. Meanwhile, the City provides most of the government services in the Babcock/Valkaria vicinity and has a backlog of infrastructure projects. For that reason, an economic benefit reasonably is expected to accrue to the City from adding commercial in the southern part of the City.2 Future Land Use Element FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon area need. . . ." FLU Policy 3.1A states: "The acreage of commercial land permitted by the Future Land Use Map shall not exceed projected needs." The County did not prove that the proposed FLUM amendments are inconsistent with either this Objective or this Policy. The plan amendments at issue are based upon area need and do not exceed projected needs, as reflected in the data and analysis. Compatibility and Internal Consistency The County contended that City Commercial future land use for the amendment parcels is incompatible with surrounding land uses and internally inconsistent with provisions the City's FLU Objective 2.3, to: "Prevent incompatible land uses from locating in residential areas in order to promote neighborhood stability and prevent deterioration." In the unincorporated County to the east of Babcock Street, there are primarily large-lot, rural residential land uses with some agricultural uses such as horses and tree-farming. But, as indicated, there are platted residential lots in the City to the west of Babcock Street that are urban (or suburban) in character. During the course of these proceedings, the County abandoned its contentions as to incompatibility of the small-scale amendment except for the existence of a residential structure on the property. In arguing that the existence of the residential structure on the property makes commercial future land use incompatible, the County relied on the City's zoning LDRs. But zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not at issue in this comprehensive plan amendment case. See Conclusion 52, infra. Even if zoning and consistency with zoning LDRs were at issue, the applicant's residential structure would not defeat the applicant's proposed future land use change; rather, granting the application would mean that use of the residential structure would have to be discontinued after the future land use change. As to the large-scale amendment, the County also relies in part on alleged inconsistency with an LDR--in this instance, the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning that these areas are "to be primarily located in or near the intersection of arterial roadways." But, again, zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs are not issues for determination in this comprehensive plan amendment case. Id. Even if zoning and consistency of zoning with the requirements of zoning LDRs were at issue, consistency and compatibility still would be fairly debatable. The evidence was that Valkaria was designated as a collector road at the time of adoption of the proposed large-scale amendment and that Babcock was designated as an arterial roadway to the north of Valkaria and as a collector to the south of Valkaria. The City characterized Babcock as a minor arterial. By its terms, the LDR in question does not prohibit Community Commercial zoning except in or near the intersection of arterial roadways; it only provides that these areas are to be located primarily in or near these intersections. Even if City Community Commercial zoning were clearly inconsistent with the City's LDR for Community Commercial zoning, City Neighborhood Commercial zoning has no similar provision for location vis-a-vis arterial roads. Since the City only has one commercial future land use category, City Commercial would be the appropriate City future land use designation for City Neighborhood Commercial zoning. The County's contentions as to the large-scale amendment also are seriously undermined by the existence of both County Community Commercial and County Neighborhood Commercial future land use east of Babcock. In addition, a County-sponsored Small Area Study (SAS) of approximately 11,500 acres of land east of the intersection along Valkaria Road recommended County Neighborhood Commercial future land use for the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of Babcock and Valkaria (as well as County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning). As indicated, the City's Comprehensive Plan does not distinguish between the two categories of commercial future land use and, if any commercial future land use is compatible with surrounding land uses, City Commercial future land use is appropriate. Contrary to the County's argument, it makes no difference to the appropriateness of City Commercial future land use that County Neighborhood Commercial future land is more limited than City Commercial future land use (or that County Restricted Neighborhood Commercial zoning is more limited than City Community Commercial zoning). The County argued that the large-scale future land use amendment was inconsistent with City FLUE Policy 2.3A, which states that LDRs must "continue to contain provisions to ensure that land uses surrounded by and/or abutting residential areas are not in conflict with the scale, intensity, density and character of the residential area." There is nothing about the proposed FLUM changes that is inconsistent with this Policy. Consistency of LDRs with this Policy is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 53, infra. The County also questioned the adequacy of buffer between commercial uses on the large-scale parcel and nearby residential uses. Precise questions as to the adequacy of buffer are decided under the LDRs, during site development review and permitting. However, it is noted that there is a 50-foot wide "paper street" (i.e., a platted right-of-way that never was developed as a street) to the west of the large-scale parcel. In addition, zoning as City Community Commercial was conditioned upon additional buffer to the east (25 feet wide) and to the north (50 feet wide). Consideration also is being given to a Habitat Conservation Plan of an undetermined size in the northern portion of the site for use as a "fly-over" for scrub jays. In addition, actual use of the residential land in the unincorporated County to the north of the large-scale parcel includes a car repair business with garage and approximately 15 cars in various states of disrepair.3 For all of the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not establish either internal inconsistency or incompatibility of commercial uses on the large-scale parcel with existing residential uses. Infrastructure and Internal Consistency At the time of adoption of the plan amendments at issue, central water and sewer services had not yet been extended to the two parcels. However, it was clear from the evidence that adequate central water and sewer capacity existed to accommodate commercial development on these parcels and that central water and sewer was being extended to the parcels. The Capital Improvements Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan listed $1.7 million being budgeted for water and sewer improvements in fiscal year 2001/2002, and in excess of $15.3 million budgeted in fiscal year 2002/2003. FLU Objective 3.1 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Provide additional commercial areas by type, size and distribution, based upon . . . the availability of supporting infrastructure." The County did not prove that the proposed plan amendments are inconsistent with this Objective. Urban Sprawl and Internal Consistency The County maintains that the proposed plan amendments exacerbate urban sprawl. But the County provided no detailed analysis of the indicators of urban sprawl in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, to support its contention. In arguing urban sprawl, the County relied on its contentions that there was no demonstrated need to convert County rural residential land use to City commercial land use. This argument has been rejected. See Findings 20-31, supra. The County's urban sprawl argument also focused on uses in the unincorporated County east of Babcock and characterizes the plan amendments as placing commercial land use in a rural area. This focus and characterization ignores the existence of urban residential uses in the City west of Babcock. Seen in proper perspective, the proposed plan amendments allow commercial land use that would tend to mitigate and discourage the kind of urban sprawl promoted by the pre-platting of the City. Instead of having to travel to access commercial uses in distant parts of the City, City residents in the vicinity would have a much closer option under the proposed amendments (as would County residents in the vicinity). FLU Objective 1.4 in the City's Comprehensive Plan is to: "Establish a Growth Management Area to control urban sprawl." FLU Policy 1.4B states: "City funds shall not be utilized to expand public facilities and services for future growth outside of the established Growth Management Area." The small-scale parcel was outside the established Growth Management Area (GMA) at the time of adoption of the small-scale amendment. But it does not follow that the small-scale amendment constitutes urban sprawl. Nor does it follow that the small-scale amendment is inconsistent with either the Objective or the Policy. The small-scale amendment can be made a GMA before any City funds are used to expand public facilities and services for future commercial use of the small-scale parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding both the small-scale amendment and the large- scale amendment of the City of Palm Bay (adopted by Ordinance 2000- 79 and by Ordinance 2001-105, respectively) "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2003-03 adopted by Escambia County (County) through enactment of Ordinance No. 2003-40 (Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Gregory L. Strand, resides in Escambia County, Florida. Petitioner submitted oral written comments to the County at the adoption hearing on August 7, 2003, regarding the Plan Amendment and Ordinance No. 2003-40. The parties agree that Petitioner has standing in this proceeding. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County adopted a Comprehensive Plan (Plan) which has been subjected to a sufficiency review by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and found "in compliance." The Property T. Riley Shipman, Sandra I. Shipman, and Betty J. Shipman (Shipman's) own the 8.98-acre parcel (parcel) that is the subject of the Plan Amendment. The total contiguous land owned by the Shipmans is approximately 12.7 acres. The parties stipulated that the legal description of the property attached to Ordinance No. 2003-40 contains less than 10 acres. The parcel extends 850 feet east of, and parallel to, the right of way of Blue Angel Parkway, and north of Sorrento Road, but does not front on Sorrento Road. The future land use designation of the 250-foot width of the property that fronts Blue Angel Parkway is Commercial, with only approximately 150 feet outside of the road right-of-way. Two single-family homes, a mobile home, and a storage building are located on the parcel. A Wal-Mart Super Store is at the intersection of Blue Angel Parkway and Sorrento Road, across Blue Angel Parkway from the parcel. Approximately 3,300 acres across Blue Angel Parkway west of the parcel is managed by the State of Florida's Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and preserved as part of the Pitcher Plant Prairie. Two man-made lakes are located on the parcel. Wetlands likely exist on the parcel. The parcel is surrounded by LDR future land use, and proximate to Commercial future land use to the west. The zoning for the parcel is Commercial (C-1). The County's Comprehensive Plan In 1993, the County adopted its Comprehensive Plan and associated FLUM. The Plan established an area of Commercial future land use following Blue Angel Parkway from just south of Sorrento Road and Dog Track Road. The area is approximately 450 feet to 500 feet wide, and centers on and curves with the road. The result is a future land use of Commercial for the 250 feet of the subject parcel fronting on Blue Angel Parkway, with approximately 150 feet outside of the road right-of-way. The balance of the property is LDR. The Small Scale Development Application On or about May 28, 2003, the Shipman's agent filed a "Future Land Use Map Amendment Application" with the County. The application requests a change in the FLUM category or designation for the 8.98-acre parcel from LDR to Commercial. In part, the change was sought so that the property could be used for ". . . small businesses that could be represented in an area where large businesses already have been permitted." The application was reviewed by the County's Department of Growth Management staff and presented to the Escambia County Planning Board (Planning Board). Staff prepared a "Memorandum" which recites, in part, a positive staff recommendation. A Staff Analysis was prepared which analyzes the existing and proposed land uses in and around the parcel which is described above. The Staff Analysis also favorably evaluates infrastructure availability, such as potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, stormwater management, traffic, and recreation and open space. Comprehensive Plan consistency is also discussed. The "Impact on Natural Environment" is also discussed in the Staff Analysis. The Shipman's agent provided the County with a study prepared by Billy H. Owen, MPA, Coastal Zone Management Consultant, which "examines potential effects that recent, environmental, land use, regulatory, changes might have upon the future use, of a tract of land owned by Riley Shipman." The study is mentioned in the Staff Analysis. Mr. Owen performed on-site investigations of the parcel from April 24 through April 30, 2003. Mr. Owen used a "test- site" which "constitutes approximately two of a total of thirteen, or so, acres, and is situated directly adjacent to Blue Angel Parkway." Mr. Owen discusses, in part, the nature of wetlands on the parcel, whether these wetlands are jurisdictional wetlands (he concludes they are not), and provides an assessment of a two-acre parcel regarding "vegetation, soil, and hydrology." He states, in part: "The surface of this area has a patchy cover of similar sandy clay soil material as is found in the reclaimed fishpond region. Where the sandy clay fill is thin, that is less than one inch thick or not present, scattered collections of white pitcher plants, Sarracenia Leucophylla, an endangered plan [Rule 5B- 40.0055(1)(a) 165, F.A.C.], were noted. Thin patches of Large- leaved Jointweed, Polygonella macrophylla, a rare vascular plant, were present in this site, which is dominated by wiregrass." