The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. SSA 03-07 (Plan Amendment) adopted by Bay County (County) through the enactment of Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, T & P Enterprises of Bay County, Inc. (T & P), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in this state, and operates such business at 20016 Front Beach Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, is a resident of Bay County, Florida, and is the President of T & P, which operates a seasonal resort at 20016 Beach Front Road in Panama City Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Edgar Garbutt, submitted written comments in opposition to the Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment at issue before the adoption of SSA 03-07. Intervenor, Barbara S. Harmon, owns a house located at 190 16th Street in Panama City, Florida. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in 1994. The Harmon property is located in the Laguna Beach subdivision. Mrs. Harmon was one of the property owners who petitioned the County for adoption of SSA 03-07. The Property The property affected by SSA 03-07 consists of twelve separate parcels of land totaling approximately 2.35 acres located in unincorporated Bay County. The property lies within a two-block area generally situated south of First Avenue, East of Wisteria Lane, and along both sides of 16th Street, which is west of the municipal boundaries of Panama City Beach in what is commonly known as the West Beaches. Two of the parcels subject to the Plan Amendment are located on the Gulf of Mexico south of Front Beach Road. The twelve parcels are not contiguous. The predominant type of structure on these parcels are one-story housing structures used primarily for residential purposes. Some of the structures are used as short-term or long-term rentals. Others, including the Harmons' house, are used as second homes during the summer season, or on weekends. Mrs. Harmon and her husband purchased their house in Bay County in 1994. They reside there six to nine months a year. They also have a residence in Gadsden, Alabama. The Harmons bought their house in Bay County because they wanted a house close to the beach in a clean, quiet neighborhood. The area affected by the Plan Amendment is predominantly residential in character. The area is generally built-out as residential land use. The area has not substantially changed since the Harmons purchased their house in 1994. Background Bay County adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1990. The 1991 existing conditions map accompanying the Comprehensive Plan shows that most of the property in the West Beaches Area was "predominantly medium density residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." Mrs. Harmon testified that her house on 16th Street was designated Residential under the County's Comprehensive Plan at the time she purchased it in 1994. In 1994-1995, as part of its Comprehensive Plan evaluation and appraisal process, Bay County's planning staff undertook a "windshield survey" of the West Beaches Area. The windshield survey indicated that Laguna Beach 1st through 7th additions were platted or developed between 1938 and 1954, and consisted primarily of a mix of older single-family houses, mobile homes, multi-family buildings, and church buildings. The windshield survey reflected seasonal resort uses on the south side of Front Beach Road on the Gulf of Mexico. The windshield survey shows that the predominate land use in the West Beaches Area in 1994-1995 continued to be residential, as it was at the time of the 1991 existing conditions map. In December 1999, Bay County adopted amendments to its Comprehensive Plan in which it created the SR FLUM category. Under the Plan, the purpose of the SR FLUM category is "to provide areas for a functional mix of compatible seasonal/resort land uses where the clientele are predominantly seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists." The uses allowed include beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, apartments or other similar multi-family structures, motels, lodges, restaurants, convenience stores, retreats, and lounges, bars, and other similar uses and public utilities." The criteria for designating areas as SR are "areas with concentrations of accommodations and businesses that are used for non-residential, tourist-oriented purposes." The Plan further provides that "Year-round, permanent residences should not be located in this area." The County's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), which was the data and analysis relied upon by Bay County for the 1999 plan amendments, defined these seasonal or temporary visitors and tourists as people who visit Bay County for an average 5.385 days. Terry Jernigan, the former Bay County Planning Director, testified that in developing the SR category, the County focused primarily on "typical summertime tourists" who stay for weekend, weekly, and monthly rental periods and attempted to identify areas that were tourist areas or were likely to become transient in nature in the future. Second homeowners and seasonal visitors were not considered when the SR category was developed. The SR Future Land Use Map category has also been applied in the beach areas of unincorporated Bay County located east of the municipal boundaries city of Panama City Beach. Development in that area includes large high-rise condominiums and hotels, bars, T-shirt shops, and night clubs. The SR category was also applied to a number of properties in the West Beaches Area that are indicated as residential uses in the County's official windshield survey, including the parcels that are the subject of the amendment at issue. Mr. Jernigan testified that an indicator of an area that was transient in nature was the large number of signs indicating that the properties were for rent. Mrs. Harmon testified that since she purchased her property in 1994, she had observed no signs advertising rentals in the area in which the properties subject to the amendment are located. Mrs. Harmon was motivated to seek the FLUM amendment from SR to Residential to prevent high-rise development, bars, T-shirt shops, and noise increases that she has observed in the SR category east of Panama City Beach. The applicants for the subject amendment are concerned that the SR category may adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Development of the Plan Amendment In the spring and early summer of 2002, Bay County began receiving "grass roots petitions" from property owners in the West Beaches Area requesting that either their future land use designation or zoning be changed from SR back to Residential. The petitions stated that the FLUM designations were changed without notice to the property owners. These petitions initially involved 400-500 parcels of land. In response to the grass roots petitions, the County identified several "target areas" where there were a large number of parcels generally contiguous to each other. At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, on August 28, 2002, County staff sent letters to individuals within the target areas asking them if they wanted the land use designated on their properties changed from SR to Residential and attaching a land use map application form. Allara Mills Gutcher, a County Senior Planner III, testified that the County wanted assurances that the petitioning property owners understood the nature of the change they were requesting. The County's letter directed to the property owners in the target areas not only asked if the owners wanted a land use designation change, but also indicated that a petitioning property owner would be required to pay the County a $1,100 fee to apply for the land use change. Although the letter indicated that the Board was considering waiving the fee, no evidence was presented that the Board made a decision on the waiver or that the approximately 180 property owners to whom the County had written had received further notice from the County regarding the $1,100 fee. Some County property owners, including Mrs. Harmon, complained to the County that the application fee discouraged a number of property owners from submitting FLUM amendment applications. The forms accompanying the County's August 28, 2002, letter also advised the property owners that small scale plan amendments could only be considered in connection with a specific plan of development or hardship, restrictions not contained in either the County's Plan or Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Ms. Gutcher testified that only 20 responses to the County's letter were received. The Plan Amendment Summary Sheet on the subject amendment, however, indicates that a result of the mail out was the submittal of an application to change approximately 30 properties along Front Beach Road in another area, Sunnyside Beach, from SR to Residential. This amendment is known as the Centeno amendment, and was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2002. One of the target areas of the mail out was the Laguna Beach Subdivision area where Intervenor Harmon's property is located. After receiving the County's August 28, 2002, letters and learning of the Centeno/Sunnyside small scale plan amendment, Mrs. Harmon spearheaded an effort to seek the subject small plan amendment in her neighborhood. She worked with County staff on the locations of properties to be included in the proposed amendment. Erroneously included in the first proposed plan amendment was The Laguna Beach Christian Retreat property on Front Beach Road, owned by Petitioners. Mrs. Harmon brought this error to the attention of County staff, and Petitioners' property was removed from the proposed amendment, leaving 16 lots included in the amendment package. County staff initially supported the 16-lot proposed small scale plan amendment in Mrs. Harmon's neighborhood in part because it included properties adjacent to First Avenue on the north and contiguous to properties currently designated Residential on the FLUM. Prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting at which the subject amendment was considered, three individuals owning four of the 16 lots withdrew from the plan amendment application. These withdrawals included the two lots on First Avenue contiguous to the existing Residential FLUM area, a lot on 16th Street, and a lot on Front Beach Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested FLUM change from SR to Residential on the 12 remaining parcels. County staff did not dispute the appropriateness of the Residential FLUM designation for the subjected properties, but did not support the plan amendment for the remaining 12 lots because of the configuration of the map. Ms. Gutcher testified that her objection was not to the actual land use designation of the subject land parcels, but to the configuration of the Plan Amendment which interspersed parcels designated SR with the residential parcels. The 12 lots subject to the Plan Amendment are not contiguous to existing Residential lands and there are SR lots adjacent to lots that were changed to Residential. Ms. Gutcher, however, stated that adjacency of future land uses is not a requirement of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gutcher further testified that although she considered the Plan Amendment "poor planning" and did not support the Plan Amendment, she did not consider the Plan Amendment violative of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. On June 3, 2003, the Bay County Board of County Commissioners accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and voted to adopt small scale amendment No. SSA 03-07 amending the FLUM designation on the 12 lots from SR to Residential. Internal Consistency Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), require that all comprehensive plan amendments, including amendments to the FLUM be consistent with the other provisions of the applicable comprehensive plan taken as a whole. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with several discrete provisions contained in the County's Comprehensive Plan; however, when taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with the goals and policies of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Because the Plan Amendment at issue here amends the FLUM designation from SR to Residential, of particular significance to the analysis of internal consistency in this case is the County Comprehensive Plan's Residential FLUM Category. Policy 3.3.1. of the Future Land Use Element in the County's Plan provides that "criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development shall be as shown on Table 3A." Table 3A contains the following criteria and standards for the Residential FLUM category: Purpose: To provide areas for a functional, compatible mix of residential land uses, and to protect property values in viable residential neighborhoods. Designation Criteria: Existing residential areas, residential subdivisions recorded with the Clerk of the Court prior to adoption of this Plan, areas adjacent to existing residential areas, "in-fill" of vacant areas otherwise surrounded by urban development, and low density rural community development. Allowable Uses: Those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy including single-family, duplex, triplex, quadraplex, and manufactured housing. These uses are generally coded as 100 to 900 on the DOR Property Use Code Table for property tax purposes. Public utilities, recreation, conservation. Limited public institutional uses and educational facilities (Policy 2.8.1) may also be allowed. The County Comprehensive Plan does not define the terms "residential occupancy" or "residential use." Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, setting out the minimum criteria for review of comprehensive plans, defines "residential uses" as "activities within land areas used predominantly for housing." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(108). In its compatibility analysis, the County described the subject area as "primarily developed as a single-family use today" "similar to current uses in the area." The area is an existing residential area. The predominant type of structure in the area is one-story residential structures used for housing. Except for one vacant lot, each property that is the subject of the amendment contains a one-story single-family residence. All houses on the amendment properties are used as homes, second homes or long-term rentals. None of the houses included in the Plan Amendment are rented on a short-term basis. The evidence demonstrates that the properties included in the Plan Amendment are now used for housing. All but one of the Plan Amendment properties are coded 100 on the tax code, which is the same as the DOR Property Use Code Table referenced in the Residential FLUM category in Table 3A of the Plan. One lot included in the Plan Amendment is vacant and is coded 0000 on the tax code. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the stated purpose, designation criteria for existing residential areas, and allowable uses for the Residential FLUM designation stated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Many properties in the West Beaches area are rented; however, according to Mrs. Harmon, most properties that are subject to the Plan Amendment are not rented or are rented on a long-term basis. Neither the provisions of Table 3A describing the Residential FLUM category, nor the definition of "residential use" in Chapter 9J-5, distinguish between owner-occupied and rental housing use. One significance of a land use designation from a planning perspective is its impact on infrastructure. That impact is the same whether a house is rented or owner-occupied. Whether the structures are owner-occupied or rented is not a land use amendment compliance issue. Wendy Grey, Petitioners' expert witness, testified that the configuration of the Plan Amendment is not consistent with those portions of the Goal Statement in the Future Land Use Element of the Plan that express the County's goals "to promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development" and "to promote compatibility between land uses and reduce the potential for nuisances." Ms. Grey opined that leaving some properties designated SR surrounded by Residential properties does not promote an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development. That portion of the Goal Statement referring to an orderly and efficient pattern of growth and development was taken directly from the intent sections of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The language governs the overall planning process of allocation of future land uses based upon infrastructure, natural resource protection and efficiency in terms of using existing infrastructure. It is based upon the purpose of the Growth Management Act to manage the extent, distribution and timing of future growth, discourage urban sprawl, and maximize existing infrastructure. These are terms of art under the Growth Management Act, and have nothing to do with drawing the polygons on the map. Tony Arrant, the County's expert witness, testified that the predominance of the small scale amendments he has seen focus on specific areas that have other land use classifications next to the parcel amended, just as with the Plan Amendment. Further, the Goal Statement also includes a statement that the plan should "protect viable neighborhoods." The amendment is consistent with this portion of the goal statement by designating an existing residential area for residential use. When read as a whole, the Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal Statement. Designating residential properties for residential use is also consistent with the Goal Statement in the Housing Element of the Plan and with Housing Element Objective 8.5, which requires that the County preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods. To make a land use amendment uniform throughout a block, connected to existing residential land uses, and following street rights-of-way helps with code enforcement issues and is easier for the public to understand. However, these are not compliance issues. The configuration of the Plan Amendment and the symmetry or lack of symmetry of the future land use map is not a compliance issue. Policy 3.2.1 of the Future Land Use Element governs amendments to the FLUM. It does not require any particular map configuration, or that FLUM boundary lines follow street rights- of-way. There is no express requirement in the Plan that FLUM boundaries must always follow roads. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 3.7.2. of the Future Land Use Element of the County's Plan. Policy 3.7.2. prescribes the general criteria for zoning districts shown on an Official Zoning District Map. This policy implements Objective 3.7, which provides that "By 2001, (the County will) adopt a zoning code to further the intent, and implement the objectives and policies of this Plan." The County has not yet adopted a zoning code. Petitioners specifically rely on the following criteria in Policy 3.7.2.: 4. District boundaries will be drawn so as to follow property lines, road rights-of way, geographic features, section lines, or other readily identifiable features. Where possible, district boundaries will be drawn so as to create buffers between potentially incompatible land uses. District boundary lines shall be drawn so as to minimize the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses. Ms. Grey opined that the Plan Amendment is not consistent with Policy 3.7.2. because the FLUM boundary lines do not follow roads and other geographic features, making it difficult to implement Policy 3.7.2. when a zoning code is adopted. Ms. Grey, however, also acknowledged that it would be possible to draw a zoning map that is consistent with the Plan Amendment. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.9.1. which defines "compatibility" of land uses. Ms. Grey opined that interspersing SR with Residential land uses does not promote compatibility. The Plan Amendment recognizes the current use of the subject property. Under the broad categories of permissible uses for the SR designation there are many compatible uses. Moreover, Mrs. Harmon testified that she believes Petitioners are entitled to engage in their business activity, and that everyone in the West Beaches Area got along fine until the SR designation was adopted. The Plan Amendment can be viewed to support the compatibility of land uses because it is consistent with the land uses that are already there. Therefore, the Plan Amendment may serve to decrease the possibility of future incompatibility. It will provide a level of security for the areas that are residential in that any redevelopment of other developed properties will have to be reviewed in light of Comprehensive Plan policies requiring protection of viable residential areas. Additionally, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several of the many policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan to implement Objective 1.2. Policy 1.2.1.2 states that it is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest. The subject property has historically been residential, the current use of the property is residential, and the interest of the public is served in continuing the residential nature of the property as indicated by the responses to the County's letter of August 28, 2002. Policy 1.2.1.3 states that a purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to overcome "present handicaps." Ms. Grey opined that if the SR category is a handicap, the Plan Amendment does not overcome it because there are still SR parcels around the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not define "present handicap" and there is no evidence that the SR category is a "present handicap." Policy 1.2.1.4 requires that the Plan deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land because the Plan Amendment does not address potential incompatible uses between SR and Residential. There are many permissible land uses, including beach houses, cottages, condominiums, townhouses, and apartments in the SR category that are compatible with the Plan Amendment. Moreover, Ms. Grey stated that a zoning map could be drawn consistent with the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment recognizes the land uses that currently exist on the subject property. The Plan Amendment is consistent with the land uses already there. Taken as a whole, the Plan Amendment furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Ms. Grey opined that there was not adequate data and analysis to demonstrate that residential land use was the most appropriate or suitable for the subject property and within the public interest. Ms. Grey stated that the primary purpose for the Plan Amendment was to respond to individual requests to change the land use classification. She also believed that the lack of homestead exemptions for the majority of the area was data that supported the SR and not the Residential land use classification. Ms. Gutcher, however, testified that she reviewed appropriate data and the Plan Amendment was supported by the types of data and analysis typically provided for FLUM amendments listed in Policy 3.2.1. of the plan. These data included the national wetlands inventory, the ITE Journal for the Traffic Counts, and other data contained in the checklist in Chapter 3 of the Comprehensive Plan. There was sufficient data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment, including the following: (a) the fact that the 1990 Plan designated the area as Residential; (b) the 1994 windshield survey identifying the area as residential; (c) the fact that the actual uses of the properties are for housing; (d) the existing residential character of the area; (e) the property owners' desire that their properties be designated Residential; and (f) the 1991 existing land use map identifying the area that is the subject of this case as "predominantly medium density, residential with low density residential also being a majority land use category." The population projections in the County's EAR are required to include both resident and seasonal populations to arrive at a functional population. This number is then used to plan for the amount of residential, commercial land use authorized. Chapter 9J-5 and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, do not differentiate seasonal housing from permanent housing in forecasting future land use needs. There is adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment.
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. SSA 03-07 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Bay County in Ordinance No. 03-06 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Office of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the City of Panama City's (the City) Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 04-20S adopted by Ordinance No. 1985 (the Plan Amendment) is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether the petition challenging the Plan Amendment should be dismissed as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Robert E. Moore owns a home and resides at 1310 Kristanna Drive, Panama City, Florida. The northwestern property line of Mr. Moore's home is adjacent to the northeastern corner of the Property. JE 7; PE 98-B at RM.2 There is an approximate 100-foot-wide Bay County maintained canal or drainage ditch (canal) that forms the northern boundary of the Property, see Endnote 1 and PE 50 at 7, which runs in an east-to-west direction at the northern portion of his home. This canal eventually leads to North Bay to the west.3 Goose Bayou is located south of the Property. Mr. Moore taught respiratory care at Gulf Coast Community College for approximately 23 years and is retired. His residence was affected by a hurricane which passed through the area in September 2004. He noticed water appearing half-way up his driveway, which is not on the canal. He is concerned with the placement of additional homes in this area in light of his experience with the water level after the recent storm event. (Generally, Mr. Moore stated that there is a two- foot difference between low and high tide in this area. T 133, 137.) Mr. Moore, as well as the other Petitioners, made oral and written comments to the City Commission during the Plan Amendment adoption hearings. See City's Unilateral Pre-Hearing Stipulation at 5, paragraph E.4.; T 213. The St. Andrews Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) was established in 1986 and is a citizen's organization devoted to the preservation of the quality of St. Andrews Bay and its surrounding ecosystems. T 194. (St. Andrews Bay is a larger body of water which includes North and West Bay and Goose Bayou. See generally JE 12, Map 1.) The RMA has approximately 100 members. The RMA uses, but does not own, an office on the Panama City Marine Institute campus located within the City. The RMA occasionally conducts seminars or conferences and offers several programs for citizens, e.g., sea turtle nest watch, a water sampling program (Baywatch), and a sea grass watch program. The RMA meets every month except during the summer. T 195-196. The RMA opposes the Plan Amendment, in part, because of concerns with the effect of development on what Ms. Shaffer characterized as the "pine islands." Linda Anne Yori owns and resides in a house at 908 Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, which is "just off Kristanna" Drive and to the east. See PE 98-C at the blue X. She teaches middle school science at a local public school. She has observed the Property, and generally described the Property, and vacant property to the north, as "upland hammock with salt marsh." T 209. In general, Ms. Yori opposes the Plan Amendment because she "believe[d] the environmental impact would be too great." Mary Rose Smith owns and resides in a house on Ashwood Circle, Panama City, Florida, two houses away from Ms. Yori's residence. Ms. Smith regularly jogs throughout the neighborhood. She believed that there are approximately 400 homes in Candlewick Acres and six vacant lots remaining. T 214- 215. As a result of recent hurricanes in the area, she observed flooding approximately half-a-mile upland along Kristanna Drive from the west-end to the east (half a mile to the turn off to Ashwood). PE 98-D at the blue 1/2 designation and blue line. While she cannot say for certain where the water came from, she believed the water "came from the bay or the bayou." T 220. The Bay County Audubon Society (BCAS) conducts membership and board meetings within the City limits and also owns a piece of property in the City. BCAS has approximately 400 members. Members live within the City. BCAS is concerned with the environment and with "the density of the proposed development" and "access to the pine islands." T 409-411. The City is the local government unit responsible for approving the Plan Amendment at issue in this proceeding. § 163.3187(1)(c), Fla. Stat. The Application, Review, and Adoption of the Plan Amendment On or about May 11, 2004, James H. Slonina, P.E., the president of Panhandle Engineering, Inc., filed an application on behalf of Robert H. and Barbara B. Hansman, requesting the City to annex "approximately 9.9 acres including lots, paved roadways and bridged drives" and further requested a land use designation to allow proposed residential development." The Property, see Endnote 1, is designated on a Bay County parcel map. A flood zone map is also included, but lacks clarity. The Property is vacant. JE 13. The purpose of the annexation and request for land use designation "is to accommodate the development of a 13+/- lot single-family residential waterfront development adjacent to North Shore Subdivisions." The application also stated: To support the residential home sites, there are adequate adjacent public roadways and utilities. Due to the unique physical configuration of the property, traditional RLD lot standards may not [sic] applicable. While we would prefer to pursue an RLD-1 designation, the application is submitted contingent upon confirmation of an appropriate land use designation and an approval of the proposed project. If another course of action is available, which would allow for the development of 13+/- single-family residential lots on 9.9 acres, please advise. JE 13. (It is represented throughout this record that the land use designation is requested for approximately 6.8 acres rather that approximately 9.9 acres. See, e.g., JE 7 at 1; JE 11 at 12-13.) The application was reviewed, in part, by Mr. Thomasson. JE 7. The staff report4 dated July 30, 2004, stated that the request is to amend the City's FLUM from Conservation (as previously designated by Bay County) to RLD with a Zoning District classification of RLD-1. (The staff report referred to several permitted uses under RLD-1. JE 7 at 2. The permitted uses for RLD-1 are those contained in the City's "Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code (LDRC)" at section 4-6.1.2.a. JE 4 at IV:8-9. However, the propriety of the RLD-1 Zoning District classification for the Property is not at issue in this proceeding. T 266.) The staff report also stated that the Property "is currently zoned conservation, abuts property to the North that is designated conservation Land Use category in the County and is just North of an existing Special Conservation Treatment Zone," which is indicated on a map on page 1 of the staff report. JE 7 at 1. The staff report stated that "[w]ater and sewer infrastructure and other urban services are available to this property." See T 286-287, 301-303, 307-308; JE 7 at 1. Under the background section, it is stated that "[t]he property has been seen as environmentally significant and has been the object of an effort to purchase for perpetual protection by a local land trust organization. It is adjacent to an existing development to the East." Id. The Plan provides that an RLD land use district "is intended to provide areas for the preservation of development of low-density neighborhoods consisting of single-family dwelling units on individual lots" with a density of "[n]o more than five dwelling units per acre." The allowed intensity is "[n]o more than 40% lot coverage as determined by dividing the impervious areas by the gross area of the site or lot." JE 3 at 1-2. The staff report contained findings of fact with citations to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Element, the Coastal Management Element, and the Conservation Element. References to the LDRC are also provided. See also T 285-311, 315-317, 320-321; JE 7 at 2-3. Thereafter, specific findings are made: Staff finds that this property, as a part of the St. Andrews estuary, serves as a breeding, nursery, feeding and refuge are for numerous marine creatures, birds and upland wildlife. The three pine and oak hammacks [sic] are a few of a rare estuarian resource. The marsh throughout the area serves as home for seagrass and other marine organisms that are integral with the biodiversity of the estuary. There also exists a [sic] archaeological sites [sic] consisting of an ancient Indian midden that has already been classified by the Director of the Florida State Division of Historical Resources as deservant [sic] of mitigation and potentially eligible for the National Historic Registry (see attached documentation). The site overall has a biotic community of nearly 90% of it [sic] total area. Staff findings are that this proposed Land Use Amendment is inconsistent with the above listed mandates of the Comp Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed Land Use is inconsistent with the LDR Code, in that it is not in harmony with the Comp Plan (Subsection 2-5.5.6.e. above), as well as the requirements of the environmental protection standards of Section 5-5. This decision hinges on the whether the City intends to enforce it's [sic] environmental protection standards of the Comp Plan and the LDR Code and if the site is seen as environmentally significant. JE 7 at 4 (italics in original). Ultimately, staff recommended approval only with the following conditions: 1.) that the fullness of the subject property be designated as a Conservation Special Treatment Zone [CSTZ][5] and that the pine and oak hammacks [sic](as referred to as "Pine Islands" in the Bay County Comp Plan) are prohibited from being developed; and 2.) that the area of the subject property that is beyond the mean high tide of the mainland portion, which specifically means the marshes/wetlands and the oak and pine hammacks [sic], shall be placed in a conservation easement and dedicated to either the City, or a third-party land trust or conservancy. JE 7 at 4. (Mr. Hammons, the City Manager, disagreed with the staff report, in part, because there was no data to support several findings. T 119-124.) On August 9, 2004, the Planning Board of Panama City met in regular session to consider the application. The request was to approve a small scale land use amendment to the FLUM of the Plan from Conservation (under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan) to RLD with a zoning classification of RLD-1 for the Property. JE 11 at 2. But see Finding of Fact 15. Mr. Fred Webb and Dr. Frasier Bingham were present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Webb advised that the Bingham's and the Webb's owned the property which consisted of approximately 6.5 acres of uplands. But see Finding of Fact 29 regarding the ownership of the Property. In part, Mr. Webb stated that the grass beds would not be impacted and that there was no legitimate environmental complaint. Dr. Bingham stated that he is an ecologist, specializing in shallow water ecology. JE 11 at 3. He said his family had purchased the upland property in 1948 and the submerged land in the 1960s. Beginning in 1991, Dr. Bingham stated he tried to get the government to purchase the property, but to no avail. He also recounted attempts to obtain permits from DEP and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). See, e.g., PE 60, 63-64.6 He believed that the bridge problem, identified by the Corps had been solved. JE 11 at 3 and 13. (There is no persuasive evidence in this record that the Corps has approved any permits for development of the Property.) Mr. Webb stated that all maintenance to the bridges and other utilities would be the responsibility of the association (for the developed Property) and not the City and that the City would only be responsible for police and fire. Id. at 4. Mr. Thomasson addressed the Planning Board. JE 11 at The staff report previously mentioned is incorporated in the minutes. Staff felt that the CSTZ designation would be the most appropriate designation due to the environmental issues and that the RLD-1 designation would be the least intense land use available under the Plan. Board member Pritchard inquired whether the application was incomplete "as it doesn't address the environmental issues." Mr. Thomasson stated the applicant did not believe there would be any environmental impact, while staff believed the property to be environmentally significant. JE 11 at 8. Dr. Bingham again addressed the Planning Board to refute the staff's findings of fact. Dr. Bingham said that "the wetlands would not be impacted, the grass beds would not be impacted, and the stormwater runoff already goes into the grass beds, which are, in his opinion, fine grass beds" and that "that 13 houses would not have any significant impact." He indicated that soils were not at issue and that the "property is sandy, not special." Id. at 9. Mr. Webb indicated that "they had evaluated the environmental aspects and added the raised bridges, swales, etc." JE 11 at 9. Numerous individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Apparently, by a show of hands "a large majority of those present were in opposition to the request." JE 11 at 12. It appears that two persons spoke in favor of the request. Id. at 9-11. Mr. Webb confirmed that the application requested approval of the land use designation and annexation for 6.8 acres. JE 11 at 12. He also advised that a limited liability corporation owned the 6.8 acres, while there are different owners of other parcels. Mr. Webb indicated that "only the uplands on the islands were being annexed," although "he was not sure the properties were 'islands' in legal terms." Id. at 13. Mr. Webb indicated that he was willing to indemnify the City against any legal expenses arising from this request. Id. The requested land use change was approved by a vote of three to two. Id. at 14. On September 28, 2004, the City Commission considered Ordinance No. 1985 pertaining to the requested land use designation change and Ordinance No. 1995 pertaining to the annexation of the Property. These Ordinances were read by title only as a first reading. JE 10 at 293-294. During this meeting, the minutes (JE 10) reflect that Mr. Webb stated that they would only be developing the upland islands and proposed to use bridges, which he says "the environmental regulatory community has considered to have almost no environmental impact. He said that the addition of thirteen single family residential homes to an area that has seven hundred homes will not materially affect level of service." JE 10 at 289. Several of the people who appeared before the Planning Board also appeared opposing the application for annexation and land use designation change. JE 10 at 290. Mr. Martin Jacobson, Planning and Zoning Manager for Bay County filed a formal letter of objection to the annexation. Id. Mr. Fred Beauchemin opposed the annexation and responded to eleven items which were discussed by Mr. Webb and Dr. Bingham during the Planning Board meeting, including representations of impacts to grass beds, wildlife resources, and soils. JE 10 at 290-292. Mr. Webb continued to feel that there would not be any destruction of the marshes. Id. at 292. Dr. Bingham again noted that he is a shallow water marine ecologist and felt that he was informed about the environmental situation on the Property. Id. at 293. After brief discussion by some of the Commissioners, Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995 were approved by a vote of three to two. JE 10 at 293-294. By a letter dated November 9, 2004, Daniel Shaw, A.I.C.P., memorialized the October 5, 2004, Bay County Commission's unanimous decision to contest the potential annexation of and land use change to the Property, referring to several provisions of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. T 228; PE 69. Mr. Shaw opined that "[c]learly, development proposed for the annexed Pine Islands violates the County's Comprehensive Plan." PE 69 at 2. He further stated: What's more the proposed annexation also violates the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Policy 5-5.2, 5-5.3 related to preservation of Environmentally Significant Resources would prohibit the proposed development. The property is a part of the St. Andrews estuary, and serves as a breeding/refuge area for numerous marine creatures, birds and wildlife. The three pine and oak hammocks are a truly rare estuarine resource for Bay County and for the State of Florida. The marshlands contain valuable sea grass beds and are home to numerous marine creatures, which are integral to the biodiversity of the estuary. Finally, the property contains valuable archeological sites, consisting of ancient Indian middens that are classified by the State Division of Historical resources, and potentially eligible for the National Historic Register. I would concur with staff's memorandum of August 9, 2004, which cites numerous other examples of where the development would violate the City's plan. PE 69 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Shaw also stated that the Property is located in the coastal high hazard area, within a "V" zone for flood regulations.7 He stated that "[t]hese designations argue for prohibiting development for public safety and infrastructure investment purposes." Again, Mr. Shaw stated that Bay County opposed the potential annexation and subsequent land use reclassification. PE 69 at 3. Mr. Shaw also testified during the final hearing and reaffirmed his prior position. T 232-245. Mr. Shaw stated that the Property, prior to annexation by the City, was designated Conservation under the Bay County Comprehensive Plan, which allows for limited residential use and the preservation of pine islands (an outright prohibition).8 He was not qualified, however, to make a determination whether any portion of the Property is a pine island. T 247. Mr. Shaw thinks that Bay County allows up to 15 units per acre in the coastal high hazard area. T 254. On November 9, 2004, the City Commission met and considered a final reading of Ordinance Nos. 1985 and 1995. Several people appeared opposing both ordinances including Mr. Moore, Ms. Smith, Ms. Yori, and others. JE 8 at 3-14; JE 9 at 3-5. Mr. Webb again addressed the City Commission and stated, in part, that "nothing in the marsh would be touched." He also indicated that he would fully indemnify the City in the event of a lawsuit. JE 8 at 14-21; JE 9 at 5. Dr. Bingham also addressed the Commission. JE 8 at He stated that he has designed an environmentally friendly community of 13 home sites. He indicated that he had a Ph.D. in shallow water marine ecology and attended Florida State University and the University of Miami. He said that he was thoroughly familiar with the Panama City area and had worked with a large list of groups as an ecologist. He reiterated that the homes sites will take up 6.8 acres and will be entirely uplands and no marshes or swamps. He said that he is trying to use one fifth of the property that he owns and "there are no wetlands involved in this particular operation that will be damaged." JE 8 at 23. He also indicated that there will be raised bridges constructed on the Property, and according to him, were suggested by the Corps. Id. After brief comments by several Commissioners, the Commission approved the annexation and land use designation change by a vote of three to two. JE 8 at 26-27, 30-31. Toward the end of the November 9, 2004, hearing, the City Attorney, Rowlett Bryant, advised that the minutes of the September 28, 2004, Commission meeting would be included with the minutes of the November 9, 2004, public hearing. In other words, the November 9, 2004, Commission meeting was the public hearing held on the application for the annexation and the land use designation change. JE 8 at 27-30. Mr. Bryant also noted that the Ordinance No. 1985, related to the land use designation, would be RLD-1 and that the prior reference to Special Treatment Conservation Zone in the title of Ordinance No. 1985, considered on September 28, 2004, was a recommendation of staff and was deleted from Ordinance No. 1985, which was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2004. JE 8 at 31-32. Ordinance No. 1985, in fact, changed the land use designation of the Property (approximately 6.8 acres) "from Conservation (a Bay County Land Use designation) to Residential- Low Density-1 as described in Small Scale Amendment 04-S20." JE 1 at 2. However, Petitioners and the City agree that "[t]he city assigned a future land use map designation to the parcel of Residential Low Density in Ordinance No. 1985." See T 11, lines 10-23; Petitioners' Prehearing Stipulation at 2, IV.2. Data and Analysis As more fully discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "[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; the projected population of the area; the character of undeveloped land; the availability of public services; the need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the capability of uses on lands adjacent to or closely approximate to military installations; and, in rural communities, the need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy." § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2) provides for "land use analysis requirements" and requires, in part, that the future land use element "be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2) F.A.C." Subsection 9J-5.006(2)(b) requires "[a]n analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area, as indicated in paragraph (1)(b); 2. Soils; 3. Topography; 4. Natural resources; and 5. Historic resources." Further, "all goals, objectives, policies, standards, finding and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(a)(emphasis added). "Data are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as the United States Census, State Data Center, State University System of Florida, regional planning councils, water management districts, or existing technical studies. The data shall be the best available existing data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2)(c). Petitioners question whether the record contains relevant and appropriate data, which was existing and available on or before November 9, 2004, to support the Plan Amendment. Petitioners further question whether the analysis of that data is adequate. The application, JE 13, requested approval of annexation of and a change in the land use designation for, as amended, approximately 6.8 acres. Aside from identifying the parcel in question, in relation to Goose Bayou and the subdivision to the east, the application does not contain adequate data and analysis to support the Plan Amendment. Mr. Slonina, a professional engineer and expert in civil engineering, testified during the final hearing as to the due diligence he and his firm performed in support of filing the application with the City. T 424. Mr. Slonina has been on the Property many times. T 456. As part of the due diligence, Mr. Slonina analyzed the area proposed for development on the Property, which are the upland areas, and, in part, stated that these areas are primarily free draining sands and have fairly high percolation rates. T 425, 453. He also characterized upland areas as fairly clean sands and satisfactory for development in this area based on his experience. He also examined the upland and wetland soils to determine suitability for a "post and beam timbered bridge system" that would be pile supported over the wetlands bridging upland areas. He opined that the soils on the uplands were nothing unique and were suitable for low density residential and suitable to support the bridge system he described. T 428, 442, 458-459. See also P 50, Attachment A. Regarding utilities which might be available to the Property, during the due diligence phase, he identified, from utility maps, the location of the closest water and sewer which could serve the Property, adjacent to the Property to the east. He also analyzed the ability of fire protection to be provided to the Property and concluded that it was feasible. T 428-432, 460-461. See also JE 7 at 1 regarding "utility and other urban services availability" and P 50 at 14-16 for a discussion of "utilities." Mr. Slonina also opined that a stormwater system could reasonably be designed for the Property and that it was feasible to design a stormwater system that would capture stormwater runoff before it went into the bayou. T 432-435. Mr. Slonina examined flood zone information and determined that the Property was "very typical" and that the flood zone information available would not preclude residential development on the Property. T 434-435, 450. But see Endnote 7. From a traffic concurrency standpoint, he examined traffic engineering data on trip generation for 13 single-family homes and determined that there was adequate capacity for that additional loading on "the only roadway that connects to the [P]roperty." His traffic impact analysis was limited "through the residential streets." T 435-436, 439-441. Mark O. Friedemann, is the executive vice-president at the Phoenix Environmental Group, Inc., an environmental consulting firm. T 466. Mr. Friedemann was retained on or about January 7, 2005, by the City's counsel for the purpose of "doing a basic assessment of the property and whether it was suitable for some type of development, residential in particular." T 474-475. Prior to conducting a survey of the Property, aerial photographs, data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, and various maps were reviewed. Id. Mr. Friedemann and an assistant conducted a field survey of the Property on January 12, 2005. They collected basic water quality data, observed wildlife, conducted several soil observations pits, looked for scat, and examined the vegetative community on the Property. T 476. For the purpose of the survey, the Property was divided into areas 1 through 4, which are labeled on CE 5, Figure 2. T 478. These upland areas were the major focus of the assessment along with the interior (wetland/marsh) areas. T 478, 565. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. Mr. Friedemann and his assistant arrived on the Property at approximately 9:00 am on January 12, 2005, during low tide. They left the Property as the tide was starting to return. T 517, 532, 548. Area one is a rectangular portion of the Property, which runs north to south and forms most of the eastern boundary of the Property and is adjacent to Candlewick Acres. Area two is another upland area which is in the northwest portion of the Property and west of area one. Area three is in the southwest portion of the Property and southwest of area two. Area four is a small upland portion, which is almost due south of area one in the southeastern portion of the Property. CE 5 at 2, Figure 2; see also Endnote 6. Mr. Friedemann accessed area two from area one by walking along a path/spoil pile, which runs east to west and forms part of the northern boundary of the Property (the approximately 100 foot canal is north of and adjacent to the path/spoil pile). He walked to area three by stepping across a small rivulet of no more than a foot in width. He walked to area four from area three, stepping over another small tidal- influenced rivulet that passed between areas three and four. He approached area one from area four walking across "a rather high area." Mr. Friedemann "did not get the impression that area two was surrounded" by wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 479-481, 500, 517, 556-557. He stated that area three would be surrounded, but was unsure about area four. T 556-559. Some of the areas photographed would be potentially inundated during high tide. T 521-525. Mr. Friedemann's report also contained, in part: water quality data taken on January 12, 2005; and a list of species seen on the same date; a recent undated aerial of the Property and surrounding area, downloaded from the DEP website, which was also magnified; and several aerials (dated 1953, 1962, 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1986) of the Property including the surrounding areas. Mr. Friedemann opined, based on his review of aerials, that there may have been a timber operation ongoing on the Property in the past although he would not hazard a guess. T 540. The report also included several photographs taken of the four areas, during the site visit on January 12, 2005. CE 5 at x-xxii. Although he did not "review any set of plans," or have any opinion regarding any specific development proposal, Mr. Friedemann opined that based on his observations in the field, "there is a viable project that could be built on this parcel."9 T 482, 501-502, 511, 520. Mr. Friedemann provided an analysis of the Property by and through his testimony regarding photographs taken of the Property during his site visit. From a biological or ecological perspective, he did not observe anything on the Property which would preclude residential development. He further opined that what he observed was not unique in the panhandle of Florida. T 501-502. Mr. Friedemann did not conduct a wetland delineation of the Property. T 556. However, the record contains an infrared Conceptual Site Plan dated October 22, 2002, indicating vacant land to the north of the Property, and residential areas to the east of the Property and east of the vacant parcels to the north. This particular site plan provided for the approximate wetland boundaries of the Property identified as south parcel (4). PE 98-D and PE 50 at Exhibit 1. Mr. Friedemann indicated that he had not observed the Property during a hurricane, during periods of high wind, or during periods of a combination of high wind and high tide. He agreed that the tides in the United States can be lower during the winter than they are during the spring and that the highest tides may be experienced during the spring called neap tides. T 532-533. Mr. Friedemann was also referred to a December 30, 2004, document apparently prepared by Panhandle Engineering, Inc., sheet number 2 of 4, CE 16, which delineated 13 lots. T 533. See Endnote 6. (City Exhibit 16 was admitted into evidence as an authentic document; however, there was no testimony regarding the preparation of this document. T 535-537.) Comparing sheet 2 of 4 with Figure two of CE 5, area two is depicted as being surrounded by rush marsh and connected to area one and area three by drawn-in bridges. Compare PE 50, Attachment E, Sheet 1 of 2, dated July 31, 1998, depicting the Property with 13 lots configured, interspersed with a "conservation area" designation and Attachment A, Figure 4., Project Base Map, depicting upland areas on the Property, interspersed with a "marsh" designation with PE 98-D south parcel (4) and "approximate wetland boundary. See also Endnote Mr. Friedemann stated that the indication of rush marsh on sheet number 2 of 4 did not comport with his observations of the Property during his site visit. He was unaware of this drawing. T 534-538. Gail Easley, A.I.C.P., an expert in urban and regional planning, opined that the Plan Amendment was consistent with various provisions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Regional Strategic Policy Plan. She also opined the Plan Amendment was supported by data and analysis regarding the suitability of the Property for the RLD land use designation. In support, Ms. Easley stated in part: Understanding that the amendment is not really permitting the use, but understanding that the amendment establishes the uses that are allowed as I testified earlier, the suitability data that is available in addition to the data and analysis here in the Comprehensive Plan includes the information from Panhandle Engineering about, more specifically about the availability of facilities and services and the suitability of soils for use of residential low density, as well as the analysis contained in Mr. Friedemann's report regarding environmental issues and the suitability of this site for residential low density. So I found plenty of evaluation of suitability. T 586. See also T 610-611. Ms. Easley also opined that the Plan Amendment does not threaten coastal and natural resources in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 9J-5.006, 9J-5.012, and 9J- 5.013, and Sections 163.3177 and 163.3178, Florida Statutes, because she considered the data and analysis in the Plan, "as well as the suitability and capability [sic] analysis that were submitted by Panhandle Engineering and Mr. Friedemann demonstrated that there was not a violation of these provisions." T 617. Ms. Easley also stated that there was adequate data to support a need for residential (RLD) development on the Property. See, e.g., T 584-585, 621-622, 629-630, 632-634. See also JE 3 at Future Land Use Data, 1-1 - 1-10. During cross-examination, Ms. Easley was asked to identify the particular Panhandle Engineering report which she reviewed to support her opinion. The report is