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 5B-40.0055(1)(a)334 and (1)(b)73. The Staff Analysis refers, in part, to Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.A.2.6.c and d, see Finding of Fact 27, and states: NESD Staff reviewed the consultant's study submitted by the Agent and provided input to Growth Management Staff regarding the potential wetlands impacts on the subject property. A subject matter expert from NESD Staff is available for specific comments if requested. Of note is the current policy that requires the degree of hydrological or biological significance to be determined prior to applying to the Florida Department of Environmental protection (FDEP) and/or the Corps of Engineers for permits. Without an exemption as recommended by the Agent's consultant in his study, the owners will be required to apply to the relevant agencies for mitigation if impacts to the wetlands are proposed. Furthermore, enforcement of the "Wetlands Ordinance" (Ordinance 2003-9, Attachment "C") will assure clustered development with wetland buffers outside any wetland portions on the site, as well as compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.A.2.6. County staff also discuss "changed conditions and development patterns," and noted that while "[l]arge portions of this area are now designated as Pitcher plant Prairie Preserve," "uplands within this area, especially at or near the intersection of main roads, are ripe for development. To further protect the wetlands from development impacts, commercial development should be clustered at these intersections. The intersection of Blue Angel Parkway and Sorrento Road is designated as a 'commercial node' in the draft Southwest Area Sector Plan currently being completed by EDAW. This amendment will further increase the concentration of commercial uses near the intersection, defining a sizable commercial node and reducing the potential for strip commercial development along Blue Angel Parkway." In the conclusion to the Staff Analysis, staff stated: The requested Future Land Use amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial follows a logical plan for development. A re-survey of the parcels is recommended to clearly define the subject area and to delineate potential wetland impacts. Understanding that wetland mitigation or, alternatively, a re- survey of the property may be necessary to reduce potential wetland impacts, Staff recommends that the future land use of the designated areas within the subject parcels be changed from Low Density Residential to Commercial. On July 16, 2003, the Planning Board considered the Plan Amendment. County growth management staff, including the Director of the Growth Management Department and the Escambia County Neighborhood and Environmental Services Department (NESD), provided the Planning Board with information during the hearing. Petitioner, a Planning Board member, raised several concerns, including whether the proposed FLUM amendment was inconsistent with Plan Policy 11.A.2.6.d. The Planning Board recommended the approval of the Plan Amendment by a vote of four to one (Petitioner). The matter was presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County (Board). The Board was presented with, among other documents, the Memorandum and Staff Analysis mentioned above. After a properly noticed public hearing, the Board approved the Plan Amendment on August 7, 2003, in Ordinance 2003-40. The Plan Amendment, as a future land use designation on the FLUM is not a development order. The Plan Amendment does not authorize development on or of the parcel, which includes any wetlands on the parcel. Internal consistency Petitioner contends that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Plan Goal 11.A, Objective 11.A.1, Policy 11.A.1.2, Policy 11.A.2.6.d, and Policy 11.A.2.7, because the Plan Amendment re-designates the parcel from a LDR future land use to a Commercial future land use, notwithstanding that the parcel has "wetlands that have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance." Petitioner also contends that the Plan Amendment in inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, because the County approved the Plan Amendment without utilizing "its own surveys, studies, or data regarding the property, including the character of the undeveloped land." See Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, pp. 12-13. The County adopted Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan Coastal Management and Conservation Element. Material here and under the heading "Coastal Management," Goal 11.A. provides: "Protect people and property by limiting expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters and by restricting development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources." (Emphasis added.) Objective 11.A.1, "Coastal and Upland," provides: "Continually, the county shall protect, conserve and enhance coastal ecosystems, environmentally sensitive areas, wetlands, water resources, living marine resources, remaining coastal barriers and wildlife habitats by monitoring these areas and implementing Policies 11.A.1.1 through 11.A.1.7, among others, upon adoption of this ordinance (reference Section 15.01)." Policy 11.A.1.2, "Future Land Use Element Resource Protection Policies," provides: "Limit the specific impacts and cumulative impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitats, living marine resources or other natural resources." (Emphasis added.) Policy 11.A.2.6, "Wetland Development Provisions," provides: Development in wetland areas as defined by the FDEP shall be subject to the following provisions: Where sufficient uplands exist to locate the proposed development in the upland portion of the site, the county may allow the transfer of development at the future land use densities established on the future land use map from the wetlands to the upland portion of the site. The transfer of density may occur provided all other plan provisions regarding upland and floodplain resource protection, compatibility of adjacent land use, stormwater management, airport environs, etc., are met. Development in wetlands shall not be allowed unless sufficient uplands do not exist to avoid a taking. In this case, development in the wetlands shall be restricted to allow residential density use at a maximum density of one unit per five acres or to the density established by the future land use map containing the parcel, whichever is more restrictive, or one unit per lot of record as of the date of this ordinance if the lot of record is less than five acres in size. (Lots of record do not include contiguous multiple lots under single ownership). Prior to construction in wetlands, all necessary permits must have been issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as required by the agency or agencies having jurisdiction and delivered to the county. With the exception of water-dependent uses, commercial and industrial land uses will not be located in wetlands that have a high degree of hydrological or biological significance, including the following types of wetlands: Wetlands that are contiguous to Class II or Outstanding Florida Waters; Wetlands that are located in the 100-year floodplain; Wetlands that have a high degree of biodiversity or habitat value, based on maps prepared by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Florida Natural Areas Inventory, unless a site survey demonstrates that there are no listed plant or animal species on the site. Also, see Policies 7.A.5.7, 7.A.5.8 and 11.A.1.7.1 (Emphasis added.) Policy 11.A.2.7, "LDC and Wetlands," provides: "The county shall implement the land use categories shown on the future land use maps by inclusion of the appropriate regulations within the LDC. Such implementation will ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land adjacent to the shoreline and near any wetlands." Objective 7.A.2. of the Plan dealing with "Future Land Use and Natural Resources" provides "Amendments to future land uses will be required to demonstrate consistency with the appropriate topography, soil conditions and the availability of facilities and services." Policy 7.A.4.7 provides future land use categories, including the low density residential category that is, in part, "intended to provide for the protection of important natural resources." Policy 7.A.4.7.c. Neighborhood commercial uses that are not a part of a predominantly residential development or planned unit development are allowed when they meet locational and other criteria of Plan Policy 7.A.4.13(A). Policy 7.A.4.7.c. Furthermore, "[r]ezonings and future land use map amendments to categories allowing higher densities will be discouraged consistent with Policy 7.A.4.3." Policy 7.A.4.7.c.(4). Policy 7.A.4.1 requires that all new development be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In his testimony at the final hearing, Richard Duane, P.E., Director of Planning and Engineering for the County, stated that when a land use change is sought as here, "[t]here is a policy to know what's on there [regarding wetlands]," but "[t]here is not a policy to delineate specific wetlands on future land use maps" nor whether they are high quality, bio- diverse wetlands. He further stated that the policy of Planning and Engineering "is to let the Land Development Code dictate to the Wetlands Ordinance [Section 7.13.00, "Wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands," Escambia County Land Development Code (Wetlands Ordinance)] through the development process." He discussed this policy with Keith T. Wilkins, Director of the Neighborhood Environmental Services Department (NESD) of the County.2 Mr. Duane stated that this is not an official policy of the Board of County Commissioners. But see Policy 7.A.5.8, Endnote 1. Mr. Duane stated that the reason for the policy is that a ". . . future land use map will not impact any wetlands on any site. Only through the development of the site will any impact to any site be made, and those impacts will be mitigated or determined through the development and review process." (The parties stipulated that "Escambia County has a Wetlands Ordinance in its Land Development Code that governs development in areas that have wetlands present.") Mr. Duane testified that the provision in Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.A.2.6.d would be met at the Development Review Committee (DRC) phase when wetlands would be delineated by the NESD staff. He also stated that this provision would not "impact his decision involving the small scale amendment." However, he did not ignore this provision; he discussed it with Mr. Wilkins and thought the wetlands should be reviewed through the Land Development Code. J. Taylor Kirschenfeld, now Senior Water Quality Scientist and formerly (as of two weeks before the final hearing) Senior Environmental Scientist in the NESD of the County, was requested by the Growth Management Department to review Mr. Owen's study. (Carol Heileman, Planning Board Coordinator provided the study to Mr. Kirschenfeld.) After reading the study, Mr. Kirschenfeld opined "that there are wetlands on the property." Mr. Kirschenfeld did not personally verify or view the conditions on the parcel. Mr. Kirschenfeld testified that the applicant's consultant's (Mr. Owen) report listed species of plants that would only occur in wetland areas, and in his opinion, there are wetlands on the property, which is consistent with the parties stipulation - "Wetlands likely exist on the property." Mr. Kirschenfeld sent an e-mail to Ms. Heileman that the parcel would meet the wetland definition in Section 3 of the County's Land Development Code and would be jurisdictional to the County, and, as such, Policy 11.A.2.6.d would apply to the parcel and the Plan Amendment. The e-mail was not provided to the Planning Board or to the Board of County Commissioners. On cross-examination by the County, Mr. Kirschenfeld testified that Policy 11.A.2.6.b refers to development of the wetlands and provides: "Development in wetlands shall be restricted to allow residential density use. . . ." He further stated that this provision does not refer to commercial density use or industrial density use. It simply talks about development in the wetlands being restricted to allow residential density use. He further stated that Policy 11.A.2.6.d ". . . talks about the exception of the water- dependent uses" and again states: "commercial [and] industrial land uses will not be located in wetlands." He then stated that the provision further talks about high degree of hydrological or biological functions. Upon further questioning of Mr. Kirschenfeld on cross- examination, Mr. Kirschenfeld stated that he understood that his supervisors believe that the NESD staff responsibility is to do wetlands review during the DRC process. However, he stated further that, particularly subparagraph d refers to land uses, making him think of zoning and future land uses, not just development.