not in evidence. However, Ms. Easley stated: "It was a report that they prepared that addressed issues of suitability of the site with regard to the availability of water, the availability of sewer, the capacity for water and sewer, soil conditions on the site, and traffic situations on the site. I'm sorry, I do not recall the date of that particular suitability analysis, but it was prepared by Panhandle Engineering, and I reviewed it as a part of my analysis." T 626. Ms. Easley was also asked to provide the source of her data and analysis about environmental conditions on the site and she replied: "Two places, there is information in the City's data and analysis with regard to the vacant land analysis, as well as general environmental conditions in or around the City, I reviewed that data and analysis that I mentioned earlier. I also saw information specific to this parcel from Mr. Friedemann's report." T 627. Ms. Easley indicated that there was no specific data and analysis contained in the City's Plan about the Property, although the Plan referenced areas adjacent to the City. T 628. Ms. Easley reiterated that natural resources are considered during the plan amendment process. It also occurs during permitting. T 642. She again stated: "The suitability analysis was contained in two different reports. As I testified earlier, Mr. Slonina's report from Panhandle Engineering addressed soils and soil suitability. And Mr. Friedemann's report looked at other kinds of environmental issues. I reviewed both of those reports and determined that suitability analysis had been preformed to support the plan amendment." T 643. According to Ms. Easley, if there were environmental reasons creating an inconsistency with Rule 9J-5, then such reasons could serve as a basis for denial. T 643. (Ms. Easley also opined that a land use change to the FLUM "is an assignment of a land use category and the associated density and intensity, it is not a development activity." See T 587, 651.) Mark Llewellyn, P.E., is the president of Genesis Group. In October 2002, Genesis Group completed a planning and engineering analysis (Genesis Report)10 for Chandler and Associates, who, in turn, had a contract with the DEP to prepare an appraisal report for the Goose Bayou Marsh Property.11 The Goose Bayou Marsh Property included four parcels, including the south parcel (4), which is the Property in question, two north parcels (2 and 3), and the middle parcel (1), which is north and northeast of and adjacent (the west one- third) to the Property. All the parcels are vacant. See PE 98- D, which also appears at PE 50, Exhibit 1. Mr. Llewellyn identified three peninsular islands on the Property (south parcel 4)(PE 98-D at the blue X's), which roughly correspond with areas one and two in Mr. Friedemann's report at CE 5 at 2, Figure 2. T 160-161. See also Endnote 6. The two eastern peninsular islands (area one) are connected to the upland to the east, Candlewick Acres. The third peninsular island, located in the northwest corner of the Property, can be accessed, according to Mr. Llewellyn, by a berm or other geographical feature to the north of the Property and south of the drainage canal. Id. See also T 397. There is one larger upland island and a smaller upland island toward the southwest and southern portions of the Property, which appear to be surrounded by wetlands, waters of the state, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. T 160-164. Each peninsular island and upland island is less than 20 acres. Mr. Llewellyn's analysis is consistent with the approximate wetland boundaries identified in the Conceptual Site Plan, PE 98-D. Mr. Llewellyn opined that the Property could be developed as a single-family development without having an impact on the Property if it is designed and maintained properly. T 157, 172. See also Endnote 6. The Genesis Report provided an analysis of the four parcels. Apparently the south parcel (4), the Property, contained approximately 16.2 acres as follows: wetlands 9.8+/- acres; upland islands 3.5+/- acres; peninsula uplands 2.9+/- acres; or 6.4+/- acres of total uplands. T 163; PE 50 at 12. Parcels 1-4 are analyzed in light of several factors, including but not limited, to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan. The following is an analysis of the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan as applied to the north parcels (2 and 3): The Bay County Comprehensive Management Plan identifies the North Parcel's Future Land Use Designation as Conservation. The purpose of this land use is to identify public and private lands held for conservation of natural features. Allowable uses for this designation are natural resource protection, flood control, wildlife habitat protection, passive of recreation, silviculture and residential densities up to 2DU/acre. Commercial development is prohibited for properties with this land use designation. Additionally, the upland islands located on these parcels fit the definition for "Pine Islands" as defined in the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. A Pine Island is defined as a small upland area generally 20 acres or less, usually characterized by typical pine flatwood vegetation, which are surrounded by waters of the State, wetlands, salt marsh, or tidal mud flats. The Bay County Comprehensive Plan prohibits development on any "Pine Island". This means that it will be extremely difficult to develop the upland areas located on this parcel. PE 50 at 2. See also PE 50 at 2 (II.B.) and 13 (IV.B.) regarding the Panama City Future Land Use. (The Genesis Report was prepared approximately two years prior to the City's annexation of the Property. The City did not annex the vacant land to the north (parcels 1-3), which is part of the subject of the Genesis Report.) Regarding the analysis of parcels 1, and 4, the Property, and referring to the Bay County Future Land Use and Comprehensive Plan, it is noted that "[t]he same issues apply to this parcel." PE 50 at 7 and 13. The Genesis Report discussed wetlands on the Property: The wetlands within the property consist of estuarine salt marshes, which are connected to Goose Bayou and West Bay. According to an environmental assessment prepared by Biological Research Associates (BRA) the marshes are tidally influenced and dominated by black rush. Other species include seaside goldenrod, seashore dropseed grass, sea purslane, glasswort, salt grass, marsh hay cord grass, sea lavender, Chinese tallow, saw grass, cork wood, and saltbrush. Additionally, the salt marsh is habitat for two listed bird species; the snowy egret and the little blue heron (see Attachment A). As previously stated, a wetland delineation has been completed for this parcel and accepted by FDEP and ACOE. PE 50 at 13. The Genesis Report also provided a brief discussion of flood plain and cultural resource considerations, and also provided an analysis of site planning and engineering, including access, utilities, owner site plan/lot lay out, and probable development costs. PE 50 at 13-15. Regarding south parcel 4, the Property, the Genesis Report concluded, in part, that "[t]his parcel has limited development potential." A cost estimate is provided. It is also concluded that water and sewer could be provided without incurring significant increases in development costs. "Development of the upland islands would require bridges, which significantly increases the development cost. There is no guarantee that the development within the wetlands would be permitted at this time." PE 50 at 16. The Genesis Report also included a report prepared by Biological Research Associates, which appears as Attachment A to PE 50. Mark Andrew Barth, vice president/senior ecologist for Biological Research Associates, was one of the two signatories to a section of the Genesis Report and also testified during the final hearing. T 175; PE 50, Attachment A. He reiterated that they prepared a preliminary environmental assessment for a proposed acquisition by a State agency. T 176, 180. (While unclear, it appears that his study area included the approximate western one-third of the Property, see, e.g., T 189; PE 50, Attachment A, Figures 1, 3-4, although other portions of the Property were studied. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 93.) Referring to PE 98-C and the Property (outlined in black) and the vacant land to the north outlined in red, Mr. Barth testified that they are "mainly comprised of salt marsh and scattered pine dominated islands." According to Mr. Barth, the term "pine islands," "describes isolated upland patches within the salt marsh." T 177. The salt marshes consist of vegetation that extends beyond the water level usually in very shallow water. T 178. The Property is part of an estuary system, Goose Bayou, for example. Id. See also T 381; JE 12 at IV-14-16 and Map 1. The salt marsh is inundated by saline or marine water as opposed to fresh water. T 178. One of the most significant features of an estuary system "is providing nursery grounds and habitat for marine and estuarine fish and wildlife." T 179. Mr. Barth considered the Property, south parcel 4, PE 98-D, to be environmentally sensitive in light of the combination of estuarine and upland areas which are undisturbed. T 185-186. Mr. Barth did not have enough information to assess specific impacts to the surrounding salt marsh and water in light of a proposed development on the Property. He felt it depended on the type of development. T 182. "Middens" have been found on the south side of the Property, in and around area 3 (CE 5 at 2, Figure 2). See, e.g., T 558-559; PE 50, Genesis Report at 13 and Attachment A at 6-7 and Attachment E, Figure 4, Project Base Map and Figure 5, PBY139 Base Map. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Adequacy of Data and Analysis Ultimately, whether the Plan Amendment is based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis is a close question. This is particularly true here where critical portions of Mr. Friedemann's analysis are based on information, e.g., Mr. Friedemann's photographs, collection of water quality samples, and observations of the Property (species seen and terrain), which post-dated the City's adoption of the Plan Amendment on November 9, 2004. As a result, his analysis of this information has been disregarded, notwithstanding the lack of an objection to the admissibility of his report, CE 5. See Conclusions of Law 110-114. (Mr. Friedemann also provided several aerials of the Property and surrounding area which pre-date the date of adoption of the Plan Amendment and have been considered along with his analysis of this data.) Also, to the extent that Ms. Easley relied on Mr. Friedemann's report (CE 5) and the post- adoption information collected by Mr. Friedemann and his analysis of that information, her opinions have also been disregarded. Nevertheless, Petitioners have the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is not based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis, which Petitioners have not done. Accordingly, based on a review of the entire record in this proceeding, it is ultimately concluded that the Plan Amendment is based on relevant and appropriate data and analysis, except as otherwise stated herein. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2), and 9J-5.012-.013. Consistency with the City's Plan, the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Code Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's Plan: Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.1.10; Coastal Management Element Goal 1, Objective 5.1, and Policies 5.1.1 and 5.1.3.3, and Goal 3; and Conservation Element Goal 1, Policies 6.6.2, 6.6.2.3, and 6.6.2.4. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with several provisions of the LDRC: subsections 2- 5.5.6, 5-5.1, 5-5.2, 5-5.3, and 5-5.6.3.e. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Plan Amendment changes the land use designation on the Property to RLD. The Plan Amendment is not a development order. See Strand v. Escambia County, Case No. 03-2980GM, 2003 WL 23012209, at *4 (DOAH Dec. 23, 2003; DCA Jan. 28, 2004), aff'd, 894 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). It does not authorize any development to occur on the Property. Further, a special treatment zone, as used in the City's Plan, is not a FLUM land use district. Based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the various Plan provisions at issue, the Plan Amendment does not alter or interfere with the City's ability to maintain the quality of coastal resources; restrict the City's ability to maintain regulatory or management techniques intended to protect coastal wetlands, water quality, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources, for example, or prohibit the construction of docks, piers, wharves, or similar structures; interfere with the City's ability to provide for or have available adequate areas for public waterfront access or to provide the circumstances necessary for the conservation, protection, and use of natural resources; or interfere with the City's ability to enforce guidelines in its LDRCs related to, for example, the protection and conservation of the natural functions of existing soils, wetlands, marine resources, estuarine shoreline, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, or flood zones. Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with cited portions of the City's Plan, the State Comprehensive Plan, and the West Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the Plan Amendment need not be consistent with the City's LDRCs because it is not the subject of "in compliance" review.12
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 Plan Amendment, adopted by the City of Panama City in Ordinance No. 1985, is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2005, 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 6th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether Lee County Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA2015-00005, adopted by Ordinance No. 20-07 on June 17, 2020 (the “Plan Amendment”), is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Petitioner, William J. Semmer, owns and operates seven businesses on San Carlos Island in Lee County, and owns 25 properties on San Carlos Island, including his personal residence, as well as several rental properties and commercial establishments. Petitioner, Joanne E. Semmer, lives and owns her personal residence in San Carlos Island, and owns and operates a business—Ostego Bay Environmental—on San Carlos Island at 1130 Main Street, directly across Main Street from the property subject to the Plan Amendment (“subject property”). Both Petitioners submitted oral comments to the County concerning the Plan Amendment at the adoption hearing on the Plan Amendment. Lee County (“the County”) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, with the duty to adopt and amend its Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the Community Planning Act (“the Act”). See § 163.3167(1), Fla. Stat. Intervenor, Southern Comfort Storage, LLC, owns property and operates a business within the County, and owns the subject property. Intervenor applied for the Plan Amendment that is the subject of this final hearing. San Carlos Island The subject property is located on San Carlos Island, a non-barrier island in the unincorporated area of the County between the cities of Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. The Matanzas Pass lies to the south, between the island and Ft. Myers Beach. The pass provides access to Estero Bay through a channel with depths between 11 and 14 feet. That portion of the Bay lying north of the island is shallower, with average depths of between four and six feet. The island is approximately one mile long, and is bisected by two main roadways: San Carlos Boulevard, a north/south arterial roadway on the western side of the island that connects via a bridge to Fort Myers Beach; and Main Street, a collector roadway running east/west bisecting the island north and south. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (“FLUM”), San Carlos Island is dominated by Industrial, Urban Community, and Suburban land use designations, generally located as follows: Suburban (residential) on both the eastern and western ends of the island, as well as in the island center north of Main Street; Industrial concentrated in the center of the island, both north and south of Main Street; and Urban Community concentrated in a corridor along San Carlos Boulevard connecting to Fort Myers Beach. Other large land uses include conservation lands, both uplands and wetlands. Another category—Destination Resort Mixed Use Water Dependent (“DRMUWD”)—was added by a plan amendment in 2009, converting 28 acres of Industrial and Suburban to this new use for the Ebtide development, which includes a 450-unit hotel with 75,000 square feet of convention space; 271 multi-family residential units; 10,000 square feet of office; 85,000 square feet of retail, and a marina. This development is approximately one quarter mile from the subject property. San Carlos Island is designated within the Iona-McGregor Planning Community (“the planning community”) pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, “[t]his community primarily has lands designated as Central Urban, Urban Community, Suburban, and Outlying Suburban …. This community, due to its proximity to the area beaches, will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents.” The island is one of three discernable sub-areas of the planning community. According to the Comprehensive Plan: The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine oriented nature. Residents of the community will address current planning concerns in a comprehensive review of this area and future amendments to this plan will be made to address these concerns. This area is anticipated to grow substantially from today to 2030. Historically, the economy of the island was driven by the commercial shrimping and fishing industries. Many of the industrial uses on the island were associated with processing seafood, especially packing and freezing seafood for transport beyond the island; warehousing and storage of equipment; and boat repair yards. Advances in technology, including shipboard freezing, have reduced the need for dockside packing houses. In 1950, there were seven packing houses on the island. There are only two packing houses currently in operation on the island, both of which are located south of Main Street, where the boats have access to deep water ports. Increased imports of shrimp from other countries has also contributed to the decline of the shrimping industry on the island.2 The amount of shrimp harvested from waters near the island peaked in the mid-1990s at over 6,000,000 pounds, but had fallen to slightly more than 2,000,000 pounds by 2015. Petitioner, Joanne Semmer, attempted to contradict the evidence that the local shrimp harvest is in decline because the data introduced does not include anything subsequent to 2015. She maintains that the industry has stabilized since 2015. Ms. Semmer testified that “they’re having a bang-up year this year.” Ms. Semmer’s testimony was based on her discussions with commercial shrimp fleet owners and is entirely hearsay evidence upon which the undersigned cannot rely for finding that the shrimp industry has stabilized.3 One of the more recent changes in the shrimping industry is the move from 50-foot to 100-foot shrimp boats, which can carry larger amounts of shrimp, thereby reducing the number of trips needed to harvest the catch. Due to the deeper channel, the properties south of Main Street can better accommodate the larger deep-draft shrimp boats used in the modern shrimping industry. In the last 20 years, the significant development and redevelopment on the island has been commercial and recreational in character. 2 The ratio of local to foreign-sourced shrimp in the United States had decreased from roughly 1:1 in the late 1970s, to roughly 1:5.8 in 2002. 3 Furthermore, Ms. Semmer’s testimony that the shrimpers are having a “bang-up year” and “one of their best years ever,” does not provide numbers of pounds of shrimp to compare with the data introduced by Intervenor. Redevelopment south of Main Street has been characterized by commercial and mixed-use development, rather than industrial development on the waterfront. Two large recreational marinas have been developed which provide commercial fishing berths and boat rentals. They have supporting restaurants, wet slips, dry storage, and some commercial retail. Generally, the area south of Main Street is in transition from traditional industrial to more commercial and recreational uses. The industrial uses north of Main Street are less intense and conducted on mostly unimproved properties. The uses include open yards for storing equipment, repairing and maintaining equipment and boats, parking and turnaround of large trucks used to transport seafood beyond the island, and areas to offload seafood products and equipment from boats. Waterfronts Florida Partnership In 1997, the island was designated by the state as one of the first communities in its Waterfronts Florida Partnership (“Waterfronts Florida” or “the partnership”) program. A self-created committee, of which Ms. Semmer was a vital member, applied for the Waterfronts Florida designation “to help the community deal with the capacity of shrimping and fishing boats that docked there seasonally, as well as educate residents and visitors about the island’s working waterfront.” The portion of the island encompassing the Waterfronts Florida Designated Area includes only property south of Main Street, and stretches from its intersection with the San Carlos Boulevard bridge one half-mile along the Matanzas Pass. Through the partnership, the community developed a self-guided working waterfront tour called “A Healthy Bay = Healthy Seafood,” which takes participants along a short trail with kiosks that provide information about the bay, the habitat, and the fish that live in it. Although it is self- guided, a volunteer is available on certain days to provide a narrated tour. Ms. Semmer is the volunteer program manager and frequently guides the tour herself. Ms. Semmer is also the executive director of the Ostego Bay Foundation Marine Science Center, which is integral to the partnership. The center provides a marine science experience through interactive exhibits, aquariums, hands-on tanks, collections and displays, and holds educational camps. One of the projects of the Waterfronts Florida committee was development of a special area management plan (the “special area plan”) for the island, which was adopted in 1999. The special area plan included the following vision statement for the community: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute to making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The first goal of the special area plan is to “[c]ontinue to support and develop” the island’s commercial fishing and passenger vessel industry “while diversifying the economic base” of the island “to enhance recreational and tourism-related opportunities” and support businesses along San Carlos Boulevard and Main Street. Objectives to accomplish that goal include “[d]iversify[ing] the island’s economic base by enhancing tourism, retail, and recreation opportunities.” The special area plan also refers to the need to possibly revise the water- dependent land use policies “which have been identified as limiting development options along the west side of Main Street.”4 The special area plan calls for developing language that will “increase flexibility and mix of land use types” allowable on land currently zoned for water-dependent uses, which may include traditional commercial fishing village industry “such as restaurants and mixed use commercial/residential.” The Subject Property The subject property is 7.47 acres located north of, and abutting, Main Street. The property is a combination of eight adjoining lots, most of which are narrow and elongated, with a variety of existing zoning designations— marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. The property was most recently the site of the Compass Rose marina, which, in 2006, was approved, through special exception and a variance, for a 286-dry slip boat storage facility at a maximum of 65 feet in height, 29 wet slips, and an associated boat launch; commercial spaces for member gatherings, a restaurant, ship store, and mini-storage. The marina and attendant uses were subsequently destroyed, except for the storage facility, which is located on the westernmost portion of the subject property. The subject property has access to Estero Bay via a 75-foot man-made canal along its eastern boundary. However, from the canal, vessels must access the Bay via a shallow channel with average depths of four to six feet. Commercial fishing and shrimping vessels require over six feet of depth at mean low tide. Most of the subject property is designated Industrial on the FLUM, with a very small portion in Suburban. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the Industrial designation is “reserved mainly for industrial activities and selective land use mixtures … includ[ing] industrial, manufacturing, research, educational uses, and office complex (if specifically related to 4 This document refers to Main Street as a roadway running north/south, rather than east/west. West of Main Street coincides with south of Main Street in the parlance of other documents describing Main Street as an east/west corridor. adjoining industrial uses)[.]” Retail, recreational, and service uses are allowed if they are limited to the sale of products “manufactured or directly related to that manufactured on the premises,” and are subject to acreage limitations. Residential uses are not allowed in the Industrial category. The subject property is also located within the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent overlay zone, the objective of which is to “protect marine- oriented land uses [on the island] from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” New development, and substantial redevelopment, within this overlay north of Main Street, is limited to marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is surrounded by property in the Industrial category, with the exception of the property to its east. Lying across the 75- foot canal are three “fingers” of densely-developed residential property extending into Estero Bay which are designated Suburban. The developments are mostly mobile homes and manufactured housing, which, in large part, serve the workforce living on the island. The standard density in the Suburban land use category is six dwelling units per acre (“6 du/acre”). The Oak Street residential development lying directly across the canal is developed at a density of 7 du/acre, and is non-conforming. The Canal Point Mobile Home Park just east of Oak Street, encompasses two “fingers,” Nancy Lane and Emily Lane. Both “fingers” were developed at non-conforming densities of 9.6 du/acre and 11.6 du/acre, respectively. Continuing east along Main Street, Helen Lane and Oyster Bay are mobile home and manufactured housing communities developed at over 13 du/acre. Another residential development, Sportman’s Cove, lies north of the Industrial properties, directly on the Bay, and is developed at 13.1 du/acre. Industrial uses to the west include open storage, closed storage, warehousing, and distribution facilities. South of Main Street is a mix of more intense industrial uses with direct access to the Bay via Matanzas Pass’ deep water channels. A portion of the Industrial property directly north of the subject property is owned by Mr. Semmer. He conducts, or leases the property for, a variety of industrial uses. Mr. Semmer’s property is adjacent to the canal, and he contracts with some smaller shrimp boats and blue crab fishermen to dock and unload there. The property is often used for storage of equipment used by those industries, as well as an open yard for equipment repair. Mr. Semmer’s property was also used as a staging area during reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, providing a landing site for marine barges to load and unload large equipment needed for the reconstruction. The property was used to pour and set concrete forms used in the reconstruction process. Access to Mr. Semmer’s property from Main Street is via Ostego Drive, a platted street that runs through the eastern portion of the subject property, separating the upland property from that adjacent to the canal. During reconstruction of the Sanibel Causeway, large equipment trucks, and cement trucks accessed his property via this street. 