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 concluding that the FLUM Plan Amendment No. 2003- 03, adopted by the Board of County Commission of Escambia County in Ordinance No. 2003-40, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Wakulla County plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 94-12 on March 28, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The Parties Respondent, Wakulla County (County), is a local governmental unit subject to the land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive growth management plans and amendments thereto. Petitioner, St. Marks River Protection Association (SMRPA), is a non- profit corporation whose basic purpose is to conserve and protect the St. Marks River. A majority of its members own property or live within the County. Many live along the St. Marks River and fish, swim, dive, and view the various life along the river system. Petitioner participated in the amendment process by appearing at hearings and submitting written comments. Therefore, it has standing to bring this action. Intervenor, N. G. Wade Investment Company, owns the real property which is the subject of the amendment in this proceeding. It also submitted comments to the County during the transmittal and adoptive phases of the process. The Nature of the Dispute The County adopted its current comprehensive plan (plan) on September 2, 1992. On October 15, 1992, DCA issued its notice of intent to find the plan not in compliance. The matter is now pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) in Case No. 92-6287GM. However, the County and DCA have reached a settlement in concept in that case and are drafting language for an acceptable remedial amendment. On February 24, 1993, intervenor made application for a plan amendment to change the future land use map portion of the plan on 240 acres of land in northeastern Wakulla County from agriculture-1 to industrial land use. The plan amendment was adopted by the County on March 28, 1994, and was found to be in compliance by the DCA on May 19, 1994. On June 3, 1994, petitioner filed a petition challenging the plan amendment on the ground the amendment was inconsistent with other parts of the plan, regional policy plan, and state plan as they relate to water quality, protection for ground and surface waters, wildlife habitat, traffic and provision of public services. Thereafter, the matter was referred to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing and has been assigned Case No. 94-3289GM. The Plan Amendment The amendment implements the County's policy to develop an industrial park and to expand the County's employment base by 1995. It was transmitted to the DCA in October 1993 for a compliance review. During its review process, the DCA considered comments from various entities, including the Apalachee Regional Planning Council (ARPC), the Northwest Florida Water Management District, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department (TLCPD). The DCA raised several objections to the amendment in its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) issued on January 28, 1994. These included criticisms that (a) the amendment was not supported by appropriate data and analysis, (b) the County had not properly coordinated with other affected government jurisdictions, and (c) it was not clear that the policy structure of the plan concerning industrial land uses provided adequate assurance that the proposed future land use map amendment would be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, including the need to protect natural resources. After coordinating with the DOT, ARPC, and TLCPD, and in response to the ORC, the County provided more land use analysis and a new traffic analysis. In response to the criticism concerning the protection of natural resources, the County submitted a summary of data and analysis of the soils, subsurface geology, and groundwater conditions on the site to show that the site was suitable for industrial development. On March 28, 1994, the County adopted the amendment and submitted the adoption ordinance and responses to the ORC to the DCA. As modified, the amendment called for a change in the land use designation from agriculture - 1 to industrial "for a proposed 240-acre light industrial planned unit development called Opportunity Park." The property is approximately one mile from State Road 363 and the Leon County line, and the land around it is presently subject to timber harvesting. The size and scope of industrial activities that could take place at Opportunity Park would be constrained by other provisions of the plan including floor area ratio, limitations on pre- and post-development ground and surface water flow rates, and requirements for wastewater reuse. After reviewing this material, the DCA accepted the County's response to the ORC and determined that the additional data and analysis were adequate. In determining whether the level of the data and analysis was adequate, the DCA took into consideration the fact that the County is a small, rural county with modest planning resources and with a very modest rate of population growth. Indeed, the County had only 14,202 people according to the 1990 population census, and it projects a growth rate of only 500 persons per year through the year 2000. The DCA also recognized that the County is in dire need of economic development. This is borne out by the fact that approximately 58 percent of its land is within conservation areas managed by the federal or state governments, 33 percent of the land is in agricultural use, and only 0.32 percent is in industrial land use. By letter dated April 28, 1994, the DCA received a recommendation from the ARPC to find the amendment generally consistent with the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan. Thereafter, on May 18, 1994, the DCA issued its notice of intent to find the amendment in compliance with the Act. Criticisms of the Amendment Generally In its petition, SMRPA has raised a number of grounds regarding what it perceives to be shortcomings in the plan amendment. First, petitioner contends that the amendment lacks adequate data and analysis, it fails to protect natural resources, and it violates the traffic element of the plan. Petitioner further contends that the amendment is inconsistent with those parts of the plan which concern the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times, the County failed to coordinate the amendment with adjacent local governments, and the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies of the plan's economic development element. Finally, petitioner asserts that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan concerning water supplies and fire fighting equipment, the amendment encourages urban sprawl, it fails to preserve the internal consistency of the plan, and it is contrary to the state and regional policy plans. Data and Analysis Updates to the data which support the County's plan indicate a need in the County for approximately 500 acres of additional industrial use. While the County did not provide the DCA with an analysis or description of the methodology that was used to arrive at the estimate of gross acreage needed in the supporting data, it offered demonstrative evidence that showed that approximately 200 acres of land that are currently designated for industrial use cannot be developed consistent with the County's plan because of existing constraints due to flooding. The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County did not consider or have available sufficient data and analysis to support a need for the new industrial land use in the County. Protection of Natural Resources The data and analysis supporting the County's plan designates the amendment area as having a high recharge potential to the Floridan Aquifer. The plan's supporting data and analysis also shows the entire County as on the Woodville Karst Plain and as an area prone to sinkhole formation. However, these general characteristics must be tempered by the site-specific data described below. An analysis of site-specific data consisting of soil boring tests and results, which data were considered by the County at the time of the adoption of the amendment, show that the area is underlain with clay confining layers which sit above the Floridan Aquifer. Therefore, the land is not in an area of high or even moderate recharge to the Floridan Aquifer because of the presence of these clay confining layers. An analysis of the site-specific data revealed that, unlike most areas of the County, the amendment area is not on the Woodville Karst Plain. Rather, it is on an ancient sand dune system known as the Wakulla Sandhills, a series of relic sand dunes overlying the St. Marks limestone formation. At the same time, the more persuasive evidence shows that the amendment area is not prone to sinkhole formation. Indeed, the existing depressions on the site are most likely deflation basins caused by wind activity on the sand hills and are commonly known as "blowouts." The evidence fails to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the County failed to consider or did not have available to it sufficient data and analysis to indicate how the subject amendment will protect the groundwater recharge areas to the Floridan Aquifer. The evidence also failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies of the County's plan. As to the issue concerning the protection of surface and groundwater quality, the County's soil survey performed by the United States Department of Agriculture shows the amendment area as having severe soil ratings for septic tanks. Even so, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that any development activity undertaken in the amendment area would be unlimited and would adversely impact natural resources. In fact, an analysis of the site-specific data indicates that the presence of the clay confining layers would severely retard the percolation of stormwater or wastewater to the Floridan groundwater acquifer. Although there is evidence of the presence of a surficial (perched) aquifer in the area that might contain pollutants, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the surficial aquifer is a natural drinking water resource in need of protection. There are no surface water streams in the vicinity of the amendment area. Also, there are no unusual site characteristics which would tend to cause pollution of surface or groundwater from industrial usage of the site. Potential discharge from industrial activities into the groundwater at the site would not affect Wakulla Springs or the St. Marks cave systems because these features are four to five miles away and are upgradient of the site. The evidence fails to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that industrial activities at the amendment site will adversely impact the water quality in the St. Marks River. As to the protection of wetlands, SMRPA provided no evidence concerning the existence, nature, extent or value of wetlands that would be impacted by use of the amendment area for industrial purposes. As to the protection of endangered or threatened species, SMRPA alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan concerning habitat protection for endangered or threatened species. There were, however, no endangered or threatened species observed on the amendment site. One gopher tortoise was observed leaving the site while two gopher tortoise burrows were also seen. While it is true that the gopher tortoise is a species of special concern, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has a permit program for the gopher tortoise that includes relocation of the tortoise or payment to a mitigation bank for habitat acquisition. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is in conflict with the relevant policies and objectives of the County's comprehensive plan. As to the protection of forests and agricultural lands, petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with policies and objectives of the County's plan, which state that the County shall encourage continuing use of land for agriculture. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the conversion of 240 acres of land from agricultural use to industrial use is in conflict with the general objective to encourage the continuing use of land for agriculture. Traffic Petitioner alleged that the amendment will allow development that will permit violations of the levels of service established for impacted roadways and policies 1.2 and 5.5 of the plan's traffic element. Petitioner failed to present any evidence showing that the levels of service established for impacted roadways and traffic circulation would be violated by the amendment. Therefore, petitioner failed to show that the amendment was in conflict with the cited policies. Hurricane Evacuation Times Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with objective 2(c) and policy 2.11 of the plan's coastal management element concerning the maintenance of existing hurricane evacuation times. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would result in an increase of the existing hurricane evacuation times. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioner alleged that the amendment was inconsistent with objective 1.1 and policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.4 of the plan's intergovernmental coordination element. Those provisions relate to the need to coordinate the County's land use map amendments and review the relationship of any proposed development to the existing comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. The evidence failed to show a lack of intergovernmental coordination of the impact of the plan amendment on the comprehensive plans of adjacent local governments. In fact, the evidence showed that the County coordinated with adjacent local governments, including the City of Tallahassee and Leon County. Economic Development Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with policies of the plan's economic development element. Specifically, it cites policies 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, which concern the County's objective to expand the employment base by 1995 by indentifying which businesses and industry jobs can be increased. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment would not expand the County's employment base by 1995. In fact, the evidence showed that the amendment will assist the County in achieving economic stability and will expand the employment base of the county by providing more job opportunities. Indeed, the eastern part of the County is now experiencing a trend towards industrial and commercial development, and a prison is being constructed adjacent to the site. At the same time, however, a decline in the County's seafood industry and layoffs at Olin Corporation, a major employer, reflect a need for new jobs. Finally, the amendment implements policy 6.1 of the economic development element which provides that "the County shall cooperate with the private and public sector to develop an industrial park with required facilities and services to attract businesses and industries." Water Supplies and Fire Fighting Equipment Petitioner alleged that the amendment is inconsistent with the capital improvement element of the plan because there are inadequate water supplies and fire fighting equipment in the area to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that there would be inadequate water supplies and fire fight equipment to support fire protection for industrial uses at the site. Failure to Discourage the Proliferation of Urban Sprawl Petitioner alleged that by placing an industrial site at the subject location, the amendment would encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment will encourage urban sprawl and inhibit advantageous growth in the area of the amendment. Failure to Preserve the Internal Consistency of the Plan Petitioner alleged that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan as required by the Act, in that it is in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Based on the findings of fact above, it is clear that the amendment is not in direct conflict with numerous plan provisions. Therefore, the evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment fails to preserve the internal consistency of the County's plan, as required by the Act. The State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan is contained in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Goals and Policies of the State Comprehensive Plan are contained in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, as a whole. The Regional Policy Plan The Apalachee Regional Planning Council has adopted the Apalachee Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan was adopted pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, to provide regional planning objectives to the counties in that region, which includes Wakulla County. The evidence failed to show to the exclusion of fair debate that the amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Standing On November 15, 1993, and March 26, 1994, or during the adoptive stage of the amendment, SMRPA filed comments and objections in form of letters with the County. On June 3, 1994, SMRPA filed its petition for formal administrative hearing with the DCA challenging the plan amendment. Throughout the course of this proceeding, intervenor has challenged the standing of petitioner on the theory that the corporation was dissolved prior to filing its petition, and even though the corporation was later reinstated, it was not the same corporation that filed comments and objections during the adoptive stage of the amendment. The facts underlying this claim are as follows. On April 27, 1989, petitioner filed articles of incorporation with the Department of State. On August 13, 1993, the corporation was administratively dissolved. On June 1, 1994, Virginia P. Brock, an officer of SMRPA, released the corporate name and stated that the officers and directors did not have any intention of reinstatement of the corporation. On May 30, 1994, new articles of incorporation for SMRPA were filed with the Department of State. This corporation had common officers and directors with the dissolved corporation. The articles of incorporation were rejected by the Department of State on June 10, 1994, on the ground all outstanding fees and taxes owed by SMRPA had not been paid. After such outstanding taxes and fees were paid through 1994, the Department of State deemed the status of SMRPA to be "active" as of June 14, 1994. Such reinstatement related back and took effect as of the effective date of the dissolution of the corporation on August 13, 1993, and the corporation was carry on its affairs as if no dissolution occurred.
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 the Wakulla County comprehensive plan amendment to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3289GM Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Rejected as being unnecesary. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 11. 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-26. Rejected as being unnecessary. 27-74. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 75-76. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26-29. 77-82. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 83-88. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 89. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 90. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. 92-93. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 95. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Respondent DCA 1-5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-3. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 11-13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 15-24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 27-41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. 42-43. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. 44-45. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. 46-47. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 48-49. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 50-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 52-53. Partially accepted in findings of fact 36 and 37. 54-55. Partially accepted in findings of fact 38 and 39. 56-57. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 58-60. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42 and 43. Intervenor and County: 1. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1-6. 2-4. Rejected as being unnecessary. 5-7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7-13. 8-19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 16-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 26 and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 28 and 29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. 23-25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32 and 33. 26-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 34 and 35. 28-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 42-47. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire Casey J. Gluckman, Esquire Route 5, Box 3965 Tallahassee, FL 32311 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301-1111 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether City of Miami Ordinance 12911, which amends the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP), is a small-scale development amendment, as defined by Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes; and (2) whether Ordinance 12911 is "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (Statutes refer to the 2007 codification.)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following facts are determined: The Property Subject to the FLUM Amendment TRG-MH Venture, LTD. (TRG-MH), is a Florida limited partnership formed for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of property in the southeast corner of a larger, 40- acre parcel owned by Mercy Hospital, Inc. (Mercy). TRG-MH and Mercy have executed a purchase and sale agreement for this corner parcel, which is located at approximately 3663 South Bayshore Drive in the Coconut Grove area of Miami, Florida (the Site). TRG-MH hired an architectural firm, Arquitectonica, to design on the Site a proposed residential development named 300 Grove Bay Residences (the Project). The Site, which currently serves as a paved parking lot for Mercy Hospital employees, measures 6.72 acres. The Site is abutted on the north, northwest, and northeast by the rest of the 40-acre parcel owned by Mercy and used for its hospital, professional offices, and patient and visitor parking. The tallest of these buildings is 146 feet. To the north of Mercy's property and medical complex is another 30-plus acre parcel owned by the Catholic Diocese of Miami and used for La Salle High School and a religious facility, Ermita de la Caridad. Abutting the northern boundary of the La Salle High School property is Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. To the west of the Site are a small convent, an administration building, and a modest-sized assisted living facility. To the west of these buildings is South Bayshore Drive, which is a four-lane road. Single-family residential neighborhoods are west of South Bayshore Drive. The Site is abutted on the southwest, south, southeast and east by Biscayne Bay. Grove Isle, a three-building, 18- story condominium/hotel/marina complex, is located on a small, man-made island (Fair Isle) in the Bay to the south of the Site. It is located approximately 1,300 feet from the Site and is separated from the Site by Bay water. Grove Isle has a future land use designation of Medium Density Multifamily Residential (M/D Residential) and is zoned Medium-Density Residential (R-3). However, Grove Isle is a legal nonconformity because it exceeds the densities allowed in M/D Residential and R-3. To the southwest of the Site, but separated from the Site by Bay water, are single-family and medium-density dwellings, including several multifamily structures. Petitioners Bloch and Steen reside in this neighborhood. No property zoned single-family residential (R-1) abuts the Site. Currently a paved parking lot, the Site has no archeological, environmental, or historical significance. Miami-Dade County had designated all of the City as an "Urban Infill Area." This designation is made in the County's Comprehensive Plan and is implemented in Policy LU-1.1.11 of the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The Parties The Vizcayans, Inc. (The Vizcayans), is a not-for- profit Florida corporation of volunteer members and a paid staff consisting of: an executive director, a membership director, and a controller. The purpose of the organization is to support the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens (Vizcaya), a publicly-owned and operated museum, through contributions and fundraising events. The Vizcayans' office at 3251 South Miami Avenue is located on the grounds of Vizcaya. The Vizcayans submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM Amendment and appeared in person and through lawyers at the City Commission hearings. The Respondent and Intervenors stipulated that The Vizcayans have standing as affected persons under Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to challenge the small-scale development amendment in this proceeding based on allegations that The Vizcayans operate a business in the City. Miami-Dade County owns Vizcaya. By contract, The Vizcayans provides funds annually to Miami-Dade County for use in maintaining Vizcaya's properties and conducting educational programs. Any funds in excess of those owed to the County under the contract are used to pay staff and host fundraisers or are invested for future use. Vizcaya is governed by the County through the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens Trust, which is an agency of Miami-Dade County. Jason Bloch and Constance Steen reside in the City and own properties to the southwest of the Site. Glencoe is a not- for-profit corporation of homeowners in the Glencoe neighborhood to the southwest of the Site. Mr. Bloch formed the corporation during the pendency of the application proceedings for the primary purpose of opposing the proposed development of the Site. Bloch, Steen, and Glencoe submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. Grove Isle is a not-for-profit Florida corporation of condominium owners. Grove Isle submitted comments in opposition to the proposed FLUM amendment. The City and Intervenors stipulated to Grove Isle's standing in these proceedings. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The City adopted its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, including its FLUM, in 1989. The Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM have been amended from time to time as allowed by law. TRG-MH is a joint venture limited partnership. Its direct and indirect participants include Ocean Land Equities, Ltd., and The Related Group. TRG-MH contracted to purchase the Site from Mercy and applied to the City for the FLUM Amendment at issue in this proceeding. TRG-MH also submitted applications for a change of zoning and MUSP on the Site. The zoning and MUSP applications, and the resulting City ordinance and resolution arising from their approval, are not at issue in this proceeding. Mercy is a not-for-profit Florida corporation that owns and operates Mercy Hospital. Mercy has contracted to sell the Site to TRG-MH. The FLUM Amendment In June 2007, TRG-MH applied to the City for a small- scale development amendment to change the Site's land use designation on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities (M/I) to High Density Multifamily Residential (H/D). TRG-MH submitted its application concurrently with its applications for a zoning change from G/I to R-4 and for a MUSP. According to the FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH was seeking a map amendment for a 6.723-acre parcel of real property. With its FLUM Amendment application, TRG-MH submitted a survey prepared and certified by surveyors Fortin, Leavy & Skiles. The survey depicted: the Site, as a parcel with a "net lot area" of 6.723 acres; a Proposed Road, measuring 1.39 acres, that wrapped around the Site on its west and north sides (the Perimeter Road); and a Private Road, also known as Tract "C" or Halissee Street, measuring .95 acres, which accesses the Site and Perimeter Road from South Bayshore Drive. Accompanying the survey was a legal description for the Site, which included a description for the proposed new Perimeter Road abutting the Site. The legal description covered an area comprising 8.11 acres. Also accompanying the application was a traffic analysis showing the impact to existing road networks of traffic resulting from the proposed MUSP application, which sought to build 300 residential units on property currently having no existing residential units. TRG-MH's applications were reviewed by the City's Planning Department and its Planning Advisory Board (PAB). The City's Planning Department recommended approval of the land use designation change. The PAB's 3-3 tie vote operated as to deny the request for a change of the land use designation recommendation. On April 26, 2007, the City Commission voted to approve the FLUM amendment application and, with modifications, the accompanying zoning and MUSP applications. (The City Commission approved the zoning change and MUSP subject to the condition that the size and scale of the Project be reduced by 25 percent across the board. Thus, for example, the height of the tallest of the three condominium buildings was reduced from approximately 411 feet to 310 feet.) The FLUM change was adopted by Ordinance 12911, which the Mayor signed on May 7, 2007. Ordinance 12911 amended the FLUM by changing the land use designation "for the property located at approximately 3663 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated." Exhibit A to the ordinance was the legal description included on the Fortin, Leavy, Skiles survey. The section of the MCNP entitled "Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map" describes the various future land use categories in the Plan. It describes the Major Institutional future land use category as follows: Major Institutional Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities: Areas designated as "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities" allow facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious or educational activities, and major transportation facilities and public utilities. Residential facilities ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" subject to the same limiting conditions. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) at 21 (June 2006). The same section describes the H/D Residential, in pertinent part, as follows: Areas designated as "High Density Multifamily Residential" allow residential structures to a maximum density of 150 dwelling units per acre, subject to the detailed provisions of the applicable land development regulations and the maintenance of required levels of service for facilities and services included in the City's adopted concurrency management requirements. MCNP at 20 (June 2006). (By way of comparison, M/D Residential is described similarly except that the maximum density is 65 dwelling units per acre.) According to the MCNP, the FLUM land use designations "are arranged following the 'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion, whereby subsequent categories are inclusive of those listed previously, except as otherwise noted." Ordinance 12911 was not reviewed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required for text changes and large- scale FLUM changes to a comprehensive plan. On June 4 and 6, 2007, Petitioners filed their petitions challenging the FLUM Amendment. Generally, the Petitioners alleged that the FLUM Amendment did not qualify for treatment as a "small-scale" development amendment; was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City's Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan; was not supported by adequate data and analysis; and was not "in compliance" with Florida's Growth Management Act and its implementing regulations. Scale of the FLUM Amendment A small-scale development amendment may be adopted if the "proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." § 163.3187(1)(c)(1), Fla. Stat. According to the survey and architectural plans on file with the City, the "net lot area" of the Site measures 6.72 acres. The City Zoning Code defines "net lot area" as "[t]he total area within the lot lines excluding any street rights-of- way or other required dedications." § 2502, City Zoning Code. In determining how large (in square feet of floor area) the planned Project could be, the architects were permitted, under the City's zoning regulations, to multiply the "floor area ratio" (FAR) for the High Density Multifamily Residential zoning classification by an area larger than the "net lot area." See § 401, City Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows the maximum square footage to be calculated using the Site's "gross lot area." Id. The City Zoning Code defines "gross lot area," in pertinent part, as "[t]he net area of the lot, as defined herein, plus half of adjoining street rights-of-way and seventy (70) feet of any other public open space such as parks, lakes, rivers, bays, public transit right-of-way and the like." § 2502, City Zoning Code. If the "gross lot area" to be used to calculate the maximum square footage involves properties under different ownership, either the owners must apply jointly for a MUSP, or they must enter a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title. Properties joined by a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title need not have the same land use designation or zoning classification. If a covenant-in-lieu of unity of title is required, it need not be submitted to the City until building permits are sought. At present, no covenant-in-lieu of unity of title has been prepared or executed for the Site. The "gross lot area" used to calculate the Project's maximum square footage of floor area measured 11.44 acres. Thus, the Petitioners argued that the FLUM Amendment "involved a use" of more than 10 acres. But the application requested a land use designation change on only 6.72 acres of land. Because High-Density Multifamily Residential use will not be made of the proposed Perimeter Road, the access road known as Halissee Street, or the proposed Bay Walk, a land use designation change was not required for that acreage. Indeed, according to the amended FLUM, there is no land use designation applied to Halissee or to the northern part of the Perimeter Road. Moreover, use of Halissee Street, the Perimeter Road, and the Bay Walk is not exclusive to the 6.72 acres but will remain shared with Mercy Hospital, its patients and employees, as well as with the public. The Petitioners attempted to prove that a marina was planned to serve the development, which would involve a total use of more than ten acres for residential purposes. Even if a marina was initially contemplated, the application on file with the City does not include one, and there are no approved plans for a marina to be incorporated into the proposed residential development. No marina is required to be developed in connection with the 300 Grove Bay project. Moreover, there was unrebutted evidence that it is highly unlikely that a marina would ever be permitted under the statutes now regulating Biscayne Bay. There is no evidentiary support for including any part of Biscayne Bay in the acreage subject to the small-scale FLUM Amendment because of a possible marina so as to support the Petitioners' claim that Ordinance 12911 should not have been processed as a small-scale amendment. Suitability and Compatibility of FLUM Amendment The Site is a parking lot. It is not environmentally sensitive and has no significant natural or archeological resources that would make it unsuitable for High Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Major Institutional accommodates the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the Mercy Hospital complex, which are compatible with and actually part of Coconut Grove. However, as pointed out by the City and the Intervenors, Major Institutional also allows future land uses that could be less compatible with the surrounding land uses, including the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens and the residential neighborhoods of Coconut Grove. While a lower density residential future land use would be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding uses, the issue in this case is the density allowed by H/D Residential--up to 150 residential units per acre, which Petitioners contend is incompatible with the surrounding land uses and inconsistent with previous efforts to protect Vizcaya and Coconut Grove from the intrusion of high- density residential development. The Petitioners also contend that the FLUM Amendment is not suitable on the bayfront. Suitability on the Bayfront The Petitioners contend that H/D Residential is not suitable on the bayfront for reasons related mostly to aesthetics and views. While it certainly would be possible and reasonable for a community to decide not to allow dense and intense development on significant water bodies, it was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the City has done so, or that H/D Residential is unsuitable on the Site for that reason. 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report The City's 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report ("2005 EAR") focused on two citywide issues relevant here: (1) the preservation and enhancement of historic and similar resources; and (2) neighborhood integrity and the need to protect existing neighborhoods from incompatible development. Vizcaya Museum Gardens Industrialist James Deering built Vizcaya in 1916 as a winter home. The land Deering purchased in the early 1900s was developed into a 180-acre estate that included his Mediterranean-style home, Italianate gardens, farms, orchards, and lagoons. The mansion and gardens were designed by three well-known architects and designers and constructed using local materials. When Deering died nine years later in 1925, Vizcaya was left to his heirs, who eventually sold the south gardens and western agricultural fields to the Catholic Diocese. The southern acreage (which included the Site) was later developed into a church (Ermita de la Caridad), a school (La Salle), and medical and hospital facilities (Mercy). The Diocese sold the western acreage, which was eventually developed into single- family-home subdivisions. In the 1950s, the Deering heirs sold the remaining property, consisting of the mansion, gardens, and farm buildings, to Dade County. In 1952, Dade County opened Vizcaya to the public. Since then, the County has operated Vizcaya as a museum, which has welcomed thousands of visitors annually and is a popular site for tourists, social functions, and photo shoots. The Vizcaya mansion and gardens have historical, architectural, and botanical significance. The mansion is an "architectural masterpiece" and an "outstanding example of Italian Renaissance Revival architecture." Vizcaya has been on the National Register of Historical Places since 1977; it was designated as a City Heritage Conservation District in 1984; and, in 1994, it was designated a National Historical Landmark-- one of only three in Miami-Dade County. The southernmost part of Vizcaya's gardens is approximately 1,600 feet from the FLUM Amendment Site, and the mansion is approximately 2,300 feet from the Site. For the specific purpose of objecting to the 300 Grove Bay project, The Vizcayans commissioned the Vizcaya Viewshed Impact Assessment, which is referred to as the "balloon" study, and the Vizcaya View Corridor Study. According to the balloon study, the 300 Grove Bay condominiums would be visible from the balcony on the south side of the mansion. Although the balloon study was based on the original Project building heights and not re-done using the reduced heights in the zoning and MUSP approvals, the Petitioners' witnesses said that the Project would still be visible through the existing landscape, even at the reduced height. The Petitioners' witnesses opined that the development of 300 Grove Bay would "overpower and overshadow" the gardens on the south side of the mansion. No federal, state, or local statutes, rules or ordinances, including those relevant to this proceeding, protect the view corridors of Vizcaya's gardens. Coconut Grove The area known as Coconut Grove was settled in the late 1800s and was considered "off the beaten path" from the City which was incorporated in 1896. Coconut Grove was incorporated as a separate municipality in 1919, but in 1925 it was annexed to the City, as were five other municipalities. Petitioners' witnesses observed that Coconut Grove is the only one of these towns that has continued to retain a unique and recognizable character. Vizcaya and Mercy Hospital, including the parking lot site, are located in the northern area of Coconut Grove. Coconut Grove is primarily, but not entirely, a residential community. Coconut Grove has an active "downtown" business, commercial, and hotel district. The Petitioners maintained that the northern area of Coconut Grove is primarily single-family residential. However, it also includes a non- conforming high-density development (Grove Isle), medium-density residential, Mercy Hospital and its professional buildings, an assisted living facility, a school, a church, and governmental office buildings, as well as two museums (Vizcaya and the Museum of Science). A Coconut Grove Planning Study was commissioned and printed in 1974, but the City never adopted it; therefore, it has no official status. The Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District In 2005, the City adopted by ordinance the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD-3). See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. According to the Code, a Neighborhood Conservation District is an "umbrella land use designation overlay," which allows for the tailoring of a master plan or of design guidelines for any area that meets certain criteria. See § 800, City Zoning Code. The intent of the Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation District is to "[p]reserve the historic, heavily landscaped character of Coconut Grove's residential areas and enhance and protect Coconut Grove's natural features such as tree canopy and green space." § 803.1, City Zoning Code. NCD-3 does not specify the High-Density, Multifamily Residential (R-4) zoning classification. But that does not mean that NCD-3 does not allow R-4. NCD-3 is enabling legislation that imposes greater restrictions within a geographic "overlay" for the zoning classifications addressed in Section 803.3. So far, NCD-3 has not addressed G/I and R-4 but only Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Commercial Districts. See § 803.3, City Zoning Code. For that reason, the ordinance does not apply to the Site. The "Grovenor Ordinance" The so-called Grovenor Ordinance was the City's response in July 2004 to the construction of a high-density residential project on property in Coconut Grove zoned "G/I Government and Institutional." The Grovenor Ordinance amended subsection of Section 401 of the City's Zoning Code to provide in pertinent part: G/I Government and Institutional Intent and Scale: The government/institutional category allows the development of facilities for federal, state and local government activities, major public or private health, recreational, cultural, religious, or educational activities, major transportation facilities, public utilities, and public and private cemeteries. Uses ancillary to these uses are allowed to a maximum density and intensity equivalent to the least intense abutting zoning district, subject to the same limiting conditions. Intensity: For residential uses: As for the least intense abutting zoning district. . . . * * * Permitted Principal Uses: Governmental and institutional uses as described in the City of Miami Comprehensive Development Plan designation of "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation and Utilities", however for accessory non-governmental or institutional uses-only such uses as may be permitted as principal uses in the least intense abutting zoning district . . . . § 401, City Zoning Code. The Grovenor Ordinance applies to property that is zoned G/I. The City's and Intervenors' witnesses testified that it applies only if G/I-zoned property ceases to be used for governmental or institutional purposes and is used instead for residential purposes. However, from the language of the ordinance itself, it is beyond fair debate that it also applies to G/I-zoned property that is used both for government or institutional uses and for ancillary residential uses. Clearly, without a FLUM change to a higher-density residential zoning category, in Coconut Grove the residential use on the Site would be restricted to the zoning classification of the "least intense abutting zoning district." Since it pertains to zoning, the Grovenor Ordinance does not directly apply to the issue of whether a FLUM amendment is "in compliance." However, it has some bearing on the proper interpretation and application of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP's future land use designations, which is important to the issues for determination in this case. The Pyramid Concept The City and the Intervenors rely heavily on their interpretation of the MCNP's pyramid concept of cumulative future land use designations to support the FLUM Amendment in this case. According to them, the FLUM Amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses because high-density multi-family residential use already is a permitted use as a matter of right for land designated "Major Institutional." Similarly, they maintain that, under the "pyramid" concept, high-density multi- family residential use is permitted as a matter of right in all of the commercially designated land in Coconut Grove. But it is beyond fair debate that their interpretation of the "pyramid concept" is incorrect. As indicated, the "'pyramid concept' of cumulative inclusion" applies "except as otherwise noted." In the Major Institutional future land use category, it is noted that residential facilities with densities equivalent to "High Density Multifamily Residential" (i.e., up to 150 units per acre) are permitted only if "ancillary" to the listed major institutional uses. Similarly, in the General Commercial future land use category, it is noted that high-density residential uses "are allowed by Special Exception only, upon finding that the proposed site's proximity to other residentially zoned property makes it a logical extension or continuation of existing residential development and that adequate services and amenities exist in the adjacent area to accommodate the needs of potential residents." If the "pyramid concept" authorized high- density multi-family residential use as a matter of right on land designated either Major Institutional or General Commercial, there would be no reason to limit those uses by notation. Under the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, free-standing high-density multi-family residential use of up to 150 units per acre is not already permitted as of right in either the Major Institutional or the General Commercial land use categories. Compatibility Notwithstanding the correct interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that High Density Multi Family Residential future land use on the Site is incompatible with the surrounding uses or is inappropriate. The lower density residential and other less intense future land uses in the MCNP are buffered from the Site by Biscayne Bay and by Medium Density Multifamily Residential future land use. Vizcaya is buffered from the Site by Mercy Hospital and related medical facilities and by La Salle High School. The compatibility of a specific density of residential development on the Site with less dense residential use in Coconut Grove and with Vizcaya, including issues regarding building height and intrusion into Vizcaya's view corridors, can be addressed through zoning and MUSP proceedings. Data and Analysis Data and analysis is another matter. Because of their incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" in the MCNP, the City and the Intervenors took the position that the FLUM Amendment constitutes "down-planning" and that the City was not required to perform the same level of analysis as it would have if the amendment sought a designation that permitted uses of greater impact, density, and/or intensity. The experts disagreed on whether "down-planning" is a concept in land use planning that can eliminate or minimize the requirement for data and analysis. In any event, the FLUM Amendment in this case could not be characterized as "down- planning." See Findings 57-59, supra. The MCNP's pyramid concept does not dispense with the need for data and analysis, and the data and analysis in this case was minimal and inadequate. The primary data and analysis in this case was the "Analysis for Land Use Change Request" (Analysis) that resulted from the City staff's review. After identifying the proposed land use designation and the uses permitted on it the Analysis recommended "Approval" of the FLUM Amendment and made four findings in support of "the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed. These findings are as follows: It is found that the subject property is part of the Mercy Hospital and do [sic] not front South Miami Avenue. It is found that the "Major Institutional, Public Facilities, Transportation & Utilities" category allows 150 residential units per acre and the requested "High Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow a maximum density of 150 residential units per acre. It is found that the requested change to "High-Density Multifamily Residential" designation will allow greater flexibility in developing the property at the above described location and therefore should be changed as part of the MUSP. It is found that MCNP Goal LU-1 maintains a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods, and (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts. Id. (Emphasis in original.) As to the City’s third finding, a particular developer's flexibility is irrelevant to the determination of whether the land use change is consistent with the MCNP. To the extent that flexibility in general could be relevant to the inquiry, the finding was incorrect. While allowing a free- standing high-density residential project that would not otherwise be possible, the FLUM Amendment eliminates all of the non-residential uses permitted within the "Major Institutional" category. The second finding was based on the City's incorrect interpretation of the "pyramid concept" of the MCNP, which led the City to wrongly equate a primary use with an ancillary use and to simply assume no population increase would result from the FLUM Amendment, and that the FLUM Amendment would result in "down-planning." Attached to the City's Analysis was a separate "Concurrency Management Analysis," which addressed in summary form the data and analysis generated by the applicant and by the City's staff to address the "impact of [the] proposed amendment to land use map within a transportation corridor." The "Concurrency Management Analysis" also was predicated on the assumption that the FLUM change to HD Residential would not increase population. Essentially, it assumed without any data or analysis that infrastructure was available for 1,008 people living on the Site, even though the Site is being used as a parking lot at this time. This data and analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. As to transportation, there was additional evidence of a traffic analysis performed by the City in support of the Project’s MUSP. This MUSP traffic analysis utilized a proper starting point of zero population on the Site at this time. It then projected the impact of the addition of 300 units. This was more than the 225 units ultimately approved in the MUSP but did not analyze the much larger potential increases in traffic that would be allowed under the FLUM Amendment, which is not limited to 300 units. There also was no data or analysis to show that limiting the analysis to 300 units was reasonable. It also only looked two years into the future. The MUSP traffic analysis also did not address the 2005 EAR finding that Bayshore Drive will be at level of service F by year 2025, without even any development on the Site. In short, the MUSP traffic analysis was inadequate to support the FLUM Amendment. The City and Intervenor took the position that the designation of the entire City as an urban infill area meant that every parcel is appropriate for high-density multi-family residential development. This is not correct. It is still necessary to look at comprehensive plan to determine which areas are appropriate for that kind of future land use and to have data and analysis to support it. See Payne et al. v. City of Miami et al., 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885, *10-13 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007) (on motion for rehearing). For these reasons, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis supporting the FLUM Amendment were inadequate. Inconsistency with City's Comprehensive Plan The Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with any MCNP goals, objectives, or policies. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners did not prove that the FLUM Amendment at issue is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order that the FLUM Amendment adopted by City of Miami Ordinance 12911 is not "in compliance," as defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jason Gonzalez, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney City of Miami Miami Riverside Center, Suite 945 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Patrick J. Goggins, Esquire Patrick J. Goggins, P.A. Sun Trust Building, Suite 850 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2811 John Charles Lukacs, Esquire John C. Lukacs, P.A. 201 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 305 Coral Gables, Florida 33134-6616 H. Ray Allen, II, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Stephen J. Darmody, Esquire Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Miami Center - Suite 2400 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4339 Lewis W. Fishman, Esquire Lewis W. Fishman, P.A. Two Datran Center, Suite 1121 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7848 John K. Shubin, Esquire Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 Southwest First Street, Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130-1610
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an amendment to the future land use map of the Martin County comprehensive plan, Amendment No. 98-3, is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Hobe Sound Citizens Alliance, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Alliance"), is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. The Alliance was organized in July 1998 primarily to respond to proposed land use designation changes for the property that is the subject of this proceeding and for other property. The Alliance has three officers (a President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and an eight-member Board of Directors. The officers and directors of the Alliance all reside in Martin County, Florida. The members of the Board of Directors are from different neighborhoods in Martin County. The Alliance maintains a mailing list of approximately 500 individuals who are considered "members" of the Alliance. These individuals have all expressed interest in the activities of the Alliance, but have not taken any formal steps to join the Alliance, such as paying dues or completing an application for membership. In fact, the Alliance does not collect dues or have a membership application. Petitioner, Mary A. Merrill, is an individual who resides in an area of unincorporated Martin County, Florida, known as "Hobe Sound." Ms. Merrill serves as President of the Alliance. During the process of adopting the amendment which is the subject of this matter, Ms. Merrill and the Alliance made comments and objections. Respondent, Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County is located on the east coast of Florida. The County is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, on the south by Palm Beach County, on the north by St. Lucie County, and on the west by Lake Okeechobee and a portion of Okeechobee County. Intervenor, Hobe Sound Land Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Partnership"), is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida. The Land Partnership's general partner is Hobe Sound Land Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Company") and the limited partners are a number of trusts organized for the benefit of various members of the Reed family. The Land Partnership is the owner of the property which is the subject of this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The County's Comprehensive Plan. General The County has adopted a comprehensive land use plan as required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The Martin County Florida Comprehensive Growth Management Plan 1999/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), has been determined to be "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act. The Future Land Use Element The Plan includes a Future Land Use Element (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUE"), consisting of the following: Section 4-1, "Background Information"; Section 4-2, "Analysis of Land Use Features"; Section 4-3, the "Future Land Use Map and Map Series"; Section 4-4, "Goals, Objectives and Policies"; Section 4-5, "Performance Standards"; and Section 4- 6, "Implementation Strategies." Sections 4-1 and 4-2 consist of what the County refers to as "narrative" sections which the County gives less weight to in determining whether an amendment to the Plan is "in compliance" than it gives Section 4-4, which contains the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. These narrative sections of the Plan, however, are not "data and analysis." They were adopted as a part of the Plan. See the second unnumbered page of the Plan. The FLUE establishes 13 separate and distinct land-use categories. These land-use categories determine the uses to which property subject to the Plan may be put. The Plan's Future Land Use Map and Map Series (hereinafter referred to as the "FLUM"), depicts all property subject to the Plan and depicts the land use category assigned to all property in the County. Among the land use categories established in the FLUE pertinent to this proceeding is the "Institutional" land use category. To distinguish this category from the "Institutional- County" land use designation of the FLUE, the category is referred to as the "General Institutional" category. Property designated as General Institutional is subject to the following sub-categories or intensities of use: "retirement home, churches, schools, orphanages, sanitariums, convalescent, rest homes, cultural organizations, military, colleges, hospitals, federal, municipal, utilities, and rights- of-way." Section 4-4.M.1.h.