2015 Plan Amendment Application and Concurrent Rezoning In 2015, Intervenor filed separate applications for the Plan Amendment and a concurrent rezoning of the subject property. The Plan Amendment sought to change the land use classification from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. In addition to residential uses, the Central Urban classification allows light industrial and commercial uses. The 2015 concurrent rezoning application sought planned development (“PD”) rezoning for a project consisting of 113 residential dwelling units (of which 38 would be affordable housing); a marina with 29 wet and 286 dry slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant, 200 public parking spaces, and a civic/recreational space that would be available to the general public. The PD establishes a maximum structural height of 175 feet. In 2016, an adoption hearing for the Plan Amendment was scheduled before the County Commission, but action on it was deferred at the request of the Intervenor, who then submitted a new plan amendment application seeking to change the FLUM designation of the subject property to DRMUWD, along with text amendments to the DRMUWD classification. That plan amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, were denied by the County in 2019. The original Plan Amendment to Central Urban remained pending. On November 5, 2019, Intervenor filed a request for relief with the County pursuant to the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act (“FLUEDRA”), section 70.51, Florida Statutes; as well as a request for informal mediation pursuant to section 163.3181(4). These processes culminated in a mediated settlement agreement between the County and Intervenor whereby the County agreed to adopt the instant Plan Amendment, as well as the concurrent rezoning, for a project consisting of 75 residential dwelling units (reduced from the 113); a marina with 286 dry and 29 wet slips; and 30,000 square feet of commercial space, including a restaurant and waterfront civic/recreational space of 20,000 square feet (land area) that would be open to the general public. The maximum height for structures was reduced from 175 feet to 100 feet under the mediated settlement. The mediated settlement agreement also provided for conditions of development approval and property development regulations. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban, a classification which allows residential uses at a standard density range of 4-10 du/acre and up to 15 du/acre through the County’s “bonus density” program for affordable housing. 5 The Central Urban category allows development of residential, commercial, public and quasi-public, and limited light industrial land uses (e.g., wet slips, dry storage, marinas). The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use future development in the Central Urban category. The maximum number of residential units that could be constructed on the subject property at the density of 15 du/acre is 113. The Comprehensive Plan does not govern intensity of non-residential uses. The evidence is insufficient to determine the maximum allowable buildout of the non-residential uses on the subject property. Challenges to the Plan Amendment Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment: (1) creates internal inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan, in contravention of section 163.3177(2); (2) is not “based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis,” as required by section 163.3177(1)(f); and (3) increases density in the Coastal High Hazard Area (“CHHA”), in violation of section 163.3178(8). Internal Inconsistencies Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with a number of Goals, Objectives, and Policies (“GOPs”) of the Comprehensive Plan. The specific allegations can be grouped, generally, as arguments that (1) the Plan Amendment is incompatible with, or will have negative impacts on, surrounding uses; and (2) the Plan Amendment will negatively impact hurricane evacuation by increasing density in the CHHA. Compatibility Petitioners allege the maximum density and intensity of development allowed under the Plan Amendment is incompatible with surrounding industrial uses, specifically Mr. Semmer’s industrial property directly 5 Density may be increased to 20 du/acre utilizing an existing transfer of development rights ordinance which does not apply to San Carlos Island. adjacent to the north, and the residential uses to the west; and will be destructive to the character of the island. With regard to compatibility, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the following specific GOPs: FLUE Objective 2.2: Development Timing. Direct growth to those portions of the future urban areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. FLUE Policy 2.2.1.: Rezonings and Development of Regional Impact proposals will be evaluated as to the availability and proximity of the road network; central sewer and water lines; community facilities and services such as schools, EMS, fire and police protection, and other public facilities; compatibility with surrounding land uses; and any other relevant facts affecting the public health, safety, and welfare. FLUE Objective 2.6: Redevelopment. Future redevelopment activities will be directed in appropriate areas, consistent with sound planning principles, the goals, objectives, and policies contained within this plan, and the desired community character. FLUE Policy 5.1.5: Protect existing and future residential areas from any encroachment of uses that are potentially destructive to the character and integrity of the residential environment. Requests for conventional rezonings will be denied in the event that the buffers provided in Chapter 10 of the Land Development Code are not adequate to address potentially incompatible uses in a satisfactory manner. If such uses are proposed in the form of a planned development or special exception and generally applicable development regulations are deemed to be inadequate, conditions will be attached to minimize or eliminate the potential impacts or, where no adequate conditions can be devised, the application will be denied altogether. FLUE Policy 6.1.1: All applications for commercial development will be reviewed and evaluated as to: Traffic and access impacts (rezonings and development orders); Landscaping and detailed site planning (development orders); Screening and buffering (planned development rezoning and development orders; Availability and adequacy of services and facilities (rezoning and development orders); Impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods (rezoning); Proximity to other similar centers (rezoning); Environmental considerations (rezoning and development orders). FLUE Policy 6.1.3: Commercial developments requiring rezoning and meeting Development of County Impact (DCI) thresholds must be developed as commercial planned developments designed to arrange land uses in an integrated and cohesive unit in order to: Provide visual harmony and screening; Reduce dependence on the automobile; Promote pedestrian movement within the development; Utilize joint parking, access and loading facilities; Avoid negative impacts on surrounding land uses and traffic circulation; Protect natural resources; and, Provide necessary services and facilities where they are inadequate to serve the proposed use. FLUE Policy 6.1.4: Commercial development will be approved only when compatible with adjacent existing and proposed land uses and with existing and programmed public services and facilities. FLUE Policy 6.1.6: The land development regulations will require that commercial development provide adequate and appropriate landscaping, open space, and buffering. Such development is encouraged to be architecturally designed so as to enhance the appearance of structures and parking areas and blend with the character of existing or planned surrounding land uses. FLUE Goal 32: San Carlos Island [Water- Dependent Overlay]. All development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy in addition to other provisions of this plan. Objective 32.2: To manage growth, development, and redevelopment on San Carlos Island. To maintain and enhance the area’s quality of life and public and private infrastructure. Housing Element (“HE”) Policy 135.9.5: New development adjacent to areas of established residential neighborhoods must be compatible with or improve the area’s existing character. HE Policy 135.9.6: Lee County will administer the planning, zoning, and development review process in such a manner that proposed land uses acceptably minimize adverse drainage, environmental, spatial, traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties, while maximizing aesthetic qualities. The Plan Amendment is not a rezoning or a development order. It does not, in and of itself, approve any specific development on the subject property. It approves the property for a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, and provides a maximum density for the residential use. FLUE Policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, do not apply to the Plan Amendment because it is not an application for specific commercial development, a rezoning, or a development order.6 The Plan Amendment cannot be inconsistent with Policy 6.1.6 because the policy merely provides the requirements for the land development regulations. It does not impose any requirement on plan amendments. The bases for Petitioners’ argument that the Plan Amendment creates internal inconsistencies regarding compatibility is limited to FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1,7 and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1;8 and HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6. The Comprehensive Plan does not define “compatibility.” The Act defines “compatibility” as “a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition.” § 163.3164(9), Fla. Stat. 6 The Plan Amendment was considered concurrently with a PD rezoning which includes a more detailed development plan. To the extent that Petitioners allege the rezoning does not meet the requirements of policies 2.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, Petitioners’ remedy is a challenge to those development orders, pursuant to section 163.3215. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). 7 Objective 32.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. 8 Policy 32.1.1 was not cited in Petitioners’ Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing as a provision with which the Plan Amendment is alleged to be internally inconsistent. However, the issue was tried by consent as neither Respondent nor Intervenor objected to Petitioners’ evidence on this issue, and all parties introduced evidence related to this allegation. Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendment is incompatible with the surrounding uses because it introduces high density residential, which could be built to a maximum height of 100 feet; and commercial and recreational uses, into an area of industrial uses, including open storage, boat and equipment repairs, and unloading and packing seafood. Petitioners’ expert planning witness, Joseph McHarris, opined that the anticipated residential development is exactly the type of pre-emptive development anticipated and discouraged by the San Carlos Island Water- Dependent Overlay Zone. Mr. McHarris testified that “dropping in central urban,” the highest density and intensity use category, “right on top of industrial and right next to a suburban neighborhood is not good planning.” Mr. McHarris opined that residents of the “high-end condominiums” proposed for the property will not enjoy the view overlooking industrial outdoor storage yards, unloading cargo vessels, or the sounds and smells that are attendant thereto. The residential use will pre-empt any expansion or redevelopment of the existing industrial for more intense industrial uses. In fact, Mr. McHarris testified that the uses are so incompatible, that he would expect the new residents to push for ceasing the existing operations on those properties. Mr. McHarris did not rely upon any empirical evidence for his conclusion that the introduction of residential uses would be detrimental to the existing low- intensity industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property. His testimony was grounded in what “he would expect” to happen. Intervenor’s planning expert, Dr. David Depew, opined that in both his professional and personal experience, he has observed new waterfront residential and mixed use to coexist nicely with waterfront industrial and commercial. He cited Florida communities such as Apalachicola, Destin, and Cedar Key, generally, as examples of areas where newer residences and condominiums have developed in proximity to historic waterfront industrial uses without unduly negative effects on the historic uses. Dr. Depew made general references to “professional and personal” experiences, but gave no more detailed evidence regarding the coexistence of residential and industrial in traditional industrial waterfronts. The County’s expert planning witness, Brandon Dunn, is the principal planner for the County. He has worked in the County Department of Community Development for at least 13 years, 11 of those in the planning section. Mr. Dunn is extremely familiar with, and has extensive experience applying and interpreting, the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dunn testified that the Plan Amendment represents a transitional use between the existing traditional industrial uses north and west of the subject property and the suburban use east of the subject property. Developing the subject property for a mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and water-dependent light industrial (i.e., marina, wet-slips, dry storage), provides a “step-down” from the single use industrial properties to the north and west, to the traditional suburban residential development to the east. Mr. Dunn’s testimony is accepted as reliable and persuasive. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment introduces uses which are incompatible with the surrounding uses, as that term is defined in section 163.3164(9). The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with Policy 5.1.5 because it does not allow the encroachment of uses into residential areas which are destructive to the integrity and character of those areas. The entire island is only one mile in length, and residential and industrial, as well as commercial marine uses, exist throughout the island in relative proximity to each other. Petitioners introduced no evidence from which the undersigned can conclude that juxtaposition has been adverse to the residential development. New residential development at Ebtide is located in proximity to low-intensity industrial uses north of Main Street and no evidence was introduced to suggest that the new residential development has pre-empted the continuation or expansion of those established industrial uses. FLUE Objective 2.2 requires new growth to be directed to urban areas “where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created.” Adequate public facilities (i.e., sewer, water, fire protection, emergency services, law enforcement, and schools) are sufficient to address the impacts of the Plan Amendment at maximum allowable density of use. One roadway segment impacted by the Plan Amendment is currently operating at Level of Service F, but is designated as “constrained,” and the Plan Amendment will not cause the “volume to capacity ratio” established in the Comprehensive Plan to be exceeded. In Mr. McHarris’s opinion, the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Objective 2.2 because the uses allowed in Central Urban are not contiguous with the uses of any surrounding property. However, the properties east of the subject property, in the Suburban land use category, are developed for residential, a use which is allowed in Central Urban. Residential uses on the subject property will be contiguous with the adjacent Suburban development. Further, the Industrial category allows limited retail, recreational, and service uses; therefore, the change to the Central Urban designation, which allows commercial and light industrial development, does not introduce any radically-different uses than that allowed on the subject property, except for residential, under its current designation. HE Policy 135.9.5 requires that new development “adjacent to established residential neighborhoods” must be “compatible with or improve the area’s character.” The Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with this policy based on the findings above regarding compatibility of the Plan Amendment with surrounding residential uses. HE Policy 135.9.6 requires the County to “administer the planning, zoning and development review process” to ensure that proposed land uses “acceptably minimize adverse … traffic, noise, and glare impacts, as specified in county development regulations, upon adjacent residential properties[.]” Petitioners argue that this policy applies to the Plan Amendment, and that placement of residential uses adjacent to existing industrial uses will expose the residential uses to traffic, noise, and other adverse impacts, which cannot be “acceptably minimized.” Mr. McHarris testified that the unloading and transportation of seafood, as well as repair of boat and other equipment, with their attendant noises and smells, will be a nuisance to the residential uses allowed by the Plan Amendment, thus violating the requirement to minimize those effects on the residential properties. Petitioners did not establish that this policy applies during the plan amendment phase. While the policy includes the “planning process,” in addition to the zoning and development review process, the policy specifically refers to minimizing adverse impacts “as specified in the county land development regulations.” The land development regulations, rather than the Comprehensive Plan, contain the standards for setbacks, screening, buffers, and noise levels, in order to “acceptably minimize” those impacts to adjoining residential properties. The rezoning and site plan review of the development proposed to implement the Plan Amendment, rather than the Plan Amendment review process, are the appropriate processes in which to apply land development regulations for minimization of adverse impacts. Mr. McHarris opined that the Plan Amendment is contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is contrary to the desired “community character,” which he described as a “working waterfront.” Working waterfront is not a term that is used or defined in the Comprehensive Plan. To the extent that the reference is to the Waterfronts Florida designation in partnership with the state, the designation is strictly confined to that area south of Main Street. The desired community character is best reflected in the vision statement in the Comprehensive Plan for the Iona-McGregor Planning Community, of which the island is a designated sub-area. The Comprehensive Plan states, “The San Carlos Island area, which is nearly built out today, will continue to develop its infill areas while maintaining its marine-oriented nature.” The Comprehensive Plan provides that the overall planning community, given its proximity to the area beaches, “will continue to be a popular area for seasonal residents,” and that the entire planning community, is “anticipated to grow substantially from today through 2030.” Some of that growth was anticipated to be residential, as the planning community projected 17 acres of Central Urban for residential development through the year 2030. Plenty of acreage remains for residential development in the Central Urban category. The Plan defines infill as “the use of vacant land within a predominately developed area for further construction or development. These lands already have public services available but may require improvements to meet the current development standards.” The Plan Amendment is infill redevelopment of a former marina site, now utilized only for storage, where all public services are available. The community character is one of transition from historic industrial marine uses to waterfront commercial and mixed-use developments. The Plan Amendment allowing residential development is not inconsistent with that transitioning character. The Plan Amendment is not contrary to Objective 2.6 because it is infill development that is not inconsistent with the community character. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Goal 32, Objectives 32.1 and 32.2, and Policy 32.1.1, which relate to the San Carlos Island Water-Dependent Overlay Zone. Goal 32 provides that “[a]ll development approvals on San Carlos Island must be consistent with the following objective and policy[.]” Objective 32.1 provides that all development must be consistent with a series of policies “[t]o protect marine-oriented land uses” on the island “from incompatible or pre-emptive land uses.” Policy 32.1.1 provides: New development and substantial redevelopment within the Industrial … land use categor[y] … will only be permitted in accordance with the listed criteria. * * * North of Main Street – Within the water- dependent overlay zone which is defined as land within 150 feet of the shoreline: water-dependent marine industrial uses and recreational marinas. Landward of the overlay zone (150-foot line): marine-industrial uses, in addition to commercial or marine industrial uses which support the major industrial activities and recreational marinas. That portion of the subject property lying 150 feet landward of the canal is in the overlay zone. First, it must be noted that Goal 32 and its implementing objectives and policies apply to permitting of new development and redevelopment. Goal 32 sets requirements for “development approvals”; Objective 32.1 applies to “development”; and Policy 32.1.1 speaks to “permit[ing] new development and redevelopment.” Further, Policy 32.1.1 provides that the water dependent overlay zones “will be included in the Lee County zoning regulations[.]” The Plan Amendment is not an application for development permit. Enforcement of the water-dependent overlay zone restrictions will occur at the development order stage.9 9 Again, to the extent Petitioners contend the approved PD rezoning of subject property is inconsistent with these plan provisions, those issues are not properly before the undersigned in this proceeding. See § 163.3215, Fla. Stat. (“Subsections (3) and (4) provide the exclusive methods for an aggrieved or adversely affected party to appeal and challenge the consistency of a development order with a comprehensive plan.”). Furthermore, Policy 32.1.1. applies to development and redevelopment “within the Industrial land use category.” The Plan Amendment changes the designation of the subject property from Industrial and Suburban to Central Urban. Thus, it is at least arguable that the policy does not apply to the Plan Amendment. Even if these Comprehensive Plan provisions apply to the Plan Amendment, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with them. The amendment to the Central Urban land use category will not exclude either “light industrial,” such as water-dependent marine industrial uses, or a recreational marina on the subject property. At first blush, it appears that Policy 32.1.1 would prohibit residential development landward of the overlay zone on the subject property. However, the Comprehensive Plan provides that these regulations will be incorporated into the zoning regulations and “may be the subject of deviation requests during the planned development process.” Hurricane Shelter and Evacuation Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the hurricane evacuation and shelter provisions of Community Facilities and Services Element (“CFSE”) Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. CFSE Goal 73 is a general goal for the County to provide adequate evacuation and sheltering safeguards for major storm events. Objective 73.1 directs the County to “[w]ork towards attaining” out-of-county evacuation times consistent with the Statewide Regional Evacuation Study. Notably, the objective specifies the ways in which the County will “work toward attaining” those evacuation time—by increasing shelter availability, improving evacuation routes, and increasing public awareness. The objective does not require the County to either prohibit or limit residential density to achieve that end. CFSE Policy 73.1.1 requires the County to do periodic updates of its emergency management plan and the long-range transportation plan, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and to identify critical evacuation routes. Policy 73.1.2 addresses replacement bridges on evacuation routes. None of these provisions are implicated by or address the Plan Amendment at issue. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with FLUE Goal 32; FLUE Objectives 2.2, 2.6, 32.1, and 32.2; FLUE Policies 5.1.5 and 32.1.1; HE Policies 135.9.5 and 135.9.6; and CFSE Goal 73, Objective 73.1, and Policies 73.1.1 and 73.1.2. Data and Analysis Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react to data available to the County at the time the Plan Amendment was adopted, namely historical data constituting the community vision for the island. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the San Carlos Island Community Redevelopment Area (“CRA”) Plan, which she testified was “the outcome of a long history of community working together to plan for its future.” When asked to identify specific provisions of the CRA plan to which the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction, Ms. Semmer identified the fact that the plan recognized the existence of 917 residential units. She testified that “we felt that we were built out at the time, and we were happy with that … And this project, adding another 75 units, it’s going to be difficult to accommodate the additional traffic and the people.” The CRA plan was adopted in May 1991 and provided the background, findings, and data to support the designation of the entire island as a CRA, pursuant to section 163.358. The CRA Plan makes findings that blighted conditions exist on the island which justify designation as a CRA. The CRA Plan defines the characteristics of the redevelopment area, provides an infrastructure needs assessment, and establishes goals for the redevelopment area, as well as specific subareas. The CRA Plan actually notes the existence of 995 dwelling units on the island, not 917, according to the 1980 census. The CRA Plan does not contain any prohibition on increasing the number of dwelling units on the island, or reflect an intent to prohibit new residential development.10 On the contrary, the CRA Plan contains data which is supportive of the Plan Amendment. For example, one of the findings of blight conditions is “faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness.” The CRA Plan finds that many lots “do not comply with minimum lot size requirements” and “would have significant difficulty being developed under current regulations.” The Plan Amendment combines eight lots, redevelopment of which is constrained by their size and configuration (narrow, elongated lots) with zoning designations of marine industrial, light industrial, commercial, and mobile home. Under the Plan Amendment, the lots are aggregated for a single development. The CRA Plan identifies the area north of Main Street and east of San Carlos Boulevard (where the subject property is located) as “a mixture of single-family, mobile home parks, marinas, commercial retail and service clubs.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 23. The CRA Plan does not identify this mix of uses as incompatible or undesirable, nor does it express an intent to discontinue mixed uses in that area. The Plan Amendment proposes a land 10 In contrast, the plan reflects the community’s staunch opposition to development of a parking garage on the island: “It is basic that [the island] neither become a parking lot for Fort Myers Beach (Estero Island) nor for Lee County. This would preclude construction of a parking garage on [the island] or additional surface parking for benefit of other areas of Lee County … or which would be utilized as temporary parking with the people parking their vehicles then being transported to another area by any means.” San Carlos Island CRA Plan, p. 11. “The residents and property owners of San Carlos Island are united in their opposition to construction of a parking garage, unless it can be shown that such garage is of benefit to those residents and owners and is not just part of a plan to permit development in some other area of Lee County.” Id. at p. 26. use category that allows a mix of residential, commercial, marina, and light industrial, underscoring the consistency of the Plan Amendment with the historic development pattern. The CRA Plan further describes more particularly the uses in the area of the subject property as “an area of light industrial development consisting of rental storage area, a service club, a fish house, and a large marina.” Id. at 24. The Plan Amendment retains this essential mix of uses and allows these uses, along with residential, to be developed on the subject property. Petitioners identified a report from the San Carlos Island Community Design Workshop, held February 21 and 22, 1992, as an example of data to which the Plan Amendment does not appropriately react. The workshop was conducted solely to determine “the best uses for a piece of County-owned property,” 5.6-acres in size, fronting on the Matanzas Pass. The report, which is entirely hearsay, notes that the community participants “[d]efinitely [did] not want[] high rises or major public attractions, Disney-style.” The report has no relevance to the Plan Amendment, which is not part of the property being considered for redevelopment during the workshop. Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to the data and analysis reflected in the documents designating San Carlos Island within the Waterfronts Florida partnership. Ms. Semmer testified that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Community Vision contained in that document, to wit: San Carlos Island is a people-oriented community with an important working waterfront that includes vibrant commercial seafood and other marine-based industries and recreational opportunities. These assets contribute in making San Carlos Island an attractive community for its permanent and seasonal residents as well as an interesting area for visiting tourists. The designated “working waterfront” under the Waterfronts Florida partnership is located entirely south of Main Street. Thus, the Plan Amendment, affecting property north of Main Street—outside of the designated area—cannot be inconsistent with the vision expressed therein. Ms. Semmer’s contention that the Plan Amendment will convert property from industrial “working waterfront” use, contrary to the Waterfronts Florida document, is not credible. Likewise, the San Carlos Island Special Area Management Plan, adopted in 1999 to implement the Waterfronts Florida designation, applies mainly to the one-half mile long area designated under the program. Finally, Ms. Semmer introduced a 1978 resolution of the Board of County Commissioners stating, “The Board hereby establishes a policy of granting no additional multi-family zoning on Estero Island or San Carlos Island.” Ms. Semmer testified that this resolution recognizes that the island was “built out, that we could not handle any additional density[.]” Thus, Ms. Semmer argues that the Plan Amendment is not an appropriate reaction to that data because it allows new residential uses on the subject property. The resolution addresses rezonings, and the Plan Amendment is not a rezoning. Rezoning of the property has been undertaken and is not an issue cognizable in this challenge to the Plan Amendment.11 Petitioners did not prove that the Plan Amendment fails to react appropriately to data available to the County at the time it was adopted. The Plan Amendment is based on, and appropriately reacts to, the development trends on the island from intense industrial fishing-related uses to more recreational and commercial uses, including more mixed use uses both north and south of Main Street. The Plan Amendment is supported by data on the availability of public utilities to service the property—a condition necessary for infill development. The Plan Amendment will allow for a transition 11 Moreover, Petitioners did not prove that this resolution is still valid. between the industrial uses to the north and west of the subject property and the suburban uses to the east. State Requirements for Development in the CHHA Finally, Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment increases residential density in the CHHA and does not meet the state requirements for such development set forth in section 163.3178(8). Section 163.3178 defines the CHHA as the “area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges for Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model.” § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. The statute requires each local government comprehensive plan to designate the CHHA within its jurisdiction and “the criteria for mitigation for a comprehensive plan amendment in a [CHHA] as defined in subsection (8).” Id. Section 163.3178(8) reads, as follows: (8)(a) A proposed comprehensive plan amendment shall be found in compliance with state coastal high-hazard provisions if: The adopted level of service for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale; or A 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson scale and shelter space reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by a proposed comprehensive plan amendment is available; or Appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. Appropriate mitigation shall include, without limitation, payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Required mitigation may not exceed the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development. A local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan. It is undisputed that the subject property, and indeed most of the island, is located in the CHHA. The Plan Amendment allows residential density on the subject property, thereby increasing residential density in the CHHA.12 The County has adopted a 16-hour out-of-county evacuation time for a category 5 storm event (Level E storm surge).13 Based on the 2017 Update to the Southwest Florida Regional Evacuation Study (“Regional Evacuation Study”), the base scenario (i.e., the analysis used for growth management purposes) out-of-county clearance time for Lee County is actually 84.5 hours for a category 5 storm.14 Because the County’s adopted level of service (“LOS”) for out-of- county evacuation in a Level 5 hurricane has not been attained, it certainly will not be maintained under a scenario which includes development allowed by the Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet the requirements of section 163.3178(8)(a)1. to be deemed compliant with state CHHA standards. The Regional Evacuation Study projects Lee County’s 2020 evacuation time-to-shelter for a Category 5 storm (Level E storm surge) as 96 hours, an increase of 11.5 hours from the 2017 projection. 12 No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the County has made a commensurate reduction in residential density in the CHHA. 13 The County had initially adopted an 18-hour out-of-county hurricane evacuation time; however, in 2006, the Florida Legislature set a default 16-hour evacuation standard for certain local governments. See ch. 2006-68, § 2, Laws of Fla. 14 That number has increased to 96 hours for 2020. Because the County has not attained the state-mandated 12-hour evacuation time-to-shelter, the County cannot maintain that metric under the Plan Amendment.15 Dr. Depew testified that, based on his research, a Category 5 hurricane shelter is located approximately 28 miles from the subject property, which is an approximate 44-minute drive. In his opinion, then, the Plan Amendment “maintains the 12-hour evacuation time to shelter” as required by section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Dr. Depew’s testimony was uncontradicted, but is not credible. Evacuation time-to-shelter is defined in the Regional Evacuation Study as “the time necessary to safely evacuate vulnerable residents and visitors to a ‘point of safety’ with in the county based on a specific hazard (i.e., Category 5 hurricane), behavioral assumptions and evacuation scenario.” Clearance time-to-shelter is “[c]alculated from the point in time when the evacuation order is given to the point in time when the last vehicle reaches a ‘point of safety’ within the county.” Clearance time does mean, as suggested by Dr. Depew, merely the drive time between a particular residential development and an existing qualifying shelter on a normal traffic day. That testimony is inadequate for the undersigned to find that the Plan Amendment meets the state CHHA requirement under section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Depew’s testimony was credible and reliable, it would not be sufficient alone to establish that the Plan Amendment meets the standards of paragraph 2. The application of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. does not end with an analysis of evacuation time-to-shelter. The statute also requires that shelter space “reasonably expected to 15 The County has not adopted an LOS for “evacuation time-to-shelter”; instead, the County has adopted an LOS for shelter capacity: “in-county and on-site shelter for 10% of the population at risk in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone under a Category 5 storm hazard scenario.” accommodate the residents of the development contemplated by” the Plan Amendment be “available.” The Regional Evacuation Study analyzes public shelter capacity and projects public shelter demand for each county in the region. For Lee County, the capacity of all shelters is 42,659 (for both the 2017 and 2020 base scenarios). The projected 2020 public shelter demand for a category 5 hurricane (Level E storm surge risk) is 47,018. That is an increase of 13,799 from the 2017 projection of 33,219. The data does not support a finding that the County has available shelter space to accommodate any new residents, yet alone those evacuating from development at the density allowed by the Plan Amendment. Dr. Depew attempted to undermine the reliability of the shelter demand projections, testifying that “there’s a very high error margin in these projections. In some instances, it’s as high as 50 percent from the anticipated demand[.]”16 Dr. Depew did not identify any documentation of the margin-of- error in the study, or offer any more reliable data from which the County (or the undersigned) could pull more accurate projections. On cross-examination, when asked to look at a specific operational demand projection, Dr. Depew was unable to identify whether it was “one of the ones with the 50 percent error margin.” Dr. Depew also criticized use of the base scenario because it “anticipates a hundred percent evacuation,” while the operational scenario anticipates something “closer to reality.” This attempt to persuade the undersigned that the base scenario shelter demand numbers are either unreliable, or inappropriate to use for purposes of evaluating the Plan Amendment, was likewise unpersuasive. The Evacuation Study Report defines the public shelter demand scenarios as follows: 16 The Regional Evacuation Study was introduced by Intervenor, for whom Dr. Depew was testifying. The Base Scenarios – which are used for planning and growth management purposes assume that 100% of the population-at-risk evacuates plus a (smaller) percentage of non- vulnerable population (shadow evacuation). The Operational Scenarios used in operations use the planning assumptions determined by the behavioral analysis which are assumed to be a more realistic set of assumptions. Although they do not reflect 100% evacuation of vulnerable residents, there is a significant percentage of shadow evacuation especially in major storm events. According to the study, the base scenarios are specifically designed for use in planning and growth management decisions, such as the one made by the County when it adopted this Plan Amendment. The Plan Amendment does not meet state CHHA standards by way of section 163.3178(8)(a)2. Finally, the statute provides that a plan amendment may be deemed to meet state CHHA standards via mitigation. The developer may mitigate hurricane evacuation impacts of development in the CHHA by payment of money, contribution of land, or construction of hurricane shelters or transportation facilities. Intervenor has committed, through the mediated settlement agreement, to mitigation in the form of either construction of an on-site shelter to withstand category 5 hurricane winds and storm surge, or a fee-in- lieu thereof pursuant to the County’s requirements. The settlement agreement contains detailed specifications for shelter construction should the County choose that option. The settlement also requires the developer to submit a post-storm recovery plan for review and approval by Lee County Emergency Management. The settlement provides that “[p]rior to any redevelopment of the site … an agreement must be executed between the county and the property owners” to require the mitigation. Petitioners argue that this commitment is not sufficient to meet the statutory mitigation requirements because the developer has not yet executed a written mitigation agreement with the County to provide any specific mitigation construction or payment. They criticize the process for “put[ting] off the mitigation plan until redevelopment of the site.” The statute requires that the “local government and a developer shall enter into a binding agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan,” but does not address the timing of the binding agreement relative to the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan, at CME Policy 101.1.4, contains provisions very similar to section 163.3178(8) for plan amendments that increase density in the CHHA. With regard to mitigation, Policy 101.1.4 requires the applicant to “enter into a development agreement to memorialize the mitigation plan prior to adoption of the plan amendment.” Petitioners have not challenged the Plan Amendment as inconsistent with Policy 101.1.4, but rather with the statutory provision. In contrast to the policy, the plain language of the statute does not require the mitigation agreement to be executed prior to adoption of the Plan Amendment. Finally, section 163.3178(8) allows for “[a]ppropriate mitigation [] provided that will satisfy subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2.” By referencing the subparagraphs requiring maintenance of out-of-county evacuation time and 12-hour evacuation time to shelter, the statute requires mitigation to the extent necessary to meet, in this case, the 16-hour out-of-county evacuation clearance time or the 12-hour time-to-shelter standard. However, the statute also limits the developer’s mitigation to “the amount required for a developer to accommodate impacts reasonably attributable to development.” The statute does not require the developer to build shelters, make transportation improvements, contribute land, or make payments to reduce the county’s existing deficit to achieve out-of-county evacuation clearance time or address the County’s overall shelter space deficit. The statute clearly limits the developer’s contribution to that required to address the impacts “reasonably attributable to the [specific] development.” Intervenor argues that providing the mitigation to offset hurricane evacuation or sheltering impacts associated with the particular development is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. However, to allow a developer to construct residential density in the CHHA and mitigate only the hurricane evacuation or time-to-shelter impacts associated with that particular development, when the adopted out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time has not been achieved, is contrary to the statutory requirement. The same is true for allowing shelter construction to mitigate only the impacts of the particular development when the adopted time-to-shelter has not been achieved or a shelter deficit exists. If the undersigned were to accept the County’s and Intervenor’s proffered interpretation of subparagraph 3., that would render meaningless the first sentence, which references to subparagraphs 1. and 2. and requires the mitigation to “satisfy” subparagraphs 1. and 2. Those subparagraphs directly address “maintaining” the adopted out-of-county and time-to-shelter clearance times. Under the proffered reading of section 163.3178(8)(a)3., any developer could satisfy the state requirements for CHHA construction by mitigating the impacts of the specific development on a local government’s hurricane evacuation clearance time regardless of whether the adopted out- of-county clearance time is met. That interpretation is unworkable and is rejected. Alternatively, Intervenor maintains that the Plan Amendment meets the state requirements for increased density in the CHHA under section 163.3178(8)(a)3. Because: (1) the Comprehensive Plan anticipates additional residential development in the Iona/McGregor planning community, which is within the CHHA; and (2) the impact of the Plan Amendment on both the out-of-county hurricane evacuation time and time-to-shelter is “de minimis.” To the first point, according to Table 1(b) of the Comprehensive Plan, the County has allocated a total of 375 acres of residential development in the Central Urban category within the planning community through the year 2030. Mr. Dunn testified that the County has approved residential development of 360 acres, leaving a balance of 15 acres available for residential development. His conclusion is that the County anticipated additional residential density in the CHHA because almost the entire planning community is located in the CHHA. Mr. Dunn’s conclusions appear valid based on the data and analysis in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the logic is circular. The County’s decision to locate more residential development within the CHHA is not dispositive of the question of whether that decision meets the state requirements for residential density in the CHHA.17 That determination is the subject of the instant de novo proceeding. To prove their second point, the County and Intervenor introduced into evidence a memorandum prepared by Daniel Trescott, a professional planner with the firm of Trescott Planning Solutions, Inc., analyzing the impact of the Plan Amendment at its maximum residential buildout (113 total dwelling units) on the County’s out-of-county evacuation clearance time and time-to-shelter (“the Trescott memo”). The relevant findings of the Trescott memo are as follows: (1) development of 113 dwelling units results in an additional 124 vehicles to evacuate and the need for an additional 48 shelter beds; (2) the Plan Amendment will increase out-of-county evacuation time by 1.2 minutes; and 17 Moreover, the Plan Amendment represents a decision to locate more Central Urban within the CHHA which was not reflected on the FLUM when the 2030 “residential by future land use category” allocations were made, as reflected in Table 1(b). The table reflects the overall acreage to be developed for residential use of the total acreage in the Central Urban category at that time. (3) the estimated clearance time-to-shelter would increase one-fifth of 1.2 minutes based on a projection that 21 percent of project residents would evacuate to a public shelter rather than out-of-county. The Trescott memo concludes, “This small increase will not cause the out-of-county evacuation time to increase incrementally above 84 hours,”18 and that the impact on clearance time-to-shelter would be “even more de minimis.” The Regional Evacuation Study calculates hurricane evacuation impacts in 30-minute increments. Based on that model, the impact from development allowed under the Plan Amendment will not result in an incremental increase in either out-of-county hurricane evacuation clearance time or time-to-shelter. Section 163.3178(8)(a)3. does not contain an exception for “de minimis” impacts. Furthermore, the statutory standard is not based on the Regional Hurricane Evacuation projected times for out-of-county and time-to- shelter in a Category 5 hurricane (both of which are projected at 96 hours for 2020), but on the adopted LOS for out-of-county evacuation clearance time of 16 hours, and the statutory time-to-shelter time of 12 hours. The alternative argument by the County and Intervenor that the Plan Amendment meets the state standard for increased residential density in the CHHA is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance 20-07 on June 17, 2020, is not “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Mark A. Trank, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street, 6th Floor Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 Amanda Swindle, Assistant County Attorney Lee County Attorney's Office 6th Floor 2115 Second Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2021. Mark Jacob Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 2nd Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3012 Richard Barton Akin, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A. Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes and Holt, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Joshua E. Pratt, Esquire Administration Commission Governor’s Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue Miami-Dade County's Krome Avenue is a two-lane, undivided highway. In October 2002, the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County (the Commission) passed Ordinance No. 02-198. The ordinance adopted an amendment composed of several parts to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Among the parts of the amendment were changes and additions to the CDMP initiated by an application ("Application No. 16") that relate to Krome Avenue (the "Plan Amendment.")1 Quite detailed, the Plan Amendment, in essence, makes changes that re-designate a substantial segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The Plan Amendment's additions add all of Krome Avenue as a Major Route among the CDMP's designated evacuation routes in the year 2015, create new policies related to approval of use of land in the vicinity of Krome Avenue designated as a four-lane roadway and create a new policy related to planned capacity improvement to the roadway, including widening to four lanes. The issue in this growth management case is whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance" as defined in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Preliminary Statement Under cover of a letter dated January 17, 2003, the Department of Community Affairs (the "Department" or "DCA") forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a petition that requested a formal administrative hearing. The petition was "forwarded [to DOAH] for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes." The petition was filed by the Sierra Club and John S. Wade, Jr., against the Department and Miami-Dade County (County) after the Department had issued a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendment transmitted by the County "in compliance" with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (the "Act" or the "Growth Management Act") contained in Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The petition alleges that the Plan Amendment is "not in compliance as defined in section 163.3184(1), Fla. Stat., because it is inconsistent with the requirements of ss. 163.3177, 163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, and 163.3245, the state comprehensive plan, with appropriate strategic regional policy plan, and with Chapter 9J-5, FAC." Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, p. 4, paragraph 16. For relief, the petition requests, inter alia, that the administrative law judge enter a recommended order finding that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance. Upon receipt of the petition, DOAH assigned it Case No. 03-0150GM. Charles A. Stampelos was designated as the Administrative Law Judge to conduct the proceedings. A Notice of Hearing was issued that set the case for final hearing in March and April 2003. In February, the case was continued until September 2003 and in July 2003, the case was re-assigned to the undersigned. Prior to final hearing, two petitions to intervene were filed: the first, by Monroe County in support of Petitioners2; the second, in support by the City of Homestead in support of DCA and Miami-Dade County.3 Both were granted subject to proof of standing. Prior to hearing, a number of unopposed motions for continuances were granted. In addition, three motions were filed by the County: one for summary final order, a second to relinquish jurisdiction and issue a recommended order and the third a motion in limine. The three motions were denied. The case proceeded to final hearing in September 2005 in Miami, Florida. The evidentiary portion of the final hearing opened with the introduction and admission of most of the joint exhibits admitted over the course of the hearing. All in all, 60 joint exhibits were offered and admitted. They are marked as Joint Exhibit Nos. 1-17, 19-27, 29-31, 34-44, 46-49, 51-57, and 59-67. Petitioners commenced the presentation of their case-in- chief first. They presented the testimony of seven witnesses: Dickson Eazala, Comprehensive Planner with Miami-Dade County; Kay Bismark, an expert in the Redland area real estate market; John S. Wade, Jr., Petitioner; Rodrick Jude, Chair of the Sierra Club's Miami Group Executive Committee; Thomas Van Lent, an expert in the field of southern Everglades hydrology and restoration; Charles Pattison, Executive Director and Planner for One Thousand Friends of Florida and an expert in comprehensive planning and compliance under the Growth Management Act; and, Diane O'Quinn, Director of Miami-Dade County's Department of Planning and Zoning, an expert in the field of comprehensive planning. Petitioners offered 13 exhibits, marked as Petitioners' Exhibit Nos. 9-13, 17-19, 21-23, and 29-30. Petitioners' Nos. 18 and 23 were rejected and then proffered by petitioners. The rest of the exhibits offered by Petitioners were admitted. Intervenor Monroe County presented the testimony of Timothy McGarry, Director of Growth Management in Monroe County and an expert in land planning. Monroe County offered two exhibits, marked as Monroe County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. Miami-Dade County presented the testimony of Thomas Pelham, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and review of plans and plan amendments for compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5; Alice Bravo, District Planning and Environmental Management Engineer for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and Jonathan Lord, Emergency Management Coordinator with Miami- Dade County's Office of Emergency Management. Miami-Dade County offered two exhibits, marked as Miami-Dade County Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2; both were admitted. The Department of Community Affairs presented the testimony of Paul Darst, Senior Planner in the Department, an expert in the fields of comprehensive planning and the review of comprehensive plan amendments with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 97-5. The Department offered one exhibit, marked as DCA Exhibit No. 1. It was admitted. After a number of motions granted to extend the time for the filing of proposed orders, the parties filed timely proposed recommended orders on February 3, 2006. This Recommended Order follows.