(3). of the FLUE, provides the following Policy governing the use of General Institutional property: General Institutional - The General Institutional category accommodates public and not-for-profit facilities such as, but not limited to schools, government buildings, civic centers, prisons, major stormwater facilities, fire and emergency operation center facilities, public cemeteries, hospitals, publicly owned public water and sewer systems, dredge spoil management sites, and airports. Investor owned regional public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries may be allowed in General Institutional. . . . While Institutional use is reserved for the above uses, this shall not prohibit for- profit medical offices and other ancillary facilities owned by a non-profit hospital as long as they are part of a Planned Unit Development. . . . . . . . The Plan also establishes land use categories in the FLUE for the residential use of property. All land which is designated for residential development on the FLUM is subject to Section 4-4.M.1.e. of the FLUE: The Land Use Map allocates residential density based on population trends; housing needs; past trends in the character, magnitude, and distribution of residential land consumption patterns; and, pursuant to goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, including the need to provide and maintain quality residential environments, preserve unique land and water resource and plan for fiscal conservancy. There are seven types of designated residential land use categories created by the Plan. Those uses include the following: 10 units per acre for "high density;" 8 units per acre for "medium density;" 5 units per acre for "low density residential;" 2 units per acre and 1 unit per acre for "estate density;" .5 units per acre for rural areas. There is also a "mobile home density" category. The lowest density of .5 units per acre is reserved for those areas that are designated as rural. The estate density categories are used for areas are located "generally on the fringe of the urban service districts and generally are not accessible to a full complement of urban services." Sections 4-4.M.1.e.(1) and (2) of the Plan. Of primary pertinence to this proceeding is the residential land use designation of "Low Density Residential." Residential land designated "Low Density Residential" is limited by Section 4-4.M.1.e.(3). of the FLUE as follows: Low Density Residential Development. The low density residential designation is reserved for land accessible to existing urban service centers or located in the immediate expansion area. Densities permitted in this area shall not exceed five (5) units per gross acre. Review of specific densities shall be directed toward preserving the stability and integrity of established residential development and toward provided equitable treatment to lands sharing similar characteristics. Design techniques such as landscaping, screening and buffering shall be employed to assure smooth transition in residential structure types and densities. Generally, where single family structures comprise the dominant structure type within these areas, new development on undeveloped abutting lands shall be required to include compatible structure types on the lands immediately adjacent to existing single family development. Excessive Residential Property and the Active Residential Development Preference Planning System. Section 4-2.A.6.c. of the Plan recognizes that the County has designated an excessive amount of land for residential use. This section of the Plan indicates that, at the time the Plan was adopted, there was a projected need for 26,231 acres of land to accommodate the projected population of the County to the Year 2005. It also indicates that, as of the date of the Plan, 35,834 acres of vacant land had been designated for residential use, well in excess of the amount of land necessary to meet demand. Despite the requirements of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, requiring appropriate planning for residential needs within a local government's jurisdiction, the Plan was approved by the Department as being "in compliance" with the designation of an excessive amount of land for residential use in the County. Instead of requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with planning for future residential land use needs, the County and the Department entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifying that the Plan include a requirement that the County undertake the collection of more current land use data and refine the various land use predictive factors it had been using. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement also required that the County institute an Active Residential Development Preference Planning System (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP System"), to monitor the timing and location of residential development in the County. Section 4-2.A.8. of the Plan provides a Policy dealing with future residential land use requirements for the County. The Policy reports the over-allocation of vacant land designated for residential uses in the County and the need for the ARDP System. The Policy specifically provides, in part: While the current pattern on the Future Land Use Map will remain as is, an active residential development "125% test" will be used in conjunction with location and land suitability requirements in the review and approval of future land use and/or project requests. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, location within the Primary, or Secondary Urban Service District; consistency with the Capital Improvement Element; protection of natural resources; and adequate provision of facilities and services at the adopted level of service. The Policy goes on to provide that residential development in the County will be maintained at 125 percent capacity through the ARDP System and describes other measures to reduce the amount of excessive residential property to be developed in the County. Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan establishes a Policy requiring that the County implement the ARDP System by May 1991. Consistent with Section 4-4.A.6. of the Plan, the County has adopted the ADRPP System. Environmental Protection Considerations in the FLUE Section 4-2.A.6.d. of the Plan recognizes that residential use of land located near or on the coast can threaten the "preservation of the very attributes of the area which make it attractive for growth." Therefore, the Policy provides that any such development is to be planned to minimize the threat by "assuring that the environmentally sensitive and threatened habitats are preserved." The Policy also provides: Certain areas in Martin County are recognized and beginning to be identified by federal, state and local programs as environmentally sensitive. These areas provide special value in producing public benefits, including: recreational opportunities, life support services, tourism, commercial and sport fishing, scenic values, water purification, water recharge and storage, and sensitive habitats critical to the survival of endangered wildlife and plants. Urban development in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas can significantly reduce their environmental values. Additionally, there are important public health concerns associated with development in these areas, particularly in relation to potable water and waste disposal in low lying areas. . . . Section 4-2.A.6.f. of the Plan recognizes the importance of natural vegetation. The Policy also recognizes that urban development removes or alters the County's natural vegetation. Coastal Management Element Section 8.4 of the Plan establishes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies for the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The area subject to this Element is described on maps adopted as part of the Element, including the map depicted in Figure 8-1. The Subject Property is not located within the coastal management area established by the Element. Section 8.4.A.2.a. of the Plan provides "land use decisions guidelines" requiring a consideration of the impacts of development on fish, wildlife, and habitat, including cumulative impacts. These guidelines, however, apply to development within the coastal management area established by the Plan. Conservation and Open Space Element Chapter 9 of the Plan establishes the Conservation and Open Space Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Element are set out in Section 9-4 of the Plan. Section 9-4.A. of the Plan establishes the following Goal: The goal of Martin County is to effectively manage, conserve and preserve the natural resources of Martin County giving consideration to an equitable balance of public and private property rights. These resources include air, water, soils, habitat, fisheries and wildlife with special emphasis on restoring the St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon. Section 9-4.A.2.a. of the Plan requires that the County continue to enforce and improve its Wellfield Protection Ordinance. The Wellfield Protection Ordinance is intended to regulate land use activities within the zones of influence of major wellheads. Section 9-4.A.2.b. of the Plan provides the following: New potable water wells and wellfields shall be located in areas where maximum quantities of regulated materials (e.g. hazardous and toxic materials) do not exceed the proposed criteria of the Wellfield Protection Ordinance. At the time future wellfield locations are identified, establishment of incompatible land uses within the zones of influence of such wells shall be prohibited. Objective 9-4.A.9. of the Plan provides for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and habitat. Policy 9- 4.A.9.a. of the Plan provides the following: Land use decisions shall consider the effects of development impacts on fish, wildlife and habitat and the cumulative impact of development or redevelopment upon wildlife habitat. In cases where rare, endangered, threatened or species of special concern are known to be present, a condition of approval will be that a preserve area management plan be prepared at the time of site plan submittal. . . . To ensure adequate protection, protected plants and animals, which cannot be provided with sufficient undisturbed habitat to maintain the existing population in a healthy, viable state on site, shall be effectively relocated in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Potable Water Service Element Chapter 11 of the Plan establishes a Potable Water Service Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 11-4. Section 11-4.A.5 of the Plan provides that, by 1991, the County was to establish programs to conserve and protect potable water resources within the County. The specific components of the programs are provided. None of those provisions are relevant to this matter. Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element Chapter 13 of the Plan establishes a Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element. The Goals, Objectives, and Policies of this Element are contained in Section 13-4. Section 13-4.A.1. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: Martin County will maintain existing ground water and surface water quality, improve areas of degraded ground water and surface water quality and prevent future contamination of ground water supply sources. Section 13-4.A.2. of the Plan establishes the following Objective: "Enhance the quantity of ground water recharge and maintain desirable ground water levels." The Objectives, and the Policies established to carry them out, recognize the significance of ground waterrecharge and groundwater levels in the County. Preservation of groundwater recharge and groundwater levels is a significant goal of the County. None of the Policies established to carry out the foregoing Objectives specifically eliminate the use of vacant land located near wells for residential purposes. Plan Amendment Adoption Procedures Procedures for the adoption of amendments to the Plan are established in Section 1.11, "Amendment Procedures," of the Plan. Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan provides the following procedures for evaluating changes to the FLUM: In evaluating each land use map amendment request, staff begins with the assumption that the 1982 Land Use Map, as amended, is generally an accurate representation of the Board of County Commissioners and thus the community's intent for the future of Martin County. Based on this assumption, staff can recommend approval of a requested change providing consistency is maintained with all other Elements of this Plan if one of the following four items is found to be applicable. That past changes in land use designations in the general area make the proposed use logical and consistent with these uses and there is adequate availability of public services; or That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. That the proposed change would meet a necessary public service need which enhances the health, safety or general welfare of County residents. In the event that staff can not make a positive finding regarding any of the above items, then staff would recommend denial. (Emphasis added). The Plan requires that the Director of the County's Growth Management Department, after review of a proposed amendment, submit recommendations to the Local Planning Agency for consideration. The Local Planning Agency is required to certify its findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners of Martin County (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Miscellaneous Provisions of the Plan. Section 4-2.A.6.e. of the Plan deals with agricultural use and vacant land. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.A.1.a. of the Plan establishes a Policy that requires that the County revise its Land Development Regulations in existence at the time the Plan was adopted. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. Section 4-4.E.1. of the Plan requires that the County revise its Land Development Code by July 1990. The evidence failed to prove that the amendment at issue in this case is inconsistent with this portion of the Plan. The County's Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement. The County and the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), entered into a Sustainable Communities Designation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Designation Agreement"). The Designation Agreement was entered into pursuant to Section 163.3244 of the Act. Pursuant to the Designation Agreement, the Department designated the County as a "sustainable community." Among other things, the designation of the County as a sustainable community eliminates the need for the County to have the Department review and comment on amendments to the Plan that affect areas within the urban growth boundary or "Primary Urban Services District" created by the Plan. The Subject Property. The Subject Property is a parcel of real property located in the Hobe Sound area of unincorporated Martin County. The Subject Property consists of approximately 24.5 acres of land. The land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM is General Institutional. The Subject Property is undeveloped, vacant land. It is comprised of sandy soils, native upland scrub habitat with native Sand Pine groundcover. The Subject Property was described in an Executive Summary of the proposed plan amendment considered by the County as follows: The parcel is located in an area considered to be one of the last contiguous large areas of native upland scrub habitat in Florida. Groundcover is almost entirely native Sand Pine with some primitive trails and small areas of disturbed land. Endangered species found on the parcel include the Florida Scrub Jay and Gopher Tortoise. Sand Pine is considered to be endangered, unique or rare and the Comprehensive Plan policy 9- 4.A.7.f(2) states that "Where possible, increased conservation (twenty-five (25) percent of the total upland area) of native upland habitats which are determined to be endangered, unique or rare in Martin County, or regionally rare will be required by Martin County." The Subject Property is bounded on the north by Saturn Avenue, a two-lane residential street; on the south and west by undeveloped land; and on the east by U.S. Highway One, a multi- lane divided highway. The property to the north is designated Low Density Residential; the property to the east is designated for commercial uses; and the property to the south and west is designated General Institutional. While located relatively close to the Intercoastal Waterway, the Subject Property is not located on the "coast." The Subject Property was previously owned by the Hobe Sound Water Company, a privately owned water utility. At the request of Hobe Sound Water Company, the Subject Property was designated as General Institutional. No wells currently are located on the Subject Property. The Subject Property was acquired from the Hobe Sound Water Company by the Land Partnership. The undeveloped land located to the south of the Subject Property is owned by South Martin Regional Utilities (hereinafter referred to as "SMRU") and is utilized for a water plant and wells. SMRU acquired this land and the remainder of the land used by the Hobe Sound Water Company from the water company. There are five wells located on the property to the south of the Subject Property. The property to the west of the Subject Property is also owned by SMRU but is not being utilized for wells. The property acquired by SMRU was, and remains, designated as General Institutional. The Subject Property serves as a significant ground water recharge area because of the porous nature of the soils of the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located within the Primary Urban Services District of the Plan. The Subject Amendment and Its Review. The amendment at issue in this proceeding was initiated by the Land Partnership after it acquired the Subject Property from the Hobe Sound Water Company. At the time of the acquisition of the Subject Property, the Land Partnership knew or should have known that it was designated for General Institutional use. The Land Partnership requested a change in the land use designation for the Subject Property on the FLUM from General Institutional to Low Density Residential or "the most appropriate land use designation." The proposed amendment was reviewed by the staff of the County's Growth Management Department. Among other things, the staff considered whether any of the four items specified in Section 1-11.C.2 of the Plan applies to the amendment. The staff determined that the first and fourth items listed in finding of fact 41 did not apply, that the second item was somewhat applicable, and that the third item applied to the amendment. The proposed amendment was also reviewed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (hereinafter referred to as the "TCRPC"). Comments concerning the proposed amendment were prepared by the TCRPC, but were withheld because review by the TCRPC is not required due to the sustainable communities designation for the County. The draft comments of the TCRPC, however, raised objections to the proposed amendment due to concerns over the potential endangerment to the wellfields in the area and the potential destruction of critical habitat and vegetation. No copy of the TCRPC's regional plan was offered in evidence in this case. Nor did anyone associated with TCRPC testify about the draft comments. The Department also informally reviewed the proposed amendment. Rather than prepare an Objections, Comments, and Review report on the proposed amendment, the Department prepared informal comments, which it provided to the County. Those comments were responded to by the County. Hearings to consider the proposed amendment were conducted by the Local Planning Agency. On January 21, 1999, the Local Planning Agency voted to recommend that the proposed amendment not be adopted. The proposed amendment was designated Amendment No. 98-3 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment"). The Amendment was adopted by the Board on September 28, 1999, as a part of Ordinance No. 553. The evidence failed to prove that any relevant procedure for adopting the Amendment was violated by the County. The Amendment changed the land use designation for the Subject Property from General Institutional to Low Density Residential on the FLUM. This designation would allow the development of the Subject Property for a maximum of 122 residential units. Data and analysis supporting a potential increase of 122 units of additional residential property did not exist when County adopted the Amendment. Nor does such data and analysis exist now. ARDP System Data. Since the implementation of the ARDP System the County has been collecting and analyzing data concerning residential development in the County. No timely annual update of that data and analysis had been prepared prior to the adoption of the Amendment. The most recent data available was from 1995. During the adoption process for the Amendment, at the request of a member of the Board, an ad hoc report containing data and analysis concerning residential development in the County was prepared and presented to the Board. A full and detailed report was prepared subsequent to the adoption of the Amendment. The report, the ARDP Memorandum of June 7, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "ARDP Memo"), was reviewed and approved by the Board. The report was also received in evidence during this de novo proceeding and has been fully considered in preparing this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the ARDP Memo for the five-year period 2000-2004, there is a need for 6,252 residential units needed to serve population increases. The 125 percent cap of the ARDP System on new residential units allowed in the County is 7,816 units. This amounts to an additional 1,564 units authorized by the ARDP System over the actual number of units needed based upon population projections. The number of approved/unbuilt units and other offsets against the number of allowed new residential units for the County during this period totals 7,015 units. Consequently, there are 801 units (7,816 minus 7,015) available for development through the end of 2004. These available units are more than sufficient to cover the additional units which may arise as a result of the development of the Subject Property pursuant to the Amendment. For the five-year periods of 2005-2009 and 2010-2014, there are 6,314 and 6,578 units available for development through the end of these periods, respectively. Despite the foregoing, the approval of an addition of 122 units of residential property will increase an already excessive designation of property for residential use. The Impact of the Amendment. The most significant impact of the Amendment is to further increase the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the amount of the increase in the amount of land allocated for residential use in the County. The Amendment will also negatively impact sensitive habitat for endangered species of plants and animals. Development of the Subject Property, however, as Low Density Residential or General Institutional has the potential for the same general negative impact on sensitive habitat. That negative impact is not inconsistent with what the Plan allows. The Amendment will not have a negative impact on the role of the Subject Property as a ground water recharge area or the availability of potable water in the County. Any development of the Subject Property will be subject to County and South Florida Water Management District regulations requiring that there be no effect on the quality or quantity of ground water in and around the Subject Property as a result of development. The only action that will preserve the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area would be to keep the property undeveloped. Neither the current land use designation of General Institutional nor the proposed land use designation of Low Density Residential will ensure that the Subject Property remains undeveloped. An estate density designation, although generally used for urban fringe areas, with a density of 1 or 2 units per acre, would reduce the negative impacts of the environmental features of the Subject Property and its role as a recharge area. The evidence failed to prove that the Amendment constitutes "urban sprawl" as defined in the Plan. The Need for a FLUM Amendment. In order for the Amendment to be approved, since it is an amendment to the FLUM, it must be shown that one of the four items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan is met. The evidence proved, and the parties agreed, that the first and fourth items listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan do not apply to this Amendment. The remaining two items of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan are: That the growth in the area, in terms of development of vacant land, redevelopment and availability of public services, has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics; or That the proposed change would correct what would otherwise appear to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation. While there has been an increase in the amount of development to the north of the Subject Property, the area immediately around the Subject Property has not changed. The evidence failed to prove that any change in the character of the area surrounding the Subject Property "has altered the character of the area such that the proposed request is now reasonable and consistent with area land use characteristics. . . ." The second item listed in Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan has not been met. The County's determination that the remaining item, that the proposed change would correct what appears to be an inappropriately assigned land use designation, is based upon the fact that the current owner, the Land Partnership, is not the type of entity the Plan identifies as an appropriate owner of General Institutional property. Section 4-4.M.1.h. of the Plan provides the following concerning the ownership of General Institutional designated property: Except for investor owner public water and sewer systems and private cemeteries, Institutional land shall be owned by public agencies or non-profit service providers. As a consequence of the foregoing, the only use to which the Land Partnership may put the Subject Property under its current land use classification would be as a cemetery, public water, or sewer system. The latter two uses are not practicable uses for the Subject Property. Although the fact that the Land Partnership knew or should have known of the land use category of the Subject Property and the limitation of the uses to which it could put the property before it purchased it, it still appears reasonable to conclude that the third item of Section 1.11.C.2. of the Plan applies to the Amendment. I. Petitioners' Challenge. On October 28, 1999, the Alliance and Ms. Merrill, jointly filed a Petition for Administrative Hearings with the Division challenging the Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3244(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 163.3187(3)(a) and 120.57, Florida Statutes. On February 1, 2000, Petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing. Pursuant to the Amended Petition, Petitioners alleged that the Amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Sections 163.3177 and 163.3180 of the Act, the TCRPC's strategic regional policy plan, and portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners also alleged in the Amended Petition that the Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3161, 163.3167, 163.3194, and 163.3244 of the Act. These allegations are not relevant to the determination of whether the amendment is "in compliance" as those terms are defined in the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Commission enter a final order finding that the Amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 David A. Acton Senior Assistant County Attorney Martin County Administration Center 2401 South East Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-1197 Raymond W. Royce, Esquire Carrie Beth Baris, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-3208 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 315 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Charles Canaday, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