Findings Of Fact Krome Avenue Less than a mile south of downtown Florida City, at a "fork in the road" for a driver headed north, Krome Avenue branches off of US 1 (South Dixie Highway). It heads in a northwesterly direction for a short distance, turns due north through Florida City and the City of Homestead and then bolts northward across a considerable stretch of western Miami-Dade County. With only a slight directional variation at an intersection with Kendall Drive, the road continues its due north run until its last several miles when it turns northeasterly before it merges with US 27 (Okeechobee Road) just shy of the Broward County line. Over its 37-mile span, there are a number of significant features of the two-lane undivided roadway. Known also as 177th Avenue, it serves as the main street for the City of Homestead, a municipality hard-hit by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It treads along the edge of the Everglades Protection Area. In the south, Krome Avenue's locus varies in distances relatively close to Everglades National Park. In the case of Water Conservation Area 3 (WCA-3) to the north, the roadway abuts the Everglades sector's politically-drawn east border. For most of its length north of US 41 or the Tamiami Trail it fragments wetlands designated as "Environmental Protection" with WCA-3 to the west and an extension of the historical Everglades to the east. It also traverses the Redland, an expansive tract of prime agricultural land packed between suburbs and the fabled River of Grass. Krome Avenue's cross of the Redland renders it a route essential to agricultural interests in the area. The roadway is used to transport harvested row crops and as a means to get produce from fruit and vegetable groves to market in the face of competitive pressure from Mexico and Central America, competition generated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) since its adoption during the Clinton Administration. Lately, Krome Avenue has been a shipping lane for bush, flower and tree products from recently-arisen container nurseries dedicated to ornamental horticulture. The burgeoning nursery business supports the landscaping needs of the real estate and building industries in a county that has experienced explosive residential and commercial growth recently due in substantial part to stimulation from a financing environment of low interest rates that has persisted for more than half a decade. Due to Krome Avenue's proximity to the Everglades, any proposed and adopted amendments to the CDMP or local zoning action that might promote improvement of the roadway draws attention of some involved in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (the "Project" or "CERP"). The Project, called for by Congress to be completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a joint effort with the state and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) involves the expenditure of prodigious governmental funds and utilization of ground-breaking science. Of considerable interest to many communities, residential, commercial, environmental, agricultural, and scientific, to name some of the more obvious, CERP is the subject of government involvement at all levels. Of concern is anticipation that improvement to Krome Avenue supported by CDMP amendments threatens to contribute to rises in the value of property that is being sought or may be sought for governmental acquisition to further CERP at a time when there are various forces in play to reduce funding for the Project. A Significant Roadway Krome Avenue's is Miami-Dade County's westernmost roadway of statewide significance. The CDMP recognizes this status: it classifies the roadway as a state principal arterial roadway. The state likewise recognizes Krome Avenue's significance. FDOT has designated Krome Avenue a corridor in the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS)4 developed to address requirements for a National Highway System imposed by the Congress' Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The Plan Amendment makes it is a hurricane evacuation route for residents and the transient population of south Miami-Dade County and provides an alternative evacuation route to Monroe County and the Florida Keys, an area sensitive to effects generated by residential development in south Florida. Despite its import to local, state and national transportation systems and the recognition of that import in the last several decades, the roadway has remained an undivided rural two-lane highway. Its configuration and the transportation demands that have increased in recent years have led to concerns about safety on much of Krome Avenue. Krome Avenue Safety The 33-mile segment of the corridor between Southwest 296th Street and US 27 exhibits a vehicular crash rate that is consistently higher than the statewide average for highways with the same characteristics. A significant portion of those crashes have resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. Between 1995 and 1999, there were 966 total vehicular crashes, of which 106 resulted in severe injuries and 16 resulted in fatalities. The number of crashes resulting in fatalities increased significantly after 1999. Between January 2000 and July 2002, there were an additional 26 crashes resulting in fatalities. Between 1995 and 2002, a total of 59 people died on Krome Avenue in the 42 crashes involving fatalities. Fatal crashes occurred in four segments of Krome Avenue as indicated here: Road Segment Crashes Deaths Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 16 26 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 3 4 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 16 21 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 7 8 Of the 42 fatal crashes between 1995 and 2002, 15 were the result of head-on collisions. Another 15 were the result of centerline crossovers, where a vehicle traveling in one direction crossed over the roadway centerline and struck a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Crossover collisions differ from head-on collisions in that the point of impact is usually at an angle. Head-on collisions and crossover collisions on Krome Avenue are due at least in part to its configuration as a two- lane, undivided road. Because crashes occurred throughout the 33-mile corridor and not just at intersections, independent transportation engineering consultants retained by FDOT to analyze conditions on Krome Avenue recommended that a safety improvement plan should be considered for the entire corridor. (See paragraphs 18. to 28., below.) Daily traffic volumes on Krome Avenue increased steadily between 1995 and 2001, growing at a rate of over 10 percent per year. In 2001, weekday traffic volumes were approximately 14,000 to 15,000 vehicles between S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 296th Street and approximately 9,000 vehicles between US 27 and Southwest 8th Street, as illustrated in the following table: Road Segment Avg. Daily Traffic 2001 Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 14,100 Long-range traffic projections indicate that by the year 2020, weekday traffic volumes will be between 18,000 and 21,000 vehicles south of S.W. 8th Street, and approximately 12,000 vehicles to the north. No projection suggests that traffic will decrease. Indeed, traffic models for Miami-Dade County have systematically underestimated actual traffic volume. Many intersections on Krome Avenue operate with unacceptable levels of delay, which affect drivers’ overall travel times. These conditions are reasonably expected to degrade over the coming decades. The increased traffic volume and attendant diminution in Level of Service mean that a large percentage of motorists on Krome Avenue are not able to travel at desired speeds. Slow- moving vehicles impede drivers’ forward progress, but because Krome Avenue is a two-lane road with a high volume of traffic traveling in both directions, drivers are not able to pass those vehicles. The result is an increase in driver frustration. The number of head-on crashes on Krome Avenue indicates that many drivers, as they get frustrated, are more willing to attempt risky passing maneuvers. Because passing generally involves higher speeds, crashes that result from risky passing maneuvers are more likely to result in fatalities or severe injuries. The problems associated with driver frustration are further exacerbated by the increasing volume of large trucks on Krome Avenue. The number of trucks as a percentage of overall traffic varies between 26 percent and 32 percent of daily traffic. Trucks contribute to delays at intersections and, thus, to overall delays in travel times. Trucks have difficulty turning off of Krome Avenue, thereby encouraging vehicles to attempt to pass them; those vehicles in turn pose a hazard to oncoming traffic, because they are obscured by the truck. Finally, the high percentage of trucks on the road contributes to an increase in the severity of crashes involving trucks. In general, because of the difference in size and speed between trucks and automobiles, the two types of vehicles should be separated as much as possible especially by a median separating lanes of traffic proceeding in opposing directions. The 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan In 1999, FDOT produced the Krome Avenue Action Plan (the "Action Plan.") The Action Plan followed by nine years the Florida Legislature's adoption of the FIHS of which Krome Avenue is a part. FIHS standards require that FIHS roadways be designated as controlled access facilities and that they be configured with a minimum of four lanes divided by a restrictive median (the "FIHS Directive"). Attempts to bring Krome Avenue into compliance with the FIHS Directive met with difficulties described in the Executive Summary of the Action Plan: To begin the long-range planning process required to achieve this directive, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) programmed various phases of improvement for Krome Avenue in their tentative work program. This work program was adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the Miami-Dade County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and provides funding for a more detailed study of the corridor. This action set off a string of controversial meetings and hearings regarding the consistency of the TIP, the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), and local government comprehensive plans. In response to the controversy, the MPO modified their TIP to eliminate consideration of Krome Avenue as a four (4) lane divided roadway with landscaped medians throughout the facility. In February 1997, FDOT began analyzing the Krome Avenue corridor and developing the Krome Avenue Action Plan. During the public involvement process, several alternatives were developed to preserve Krome Avenue as a two (2) lane roadway. The results of sixteen (16) months of public involvement activities and engineering analysis identified the need to preserve the rural character of the corridor while providing safety and operational enhancements to the existing roadway. Joint Exhibit 19, pgs. i-ii, (emphasis supplied). In light of difficulty in reaching "consensus and public acceptance for any improvement alternative," id., p. ii, the Action Plan was conducted "as a precursor to the requisite Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study to avoid the expenditure of the large sums of public funds in a study effort, with no resulting project." Id. The Action Plan required that Krome Avenue be maintained as a two-lane road, and it recommended improvements, such as adding additional lanes and traffic signals at intersections; implementing an access management plan to limit the number of driveways and cross-street connections to Krome Avenue and to restrict turns off of the roadway; enhancing road shoulders; providing passing zones; adding pedestrian and bicycle facilities; improving pavement markings and signs; and widening the areas from the edge of the roadway that are free of obstructions, known as clear zones, to prevent crashes that result from drivers running off of the road. The Action Plan was premised on traffic volume projections for the year 2010 that were exceeded or were nearly exceeded by the traffic actually observed in 2001, nine years before the final projection. In addition, the amount of traffic observed in 2001 was close to the amount of traffic projected for 2020: Road Segment 2010 KAAP Forecast 2020 KAAP Forecast 2001 Avg. Daily Traffic Okeechobee Rd. (US 27) to Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) 9,349 10,475 9,000 Tamiami Trail (SW 8 St.) to Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,800 Kendall Drive (SW 88 St.) to Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) 14,713 16,486 14,500 Eureka Drive (SW 184 St.) to Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) 12,730- 16,351 13,486- 18321 14,600 Silver Palm Drive (SW 232 St.) to Avocado Drive (SW 296 St.) 11,921- 16,917 12,629- 17,921 14,100 Furthermore, after the Action Plan, that is, after 1999, the number of fatal crashes increased significantly. The increase was noted in an "Existing Level of Service Study" prepared for District VI of FDOT by Kittelson & Associates, Inc., (the "Kittelson Report"). The Kittelson Reports In 2002, FDOT retained Kittelson & Associates (“Kittelson”), independent transportation planning and engineering consultants, to report on Krome Avenue. Kittelson produced two reports in August and October of that year (the "First Kittleson Report" and the "Second Kittleson Report"). The First Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Existing Level of Service Study” and the Second Kittleson Report is entitled “SR 997/Krome Avenue Future Conditions Analysis and Mitigation Measures.” See Joint Exhibits 15 and 49. The 1999 Action Plan, prepared in the wake of public controversy and concerns regarding consistency between the CDMP and the FIHS Directive, directly addressed those concerns and reached a compromise in the conflict. As stated in the last paragraph of its Executive Summary: Although the improvements in the Krome Avenue Action Plan do not result in a facility that meets all FHS standards, the Action Plan represents the best compromise among a wide range of diverse interests including hundreds of interested residents, agency staff, and elected officials. Joint Exhibit 19 (emphasis supplied). Unlike the Action Plan, however, Kittelson's focus, as stated in the opening sentence of its Executive Summary in the First Kittleson Report, was squarely on level of service and safety issues: "The purpose of this study is to perform a detailed Level of Service and safety analysis for existing conditions along the SR 997/Krome Avenue (177th Avenue) corridor." Joint Exhibit 15, pgs. II and 2. In the Second Kittleson Report, Kittleson summarizes its finding with regard to the increase in the number and severity of crashes on Krome Avenue: . . . [I]t is clear that traffic volume growth and increasing levels of congestion have contributed to driver frustration and attempts to make risky passing maneuvers on Krome Avenue. This has probably led to an increase in the number and severity of crashes in the corridor. Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Second Kittleson Report recognized that short of widening to a divided, four-lane roadway, there are a number of congestion and safety measures that could be considered to enhance mobility and safety, some of which were recommended by the 1999 Action Plan and some that were in addition to that plan. But the Second Kittleson Report argued for consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four-lane divided roadway: . . . [T]here are four factors that, in combination, argue for the consideration of widening Krome Avenue to a four lane divided section: The fact that Krome Avenue is on the Florida Intrastate Highway System and the requirement that it be designated as controlled-access facility with a cross-section that provides for at least four lanes with a restrictive median. The likelihood that the high percentage of trucks that use the entire length of the corridor Id. contribute to an increase in crash severity when trucks are involved in crashes. The increasing levels of roadway and intersection congestion and the difficulty in mitigating these levels of congestion short of providing for additional north-south through movement capacity. The crash experience on Krome Avenue exceeds the statewide average for this type of roadway. The high number of crashes and the increase in crash severity (as demonstrated by an increase in the number of fatal crashes largely due to head-on and angle collisions) that likely would be mitigated by physically separating the directions of travel with a median. In a section of the Second Kittelson Report under the heading of "Availability of Passing" Kittelson details the problems with passing on a two-lane undivided Krome Avenue, the contribution these problems make to head-on collisions and the high speeds at which passing maneuvers occur. The report concludes that several measures should be considered to counter safety issues associated with passing maneuvers, among them, the addition of passing lanes and a median separated two-lane section. The first countermeasure recommended, however, is the creation of a four-lane section: A four-lane section eliminates the need for drivers to judge the adequacy of gaps in opposing traffic and use the opposing lane to perform the passing maneuver. The length and placement of a four-lane section can vary (for example, a four-lane section can be located between intersections or on a specific stretch of roadway). It is noted that in areas where access to roadside properties exists or is planned, a four-lane section should be median separated and that left-turn lanes need to be provided to minimize crossover crashes and rear-end crashes. A properly designed four-lane section can be expected to nearly eliminate head-on crashes (a crash type that often results in severe injuries or fatalities) and reduce the total number of roadway crashes associated with passing maneuvers. Joint Exhibit 49 (emphasis supplied). The Second Kittleson Report notes that "[w]hen considering potential countermeasures, it is important to note that one treatment does not have to be applied to the entire corridor." Joint Exhibit 49, p. 36. The reason is that there are a number of issues including safety that should be examined. The Second Kittelson Report reaches the conclusion, therefore, that "[a]n alternative analysis that considers issues such as available right-of-way, environmental impacts, safety benefits, operational benefits, and community concerns should be completed in order to decide what the preferred treatment should be." Id. In light of four factors stated above and specifically, the solution to head-on collisions offered by upgrading a two-lane undivided highway to a four-lane divided highway, Kittelson in the Second Kittleson Report recommends, "that a Project Development and Environment process be conducted to consider the range of solutions for improving the operational and safety characteristics of Krome Avenue." Joint Exhibit 49, p. E-V. The Kittleson reports, therefore, went a step beyond the 1999 Action Plan. They call for improvement of some or all of Krome Avenue to a four-lane section with a restrictive median as one of the solutions, among a range of solutions, to safety on Krome Avenue. Before such an improvement can take place, however, FDOT must conduct a Project Development and Environment Study (a "PD&E Study.") FDOT's Position FDOT is solely responsible for funding and building improvements to Krome Avenue. FDOT has neither a rule nor an un-codified policy that it will not consider funding or building an improvement to a road under its jurisdiction when improvement would be inconsistent with an applicable local comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, as made clear in the 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, FDOT is plainly sensitive to undertaking expensive studies necessary to roadway improvements that are inconsistent with local comprehensive plans. A PD&E Study is resource-intensive in time, money and FDOT commitment. Inconsistency with a local comprehensive plan is not a prescription for action on roadway improvement; rather it tends to produce a situation laden with complication as FDOT's District Engineer testified at hearing: (Tr. 768) Q. . . .[I]f this plan amendment which authorizes the widening, on the comprehensive plan, to four lanes, if this amendment is rejected, what happens next? A. . . . [W]e would have to stop and consider the circumstances, the situation, a lot of different factors before we decided whether or not to proceed with the ... study. FDOT has long been aware of safety problems on Krome Avenue. In the wake of the Kittelson Reports commissioned after a rapid rise in life-threatening traffic accidents on Krome suspected to be due, at least in part, to its configuration and a strong recommendation that widening and median placement be considered among a range of improvements, a PD&E Study was not commenced. As of the time of hearing a PD&E Study had still not been commenced. Evacuation Route In considering the data related to safety on Krome Avenue, including the Kittelson Report, the Commission considered Krome Avenue's status as an evacuation route. Since the early 1990s, Miami-Dade County has experienced significant population growth along its southern and western fringes, between the Broward County line and the Homestead/Florida City area. This growth is reasonably expected to continue. Because Krome Avenue is one of only three continuous north-south routes in Miami-Dade County, it is important to persons evacuating the City of Homestead and other surrounding areas in southern and western Miami-Dade County and Monroe County. Krome Avenue is an evacuation route not only for hurricanes but also for “all hazards,” such as a meltdown at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plan. Nonetheless, it is not designated by Monroe County as part of the official evacuation route. Krome Avenue had been used to evacuate southern Miami- Dade County during Hurricane Andrew. It had also been used to transport relief personnel, vehicles, and supplies in the aftermath of that storm. Given the growth of Miami-Dade County’s population, the other north-south routes, the Florida Turnpike and US 1, would be extremely congested if all of southern and western Miami-Dade County evacuated—much more so if Monroe County evacuated at the same time. Moreover, it is not only people who live in mandatory evacuation zones who evacuate during an emergency: an increasing number of people evacuate voluntarily. Additional capacity on Krome Avenue is necessary to accommodate both mandatory and voluntary evacuees. Miami-Dade County’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, prepared by the Miami-Dade Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”) in October 2000 and adopted by the County Commission, currently designates Krome Avenue as a primary north-south evacuation route for the Florida Keys and south Miami-Dade, in the event of a hurricane or an emergency related to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. Designated evacuation routes are roads that OEM encourages people to use in an emergency, and they are selected based on recognizability, carrying capacity, and where they end. To maintain consistency between the Emergency Management Plan and the CDMP, the Plan Amendment amends the map of “Designated Evacuation Routes-2015” in the Transportation Element to add Krome Avenue as a “Major Route.” Monroe County’s Director of Growth Management, Timothy McGarry, opined that Krome Avenue was not necessary to accommodate evacuation from Monroe County, because the Florida Turnpike provided adequate capacity. But McGarry based his opinion on the amount of Monroe County’s population that has historically evacuated, which is 50 percent. McGarry would not say that the Florida Turnpike would provide adequate capacity if 100 percent of Monroe County’s population were to evacuate. Moreover, McGarry conceded that, in formulating his opinion, he had not considered what would happen if both Monroe County and southern Miami-Dade County evacuated at the same time. A four-lane Krome Avenue would increase the capacity of Miami-Dade County’s Primary Evacuation Route System and facilitate relief efforts to south Miami-Dade and Monroe County. Moreover, if residents of both Miami-Dade County and Monroe County are evacuated, the additional capacity would allow OEM to direct Miami-Dade residents to Krome Avenue, thus opening the Turnpike and US 1, which provide the only exit routes from the Florida Keys, for residents and tourists evacuating Monroe County. The CDMP and the UDB Miami-Dade County is one of the only counties in the State of Florida to have an “urban development boundary" (UDB.) In the Land Use Element of the Adopted Components of the Year 2000 and 2010 CDMP dated December, 1988, the UDB is described: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2000 from areas where it should not occur. * * * The CDMP seeks to facilitate the necessary service improvements within the UDB to accommodate the land uses indicated on the LUP map within the year 2000 time frame. Accordingly, public expenditures for urban service and infrastructure improvements shall be focused on the area within the UDB, and urban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Element. Joint Exhibit 56-A, pgs. I-35 and I-36. Thomas Pelham, Miami- Dade County's expert in comprehensive planning, explained the difference between a UDB and an Urban Services Area: The urban service area concept is the local government's designation of the areas in which it . . . will provide urban services. The urban growth boundary is a technique by which a line is drawn beyond which urban development will not be allowed. Tr. 662-3. With regard to the UDB, the parties stipulated, The CDMP currently contains policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the Urban Development Boundary (the "UDB"), particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Pre-hearing Stipulation, p. 14, para. 13. The UDB appears on the CDMP's Adopted 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map ("LUP map") as a broken line that on its northern end commences on the border with Broward County. It runs primarily north-to-south along the breadth of developed Miami-Dade County, within several miles of the Everglades and environmentally protected lands, and through the Redland to a point southwest of Florida City and Homestead where it turns sharply east for five to six miles and then heads in a primarily northeast direction around Homestead Regional Airport to meet the coast along Biscayne Bay near Black Point Park. Other counties have at most an “urban service area” or “urban service boundary,” which merely designates the areas in which the government will provide urban services. In contrast to the UDB, an urban service area does not prohibit urban development outside its boundary. A comprehensive plan with an urban services area typically provides only that the landowner, rather than the government, is responsible for providing urban services outside the urban services area. Miami-Dade County had the UDB before the Florida legislature adopted the laws requiring comprehensive plans, in 1985. The UDB thus predates the CDMP, which was adopted in 1988. Neither Chapter 163 nor Rule 9J-5 requires an urban development boundary. In providing a UDB in the CDMP, therefore, Miami-Dade County is making use of a technique to discourage urban sprawl that exceeds the requirements of Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. Miami-Dade County has rarely expanded the UDB in areas not designated as Urban Expansion Areas (“UEAs”). In the last 10 years, the UDB has only been expanded once. That amendment, for the Beacon Lakes project, approved an industrial use where rock mining and cement manufacturing had already taken place. All along its path, Krome Avenue is outside (or to the west of) the UDB. The CDMP does not specify any procedures for applications to move the UDB, beyond the requirements applicable to plan amendments generally. Instead, the procedures for moving the UDB are set forth in Section 2-116.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County Florida (the “County Code”). That section requires an affirmative vote from two-thirds of the total membership of the County Commission. There are no restrictions on how frequently the County Code may be amended. Changes to the County Code may be accomplished by ordinance at any legislative meeting of the County Commission. The entire process can take as little as three months. Changes to the CDMP, by contrast, are subject to more rigorous procedures: applications may only be filed twice a year; they require review by the Regional Planning Council and DCA; they require two public hearings before the Planning Advisory Board; they require two public hearings before the County Commission; and the entire process takes one year. In its “Statement of Legislative Intent,” the CDMP provides: 3. The CDMP is intended to set general guidelines and principles concerning its purposes and contents. The CDMP is not a substitute for land development regulations. * * * 6. The Board recognizes that a particular application may bring into conflict, and necessitate a choice between, different goals, priorities, objectives, and provisions of the CDMP. While it is the intent of the Board that the Land Use Element be afforded a high priority, other elements must be taken into consideration in light of the Board’s responsibility to provide for the multitude of needs of a large heavily populated and diverse community. This is especially true with regard to the siting of public facilities. Recognizing that County Boards and agencies will be required to balance competing policies and objectives of the CDMP, it is the intention of the County Commission that such boards and agencies consider the overall intention of the CDMP as well as portions particularly applicable to a matter under consideration in order to ensure that the CDMP, as applied, will protect the public health, safety and welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 14. The CDMP currently contains substantive policies to discourage urban sprawl and urban development in areas outside the UDB, particularly areas designated Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection. These policies recognize limited exceptions for the provision of public services and facilities in such areas when necessary to protect public health and safety and serve the localized needs of the non-urban areas. Land Use Objective 1 provides: The location and configuration of Miami-Dade County’s urban growth through the year 2015 shall emphasize concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity, development of well designated communities containing a variety of uses, housing types and public services, renewal and rehabilitation of blighted areas, and contiguous urban expansion when warranted, rather than sprawl. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 15. Land Use Element Policy 1P provides: Miami-Dade County shall seek to prevent discontinuous, scattered development at the urban fringe particularly in the Agriculture Areas, through its CDMP amendment process, regulatory and capital improvements programs and intergovernmental coordination activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 16. Land Use Element Policy 1Q provides: While continuing to protect and promote agriculture as a viable economic activity in the County, Miami-Dade County shall explore and may authorize alternative land uses in the South Dade agricultural area which would be compatible with agricultural activities and associated rural residential uses, and which would promote ecotourism related to the area’s agricultural and natural resource base including Everglades and Biscayne National Parks. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 17. Land Use Element Policy 2B provides: Priority in the provision of services and facilities and the allocation of financial resource for services and facilities in Miami-Dade County shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 18. Land Use Element Policy 8C provides: Through its planning, capital improvements, cooperative extension, economic development, regulatory and intergovernmental coordination activities, Miami-Dade County shall continue to promote agriculture as a viable economic use of land in Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 19. Land Use Element Policy 8F provides: Applications requesting amendments to the CDMP Land Use Plan map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objective and Policies of all Elements, other timely issues, and in particular the extent to which the proposal, if approved, would: Satisfy a deficiency in the Plan map to accommodate projected population or economic growth of the County; Enhance or impede provision of services at or above adopted LOS Standards; Be compatible with abutting and nearby land uses and protect the character of established neighborhoods; Enhance or degrade environmental or historical resources, features or systems of County significance; and If located in a planned Urban Center, or within 1/4 mile of an existing or planned transit station, exclusive busway stop, transit center, or standard or express bus stop served by peak period of headways of 20 or fewer minutes, would be a use that promotes transit ridership and pedestrianism as indicated in the policies under Objective 7, herein. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 20. Land Use Element Policy 8G provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of the EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy 7F. The adequacy of non-residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 21. Land Use Element Policy 8H provides: When considering land areas to add to the UDB, after demonstrating that a countywide need exists, The following areas shall not be considered: The Northwest Wellfield Protection Area located west of the Turnpike Extension between Okeechobee Road and NW 25 Street, and the West Wellfield Protection Area west of SW 157 Avenue between SW 8 Street and SW 42 Street; Water Conservation Areas, Biscayne Aquifer Recharge Areas, and Everglades Buffer Areas designated by the South Florida Water Management District; The Redland area south of Eureka Drive; and The following areas shall be avoided: Future Wetlands delineated in the Conservation and Land Use Element; Land designated Agriculture on the Land Use Plan map; Category 1 hurricane evacuation areas east of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge; and The following areas shall be given priority for inclusion, subject to conformance with Policy 8G and the foregoing provision of this policy: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Land contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Locations having projected surplus service capacity where necessary facilities and services can be readily extended. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 22. Interpretation of the LUP Map: Policy of the Land Use Element provides: Urban Development Boundary (p. I-45) The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2005 from areas where it should not occur Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process . . . . [U]rban infrastructure is discouraged outside the UDB. In particular, the construction of new roads, or the extension, widening and paving of existing arterial or collector roadways to serve areas outside the UDB at public expense will be permitted only if such roadways are shown on the LUP map and in the Transportation Element. . . . Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated-Managed Growth (p. I- 59) [C]ritical in achieving the desired pattern of development is the adherence to the 2005 Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and 2015 Urban Expansion Area (UEA) Boundary. Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary. Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single- purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single-purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives. Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Ultimate Development Area (p. I- 64) The 2005 and 2015 Land Use Plan map identified the areas that will be urbanized within those time frames. As indicated throughout this Plan, these are the areas of the County where financial resources should be directed from the maintenance and construction of urban infrastructure and services. Growth of Dade County, however, is not projected to cease after the year 2015. Therefore, prudent long-term planning for infrastructure may need to anticipate locations for possible future extension. For example, it may be desirable to reserve rights-of-way in certain growth corridors as well as on section, half-section, and quarter-section lines, well in advance of need so that opportunities to eventually provide necessary roadways are not irrevocably lost. It is difficult to specify where and how much of Dade County’s total area may ultimately be converted to urban development. . . . It is reasonably safe to assume, however, that the areas least suitable for urban development today will remain least suitable. Theses areas include the remaining high-quality coastal and Everglades wetland areas in the County, and the Northwest Wellfield protection area. The areas more appropriate for, and more likely to experience sustained urban pressure are the heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands in the Biscayne-Snake Creek and Bird-Trail Canal Basins, the agricultural areas of southwestern and southeast Dade, and the impacted wetlands south of Homestead and Florida City. When the need for additional urban expansion is demonstrated after the year 2015, such expansion should be carefully managed to minimize the loss of agricultural land and to maximize the economic life of that valuable industry. Accordingly, urban expansion after the year 2015 in the South Dade area should be managed to progress westerly from the Metrozoo area to Krome Avenue north of Eureka Drive, and on the west side of the US 1 corridor southerly to Homestead only when the clear need is demonstrated. . . . Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 23 (emphasis supplied). Of particular import to this proceeding, Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement requires avoidance of improvements which encourage development in certain areas. With regard to development in Agriculture and Open Land areas, transportation improvements which encourage development are to be avoided but avoidance is subject to an exception, "those improvements necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urbanized areas." Areas designated Environmental Protection, on the other hand, are to be "particularly avoided." Policy 4C of the Traffic Circulation Subelement provides: Dade County’s priority in the construction, maintenance, and reconstruction of roadways, and the allocation of financial resources, shall be given first to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map. Second priority in transportation allocations shall support the staged development of the urbanizing portions of the County within the Urban Expansion Area. Transportation improvements which encourage development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements which are necessary for public safety and which serve the localized needs of these non-urban areas. Areas designated Environmental Protection shall be particularly avoided. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 24 (emphasis supplied). Policy 1A of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: The area within the Urban Development Boundary of the Land Use Plan map shall have the first priority in providing potable water supply, and sanitary sewage disposal, and for committing financial resources to these services. Future development in the designated Urban Expansion Area shall have second priority in planning or investments for these services. Investments in public water and sewer service shall be avoided in those areas designated for Agriculture, Open Land, or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map, except where essential to eliminate or prevent a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 25. Policy 1H of the Water and Sewer Sub-element provides: New water supply or wastewater collection lines should not be extended to provide service to land within the areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection on the Land Use Plan map. New water or wastewater lines to serve land within these areas should be approved or required only where the absence of the facility would result in an imminent threat to public health or safety. The use of on- site facilities should be given priority consideration. In all cases, facilities should be sized only to service the area where the imminent threat would exist, to avoid inducing additional urban development in the area. This policy will not preclude federal, State or local long-range planning or design of facilities to serve areas within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) or Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Public health and safety determinations will be made in accordance with Chapter 24 of the Code of Miami-Dade County (Environmental Protection) and Section 2-103.20, et. seq., (Water Supply for Fire Suppression) Code of Miami-Dade County. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 26. Policy 5A of the Capital Improvements Element provides: As a priority, previously approved development will be properly served prior to new development approvals under the provisions of this Plan. First priority will be to serve the area within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) of the Land Use Plan (LUP) map. Second priority for investments for services and facilities shall support the staged development of the Urban Expansion Area (UEA). Urban services and facilities which support or encourage urban development in Agriculture and Open Land areas shall be avoided, except for those improvements necessary to protect public health and safety and which service the localized needs. Pre-Hearing Stipulation, para. 27. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment consists of several components grouped as follows: a. changes in Plan designations in the Land Use Element on the LUP map and in the Traffic Circulation Subelement that increase the lanes on a segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes (the "Lane Increase Changes"); b. changes in the Transportation Element's Traffic Circulation Subelement that add Krome Avenue as a Major Route in the Designated Evacuation Routes 2015 (the "Evacuation Route Change"); c. addition of new policies that require among other matters a super-majority of the County Commission for zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve certain uses within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes (the "New Super-Majority Policies"); and d. addition of a new policy that requires adoption of a binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor before capacity improvements to Krome Avenue outside the UDB (the "New Binding Access Control Plan Policy"). The parties stipulated to the following narrative description of the Plan Amendment: 31. As part of the October 2002 Plan Amendment, the County Commission approved Application 16. Application 16 made the following changes to the CDMP: Changed the Plan designations of Krome Avenue (SR 997/SW 177 Avenue), between US 27 and SW 296 Street, as follows: In the Land Use Element, on the Land Use Plan map change from Minor Roadway (2 lanes) to Major Roadway (3 or more lanes); and in the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, Figure 1, “Planned Year 2015 Roadway Network”: Change from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. In the Transportation Element, Traffic Circulation Subelement, added Krome Avenue between US 27 and US 1 to Figure 7, Designated Evacuation Routes 2015, as a Major Route. Added the following new Policy 3F to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action or amendment to the CDMP that would approve any use other than direct agricultural production and permitted residential uses of property, in an area designated as Agriculture, whether as a primary use or as an accessory or subordinate use to an agricultural use, or action that would liberalize standards or allowances governing such other uses on land that is a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. The term “direct agricultural production” includes crops, livestock, 15 nurseries, groves, packing houses, and barns but not uses such as houses of worship, schools, sale of produce and other items, and outdoor storage of vehicles. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3G to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than limestone quarrying, seasonal agriculture or permitted residential use in an area designated as Open Land on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 3H to the Land Use Element: Any zoning action, or amendment to the Land Use plan map that would approve a use of property other than seasonal agricultural use in the Dade-Broward Levee Basin or permitted residential use in an area designated as Environmental Protection, on land that is, a) outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and b) within one mile of the right-of-way line of any portions of Krome Avenue designated in this Plan for improvement to 4-lanes, shall require an affirmative vote of not less than five members of the affected Community Zoning Appeals Board and two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners then in office, where such Community Zoning Appeals Board or Board of County Commissioners issues a decision. This policy is not intended to permit any use not otherwise permitted by the CDMP. Any modification to this section to allow additional uses within the one mile distance from Krome Avenue shall require an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of County Commissioners then in office. Added the following new Policy 4E to the Traffic Circulation Subelement: Notwithstanding the designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway on the CDMP Land Use Plan Map or as a four-lane roadway in the Traffic Circulation Subelement, no construction associated with the four- laning, or other capacity improvement, of Krome Avenue outside the Urban Development Boundary shall occur until FDOT has prepared, and the Board of County Commissioners has adopted, a detailed binding access control plan for the Krome Avenue corridor. This plan should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations. Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 28. Land Uses Near Krome Avenue North of S.W. 56th Street, the bulk of land uses around Krome Avenue are Environmental Protection and Open Land with almost all of the adjacent land north of US 41 designated Environmental Protection. South of S.W. 56th Street the land is designated as Agriculture and Environmental Protection except for near Homestead and Florida City where the land use designations are Residential Communities (of mostly low density), Business and Office and some Industrial and Office. Krome Avenue currently provides the western boundary of an Urban Expansion Area (UEA) for the year 2015 between what would be an extension of S.W. 42nd Street and an extension of S.W. 112th Street. The CDMP directs that urban infrastructure and services be planned for eventual extension into the UEA, as far west as Krome Avenue, sometime between 2005 and 2015. In addition, the area two miles east of Krome Avenue, between S.W. 12th Street and S.W. 8th Street, is designated as UEA. What the Plan Amendment Does Not Do Of particular import to this proceeding, given the case presented by Petitioners, is what the Plan Amendment does not do. The Krome Avenue Amendment does not change any land uses. It does not alter the existing Conservation Element or any other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources. It does not add Krome Avenue to the Capital Improvements Element or provide funds for or authorize construction on Krome Avenue. Furthermore, any future attempt to change land use in the vicinity of Krome Avenue, if anything, will be more difficult because of the New Supermajority Land Use Policies contained in the Plan Amendment. The New Supermajority Policies work in tandem with the substantive policies to provide the standards for land use changes within one mile of Krome Avenue designated for improvement to four lanes. For example, existing Land Use Policy 8H states that the areas surrounding Krome Avenue, particularly areas west of the road, be avoided or not be considered if Miami-Dade County proposes expanding the UDB. Because the only procedural requirements for moving the UDB are currently contained in the County Code, which may be amended from time to time, adding the Supermajority Requirement to the CDMP with its more rigorous amendment procedures, tends to make it more difficult to change the planning and zoning designations on a property. The Lane Increase Changes There are serious safety problems that rise to the level of literally "life-or-death" on the segment of Krome Avenue subject to the Lane Increase Changes. The Lane Increase Changes do not mandate that the portion of Krome Avenue that they govern be four-laned. They simply allow four-laning if a PD&E Study is conducted by FDOT that determines four-laning is the best way to address the safety issues. While the Lane Increase Changes give a designation to the Changed Segment of Krome Avenue that would allow it to be four-laned, it will not be four-laned until it is determined on the basis of further study in the future that four-laning is the best alternative for improving the Changed Segment. The Lane Increase Changes, without regard to the New Supermajority Policies, are supported by adequate data and analysis. This data and analysis consists of studies and commentaries by FDOT, including the Kittelson Reports and the 1999 Action Plan. The Lane Increase Changes do not authorize construction of improvements to the road. They do not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." (Tr. 671) It is only actual development that would cause potential urban sprawl that might threaten agriculture or pose a danger to the Everglades. Before any development could take place, additional amendments would have to be made to the CDMP. Those amendments would be subject to the same process as the Plan Amendment has undergone and is now undergoing. In other words, the potential dangers feared by Petitioners could not materialize without adoption of additional plan amendments. Furthermore, the fears held by Petitioners are mitigated by the New Supermajority Policies. DCA Review The entire package of amendments in the second round of 2002 for the CDMP, which included Application 16, is referred to by DCA as "Miami-Dade County 02-2 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments." See Joint Exhibit 11. Initial staff review of Miami-Dade County 02-2 culminated in a August 5, 2002 memorandum (the "Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum") to the Chief of the Bureau of Comprehensive Planning from a Senior Planner. The staff analysis is summarized in the memorandum: Staff has identified two potential ... objections with the Krome Avenue (FIHS facility) segment[5] amendment concerning internal inconsistency with the CDMP objectives and policies, and lack of supporting data and analysis addressing public safety. Joint Exhibit 11, p. 1. With regard to the "safety" data and analysis, staff wrote, "the amendment is not supported with adequate data and analysis which demonstrates consistency with the CDMP policies which allow for capacity improvements outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) only upon showing the amendment is 'necessary' to address public safety." Id., p. 3. The CDMP objectives and policies were summarized as follows: The corridor runs through Agriculture and Open Land use categories. In order to promote the agricultural industry, the CDMP clearly states, under its Agriculture land use category, facilities which support or encourage urban development are not allowed in the amendment area. The subject segment of the roadway currently runs north-south through an extensive area of active farmlands, except the northern portion between US 41 (SW 8th Street) and SW 56th Street which is designated as Open Land in the CDMP's FLUM. The CDMP also states that Open Land designated land, is not simply surplus undeveloped land, but rather land that is Id. intended to serve for production of agriculture, limestone extraction, resource- based activity such as production of potable water supplies or other compatible utility and public facilities or rural residential development at no more than 1 du/5 acres. The amendment area is also a prime candidate for conservation, enhancement of environmental character, and for acquisition by federal, state, regional, county or private institutions that would manage the areas for optimal environmental functions. Beyond SW 8th Street to Okeechobee Road is the environmental and wellfield protection areas through which the upper Krome Avenue runs. One mile west of the segment is the Everglades National Park Expansion Area (Attachment 3) which is authorized by the Congress for federal acquisition. Agriculture is the existing primary use of the corridor area as shown in (Attachment 4). The concern with regard to inconsistency was expressed in this way: Id. Staff is concerned that expansion of Krome Avenue will increase market pressure in the western MSA's within the UDB, resulting in the premature extension of the UDB. Staff concurs with County staff that the widening will cause appraisals to increase property values in the corridor, causing farmers to sell agricultural lands for urbanization. It is also likely that property values will increase on environmental/open lands which should be maintained for water management, resource protection and other functions related to Everglades protection. Within two weeks of the Pre-ORC Staff Analysis Memorandum, DCA issued the ORC Report. In a cover letter, Bureau Chief Charles Gautier wrote the following synopsis of the ORC: The Department is concerned that the widening of Krome Avenue or a segment of it will undermine the County's ability to control urban sprawl and impacts to agriculture and environmental lands. While we share concerns regarding accidents and fatalities on Krome Avenue, we recommend that the County fully evaluate all possible alternatives designs, including implementation of the FDOT 1999 Krome Avenue Action Plan, before considering the four lane option to address public safety. Department staff is available to assist your staff as they formulate the County's responses to the objections and recommendations for the amendment. Joint Exhibit 20, 1st page of the cover letter dated August 16, 2002. Miami-Dade County responded to the ORC Report by clarifying its interpretations of provisions in the CDMP, particularly LUE 2B, and by providing additional data and analysis. Department staff struggled with the response, but ultimately concluded that Miami-Dade County's interpretations were defensible and recommended the Plan Amendment be found in compliance. See Joint Exhibit 16. On December 18, 2002, the Department wrote to Miami- Dade County that it had determined the Plan Amendment to be in compliance. Accordingly, a Notice of Intent to determine the Plan Amendment in compliance was published in the Miami Herald on December 20, 2002. The Petition After the issuance of the notice of intent by the state land planning agency (DCA) to find the Plan Amendment in compliance, this proceeding was initiated by the filing of a petition as allowed by Section 163.3184(9)(a), Florida Statutes. The petition was filed by Sierra Club and John S. Wade and joined by Intervenor, Monroe County. The issues presented by the petition that remain after the parties entered a preheating stipulation filed with DOAH are stated in a section of the stipulation entitled, "D. Issues of Law and Fact That Remain to Litigated." Material Issues of Ultimate Fact While not exhaustive, the parties agree that the following are the major issues of disputed fact: Whether the amendment is consistent with legal provisions concerning the discouragement of urban sprawl. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the agricultural industry in south Miami-Dade County. Whether the amendments will have a material impact on the restoration of the Everglades. Whether the plan amendments is necessary to address public health and safety and serve localized needs. Issues of Law Whether the Plan Amendment is in compliance. Whether the Plan Amendment maintains the Plan's internal consistency and reflects the plans goals, objectives and policies, per 163.3177(2) Rule 9J-5.005(5)(a)&(b), F.A.C., specifically in regard to: Transportation Element Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 2B. FLUE Policy 8F. Transportation Element(TE) Policy 4C. FLUE Policy 3B. Whether the Plan Amendment is supported by data analysis as required by Sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8), and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rules 9J-5.005(2) and (5), F.A.C. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Fla. Admin. Code Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(g)(1)-(10) and (13), and Rules 9J- 5.006(5)(h), (i), and (j)(6), (18), and (19) because it fails to coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography and soil conditions, and the availability of facilities and services; ensure the protection of natural resources; and discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.019(3)(d), (f), (i) and 9J-5.019(4). Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 9J-5.005(6), FAC because it fails to establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and fails to provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations that would prevent the urban sprawl and impacts to agricultural, rural and environmentally sensitive lands caused by the four-laning of Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Sections 163.3177(6)(a)- (g), (8) & (10(e), Fla. Stat. Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council as a whole, and directly conflicts specifically with: Strategic Regional Goal 2.1 (1) Policy 2.1.4 (2) Policy 2.1.10 (3) Policy 2.1.14 Strategic Regional Policy 2.2.1 Strategic Regional Policy 3.9.1 Whether the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, including: Goal 15 (a) (LAND USE); Policy 15(b)1; Policy 15(b)6 Goal 16(a) & (b)(URBAN DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION) Goal 17(a) (PUBLIC FACILITIES); Policy 17(b)1 Goal 19(a); Policy(b)12 Goal 22(a) & (b) (AGRICULTURE) Pre-hearing Stipulation, Section D. The Parties The Sierra Club is a national organization with close to 800,000 members. Qualified to do business in the State of Florida, 30,000 or so of the Sierra Club's members are in its Florida Chapter. About 2800 Sierra Club members live and work in Miami-Dade County where the Miami Group of the Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club holds regular meetings. The Miami Group is a "wholly owned subsidiary . . of the national organization." (Tr. 235) "[A]s opposed to some other organizations which may have separate chapters . . . separately . . . incorporated in their local jurisdictions," the Miami Group, the Florida Chapter and the national organization of the Sierra Club "speak with one voice . . . ." Id. Organized to explore, enjoy and protect particular places around the globe, to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystem, to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives, the Sierra Club has taken numerous actions in support of restoration and preservation of the Everglades. The Sierra Club has been involved on many occasions in growth management issues in different parts of the state. It is particularly concerned about public policy issues that affect Miami-Dade County, including increased urban sprawl, the loss of agricultural lands, clean water, clean air, open space, parks and recreation and the associated loss of quality of life. A substantial number of Sierra Club members use areas surrounding Krome Avenue to recreate and regularly traverse the area on their way to the Everglades, Biscayne National Park, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as well as using the area for biking, hiking, bird watching, and picking tropical fruits and vegetables. A substantial number of members also regularly use and enjoy Everglades National Park and Florida Bay and use Krome Avenue en route to these destinations. Representation of its members' interests in administrative proceedings to enforce growth management laws is within the corporate purposes of Sierra Club. In keeping with its purposes, the Sierra Club commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of its transmittal to DCA and its adoption. John S. Wade, Jr., operates an interior foliage or a "container" nursery business at 20925 S.W. 187th Avenue "in the center of the Redlands area," tr. 210, one mile due west of Krome Avenue. Mr. Wade has been extensively involved in county planning issues for many years. A member of the Sierra Club, he is also an individual Petitioner in this proceeding. Mr. Wade commented to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the Plan Amendment between the time of transmittal to DCA and their adoption. Mr. Wade believes that the Plan Amendment affects his interests in that it will have a negative impact on wildlife which he enjoys and on his nursery business. The parties stipulated that Mr. Wade is an "affected person" with standing to bring and maintain this action under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Roads and Land Use: General Impact Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, establishes an important link between planned road infrastructure and future land use decisions. The future transportation map, furthermore, plays a critical role in the future land use pattern of a local government, particularly with regard to roadways. The impact of a road-widening amendment is relevant to land use or environmental policies. There is, moreover, no question that improved or expanded transportation infrastructure does nothing to diminish the potential for development in surrounding areas as a general matter. In general, widening a roadway promotes development in surrounding areas served by the roadway. Growth management laws, therefore, generally discourage the provision of roadway capacity in areas where a local comprehensive plan discourages development. The general principles of the effects of roadway capacity and improvements to roadway infrastructure, including road widening, are also reflected in the State Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Policy Plan, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5, and the CDMP, itself. Petitioners and Monroe County emphasize this point in the following paragraphs of their proposed recommended order now found as fact in this Recommended Order: []. Goal 19(a) of the SCP requires that future transportation improvements aid in the management of growth. Fla. Stat. 187.201(19)(a). []. Policy 19(b)(12) of the SCP requires that transportation improvements in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands be avoided. Fla. Stat. 187.201 (19)(b)(12). The Regional Policy Plan states that "roadways also aid in attracting development to new areas." Jt. 7@ 36. Rule 9J5 recognizes limits on extending infrastructure as a development control that can inhibit sprawl. Conversely, making improvements or extensions to infra- structure [when considered in isolation] can encourage urban sprawl. Darst V9@ 972. The CDMP's data and analysis contains the following language: Concepts and Limitations of the Land Use Plan Map: Coordinated- Managed Growth (p. I-59) "Given the fundamental influences of infrastructure and service availability on land markets and development activities, the CDMP has since its inception provided that the UDB serve as an envelope within which public expenditures for urban infrastructure will be confined. In this regard, the UDB serves as an urban services boundary in addition to a land use boundary.Consistency with the CDMP will ensure that the actions of one single-purpose agency does not foster development that could cause other agencies to subsequently respond in kind and provide facilities in unanticipated locations. Such uncoordinated single- purpose decision making can be fiscally damaging to government and can undermine other comprehensive plan objectives." (Pre- Trial Stip. @ 18) (emphasis added) Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7. Miami-Dade County, the Department and the City of Homestead do not contend otherwise. In the words of Thomas Pelham, distinguished expert in comprehensive planning whose testimony was presented by Miami-Dade County, the transportation map is "always relevant" (tr. 709) to issues of encouragement and discouragement of urban development. Furthermore, as Miami-Dade County concedes and as Mr. Pelham testified, new roads and improvements in roadway infrastructure "can aid in attracting development in new areas anywhere." Tr. 713 (emphasis supplied). For that basic reason, if a local government adopts a plan amendment that increases roadway capacity and the intent is not to attract development to the area around the roadway, the local government may opt to adopt additional protective policies. For example, in such a situation, the local government could take a clarifying step toward discouragement of urban development in areas served by the roadway planned for improvement: simultaneous adoption of a policy that prohibits consideration of the additional planned capacity of a roadway in subsequent future land use map decisions. Such an additional policy was not adopted as part of the Plan Amendment. In Mr. Pelham's opinion, however, it was not necessary, because of "the strong policies that already exist in the [CDMP]." Tr. 714. These strong policies include, of course, the existence of the UDB, a planning concept associated with Miami-Dade County in a unique manner in the State of Florida due to its strength and the length of existence over time. They also include CDMP policies related to lands designated as "Agriculture" or "Environmental Protection" whose purpose is to preserve and protect. The impact of roads on land use patterns in general, moreover, does not necessarily translate into expected impact in any specific case because of facts peculiarly associated with the specific case. As Mr. Pelham testified, "[t]here is absolutely nothing inconsistent with the four-lane divided highway in rural areas and agricultural areas. We have them all over the country, and in fact, you can identify numerous ones in this state alone." Tr. 676. Three prominent examples in Florida of four-lane divided highways that have not led to development were provided at hearing: Alligator Alley (the segment of Interstate 75 known also as Everglades Parkway) that stretches nearly the width of the Florida Peninsula from Collier County not far from the City of Naples at its western terminus through Big Cypress National Preserve across the boundaries of the Miccosukee Indian Reservation and the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation into Broward County on the east; the Florida Turnpike running from deep in South Florida northward and westerly to Wildwood in Sumter County; and Veteran's Parkway, US 19, from Pasco County to Crystal River "that goes through vast stretches of rural and agricultural lands . . . ." Tr. 677. The construction of these four-lane divided highways have not promoted urban development in lands immediately adjacent to significant sections of these highways. That these highways did not promote urban development flows from their purpose. Their purpose, quite simply, is other than to support urban development. Their purpose is to provide efficient commercial transportation and to be safe for the transportation of people or as expressed at hearing, "to be conduits for people to go from one [point] to another without interruption in an efficient manner." Id. Furthermore, access to these rural, divided four-lane highways is restricted or tightly managed for several reasons. One of the benefits of restricted access is that it discourages urban development. While Miami-Dade County did not adopt a policy that a widened Krome Avenue was not to be taken into consideration in subsequent decisions to amend the future land use map, as Petitioners suggest it could have, New Transportation Policy 4E was added to the Plan Amendment in order to discourage urban development. That policy requires a detailed, binding controlled access plan for the Avenue corridor to be prepared by FDOT and adopted by Miami-Dade County prior to the commencement of any construction associated with four-laning or a capacity improvement. Adoption of such an access control plan will have a deterrent effect on urban development along whatever part of Krome Avenue may at some point in the future be widened to four lanes. The effect of the adoption of a binding access control plan was explained at hearing by Mr. Pelham: It means that most of the traffic on it is not going to be entering or leaving the highway to shop at retail commercial establishments or to go into office parks to work, or to frequent any of the other kinds of urban development that could spring up along the road. It will be a deterrent to anyone who wants to seriously talk about locating a business there because they're going to realize that the public does not have readily easy access to it. [New Transportation Policy 4E] will certainly help insure that [Krome Avenue] remains a primarily rural facility rather than the typical urban highway that's lined with urban development. Tr. 679. From a planning perspective, in addition to being an impediment to urban development, the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy is also a sufficient guideline to discourage urban development. Incorporation of the professional land planning concept of access control makes the policy clear to transportation planners and FDOT and to any party or entity called on to implement the plan especially when the last sentence of the new policy is considered: "[The binding access control plan] should emphasize access to properties fronting Krome Avenue primarily through alternative street locations." This sentence indicates that while access to Krome Avenue is not prohibited, access is to be governed by "a strictly limited access plan," tr. 681, a "strong benefit [of the Plan Amendment] and a strong disincentive or deterrent to urban development." Tr. 679. Urban Sprawl Internal DCA memoranda and the ORC Report reflect a concern by Department staff that the re-designation of Krome Avenue could encourage urban sprawl with serious negative impacts to the Redland and agricultural lands and the Everglades and areas designated to be protected environmentally. The concern of staff is not to be taken lightly. Re- designation of Krome Avenue as a Major Roadway with four-lane capacity will allow parties who seek to develop along Krome Avenue in the future to point to the new "planned" capacity as a factor in support of an amendment to the CDMP that would allow such development. "That's a . . . common argument for why a plan amendment . . . increasing densities in that area . . . [would be] appropriate." Tr. 494. The planned roadway will be more than just fuel for argument. According to Charles Pattison, Petitioners' comprehensive planning expert with significant credentials and experience, the planned capacity increase is without doubt a "key factor," tr. 494-5, for consideration of decision-makers in support of future CDMP amendments that allow urban development. Still, the existing policies that protect agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, including the UDB and related policies, will also have to be taken into consideration. So will the results of FDOT's PD&E Study and the actual improvement undertaken under the guidance of the study by FDOT, if any, and in whatever form it may take. The policies should not fail to protect agricultural and environmentally protected land merely because of this plan amendment. The policies will not cease to be operative because of the re- designation of Krome Avenue even if FDOT ultimately decides to improve Krome Avenue by widening all or part of it to four lanes. Stated alternatively, in Mr. Pelham's words, existing policies "militate strongly against any urban development ... [outside] the urban growth boundary." Tr. 675. For this reason, among others, Mr. Pelham characterized the concerns of DCA staff and the fears of Petitioners, as "sheer speculation, suspicion and mistrust of . . . government . . . [of] a county that has a strong record of not extending its urban growth boundary." Id. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind what the re- designation of Krome Avenue does and does not do. It does not constitute the ultimate decision or authorization necessary to widen or improve the capacity of Krome Avenue. It does not "even attempt to permit increased development rights or densities or intensities on any of the surrounding land." Tr. 671. It is that development which "would cause potential urban sprawl problems that might threaten agriculture, that, theoretically, might pose a danger to the Everglades." Id. Development of that property would require plan amendments, vulnerable to challenges like this one and subject to scrutiny under the Growth Management Laws, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J5. Amendment of the CDMP, therefore, to "allow widening of an existing road to address safety or congestion or level of service or evacuation problems, in and of itself, does not pose any of those threats or harms." Tr. 672. Rule 9J5 Urban Sprawl Indicators Urban sprawl is evaluated according to 13 "primary indicators" set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g) (the "Primary Indicator Rule.") Applying the Primary Indicator Rule, the Department analyzes first, "within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality" whether a plan amendment "trips" or "triggers" any of the 13: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g). If a plan amendment trips or triggers one or more of the Primary Indicators, the Department then considers the extent to which the tripped indicators suggest that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, or put conversely, induces sprawl. If the Department determines from review of the tripped indicators that the amendment does not discourage urban sprawl proliferation or in induces sprawl, then it turns its attention to the development controls in the comprehensive plan or in the proposed plan amendment. Evaluation of the development controls is made to determine whether they offset the amendment's inducement of urban sprawl. If the inducement is not sufficiently offset by development controls, then, the Department determines the amendment is not: consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and the remainder of [Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5] regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(a). It is possible that if only a few of the 13 Primary Indicators were clearly "tripped" then a determination could be made that a plan amendment "does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl." Normally, however, if few primary indicators are tripped, "it's going to be a tough argument to make that [there is] sprawl inducement." Tr. 919. The Department's Position re: Primary Indicators The Department's position is that the Plan Amendment does not trip in any way 10 of the 13 primary indicators listed in the Primary Indicator Rule. The main reason they are not tripped, in its view, is because the amendment, in and of itself, does nothing more than plan for the improvement of Krome Avenue up to a capacity of four lanes. For example, the first primary indicator is whether the plan amendment "[p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need." Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(g)1. As Mr. Darst testified, "[T]his is an amendment for the widening of the road and it's not a land use amendment." Tr. 913-4. In and of itself, the amendment does not allow or designate any development. Primary Indicator 4 is not tripped because "premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses" is not at issue in this case. An analysis of Primary Indicator 5 can only take place "within the context of features and characteristics unique" to Miami-Dade County, including the UDB and the protective policies of the CDMP and the Plan Amendment, itself. Primary Indicators 9 through 13, are not tripped. Primary Indicators 9 through 12 are not relevant to this case. Primary Indicator 13 is not tripped because although small amounts of functional open space might be taken for widening Krome Avenue, the amount would not be significant relative to the amount of functional open space adjacent to Krome Avenue. Of the other three primary indicators tripped in the Department's view by the Plan Amendment, they are tripped only minimally. Primary Indicator 6 is tripped because with Krome Avenue widened "trips shift there from another road," tr. 916, so that maximum use is not made of the other road, an existing public facility. The same is true of Primary Indicator 7, which relates to future public facilities. Primary Indicator 8 is tripped because funds will have to be expended to construct any widening and because of an increase in law enforcement expenses. The involvement of Primary Indicator 8, however, is minimal and without significant impact. Despite the Department's position, the re-designation of Krome Avenue, at a minimum, has at least the potential to "promote" development so as to trip Primary Indicators 1, 2, and As Mr. Pattison testified, the planned increased capacity of Krome Avenue is, by the very nature of increased roadway capacity, a key factor for consideration of proposed amendments that would allow increased development of lands surrounding Krome Avenue. Whether the Plan Amendment is not in compliance for failure to comply with urban sprawl requirements depends on whether the tripped Primary Indicators are offset by development controls. Development Controls Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j, (the "Development Controls Rule") states "[d]evelopment controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determination in (5)(g) above," that is, whether a plan amendment does or does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Determination that urban sprawl indicators have been tripped, therefore, is not, standing alone, sufficient to find that a plan amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl. The Development Controls Rule lists 22 types of development controls to be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl. The CDMP contains development controls to discourage urban sprawl and development in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land or Environmental Protection. They are the UDB, see Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j)21., and the two policies related to it: Land Use Element Policies 8G and 8H. Evaluation of the development controls in the CDMP leads to a determination that the tripped Primary Indicators, Primary Indicators 1, 2, and 3, triggered by the Plan Amendment's potential to promote development that could lead to urban sprawl and Primary Indicators 6, 7 and 8, all "minimally" tripped, are offset by the development controls. Furthermore, the Plan Amendment, itself, contains additional policies that constitute development controls: the New Land Use Policies requiring super-majorities of the Board of County Commission for approval of re-designations near Krome Avenue and the New Binding Access Control Plan Policy. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.006(5)(j)15. and 22. Petitioners view the New land Use Policies as inadequate development controls because they do not set forth measurable or predictable standards to govern county commission decisions. Other than to require super-majorities for re- designation of land uses near Krome Avenue ("procedural" standards), the New Land Use Policies do not contain standards that govern county commission decisions. But there are a plethora of standards elsewhere in the CDMP. These other standards have been determined to be meaningful and predictable and there is nothing in the New Land Use Polices that allows the commission to disregard them. New Policy 4E which requires an access control plan prepared by FDOT prior to construction of any capacity improvement to Krome Avenue is viewed by Petitioners as "so vague as to fail to meet the definition of an objective or policy or to provide meaningful or predictable standards." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 18. But a reading of the policy contradicts the allegation. Meaningful and Predictable Standards Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with land use policies requiring coordination with the surrounding environment and requiring meaningful standards for more detailed regulations, and, therefore, that it is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(6). The CDMP contains meaningful and predictable restrictions on land use in areas designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. The Plan Amendment does nothing to deter those restrictions. Furthermore, among new policies in the Plan Amendment is the addition of procedural safeguards to the substantive criteria, thereby strengthening the existing standards. The Plan Amendment, therefore, retains meaningful and predictable standards for more detailed regulation, and if anything, strengthens the chance for their application to protect lands designated Agriculture, Open Land and Environmental Protection. Increasing Land Values and Speculation Petitioners argue that widening Krome Avenue to four lanes will adversely affect farming in the Redland and the Everglades by increasing land values and speculation. These arguments do not take into account that regardless of improvements to Krome Avenue, most of the area north of 42nd Street has little appeal to developers. Its designation as Environmental Protection makes it difficult if not impossible to develop. Despite extreme development pressure elsewhere in the county, to date there has been little pressure to develop the area due to the success of the comprehensive plan, particularly its policies against development in the area. Asked at hearing about such pressure, Miami Dade County's Director of Planning and Zoning, Diane O'Quinn responded, ". . . I haven't seen it. Not at all . . . because we've got very strong environmental policies in the comp plan." Tr. 625. Furthermore, considerations of increasing values and land speculation are not compliance issues under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5. Were they compliance issues, there are other forces at work that are encouraging an increase in land values in the Redland: in particular, the economics of the agriculture industry and the increasing demand for residential housing throughout Miami-Dade County. Agricultural uses in the County have been declining since Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Up to then, the predominant forms of agriculture had been row crops (tomatoes, for example) and lime, avocado and mango groves. Andrew destroyed many groves. They were not replanted because of expense and the length of time it takes from planting for the groves to bear fruit and increasing competition from foreign producers. Within a year or two of the hurricane, the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) was passed and produce from Mexico and Central America was introduced in great volume into U.S. markets. The south of the border competition generated by NAFTA, especially with regard to tomatoes and limes, reduced the value of the type of produce that had been predominant in the Redland prior to Andrew. Ten years later, the University of Florida's Florida Agricultural Market Research Center in the Summary and Recommendations Section of its Miami-Dade County Agricultural Land Retention Study (the "Agricultural Land Retention Study") described the market for agricultural commodities produced in Miami-Dade County as "fiercely competitive," Joint Exhibit 55, p. xiv, because of Latin American produce and predicted, "[e]conomic globalization and trade liberalization will continue. It is unlikely that the U.S. trade policy will be altered to any appreciable degree in the foreseeable future to protect domestic fruit and vegetable industries." Id. at xiii. Testimony at hearing established that these predictions have been accurate through the time of final hearing in late 2005. The Study, completed in April 2002, also reached this conclusion: Population growth and concomitant urban development appear inevitable for Miami-Dade County. Based on the capitalization of relatively low financial returns to agriculture in recent years, especially row crops, only about twenty-five percent of the current land prices is justified by returns to land in agricultural uses. The remaining seventy-five percent represents future anticipated value in non-agricultural or I agricultural residential use. Further, as supply of developable land dwindles, prices will undoubtedly increase. These price increases, if accompanied by chronically low financial returns to agriculture, will motivate landowners to convert to agricultural land to higher-valued uses. Joint Exhibit 55. p. xiii. This observation continued to have validity more than three years later at the final hearing in this case in late 2005. Following Andrew, land prices that had been stagnant for many years at $5,000 per acre or so increased three and four fold. The increases made it relatively expensive to buy land, plant and grow. The combined effects of Andrew and NAFTA reduced row crop and grove produce profitability. The agricultural industry shifted to ornamental horiculture nurseries. At the time of hearing, land prices had risen so much that even the nurseries whose products have been in demand for residential development have begun to become economically infeasible. Soon after 1992, the SFWMD also began buying property for Everglades restoration projects west of a levee on the west side of Krome that runs parallel to the roadway. These purchases too increased land values in the area. The recent rise in prices is also due to the low interest rate environment that began to have a wide-spread effect in early 2000. The low interest rate environment spurred demand for single-family homes. Furthermore, with the stock market decline that commenced in early 2001, investors began shifting from equities to real estate and demand for second homes increased. Miami-Dade County's excellent weather attracts people from all over the world and this has fostered increased foreign investment in the local real estate market. The combination of all these events led to acquisition of land for residential development throughout Miami-Dade County by developers. The diminution in the amount of vacant residential land naturally turned the attention of developers to agricultural areas and to the Redland where density is limited to one hours per five acres. The increased demand for housing led to price escalation so that five-acre parcels in the Redland became relatively inexpensive. The confluence of these factors accelerated the subdivision of agricultural properties into five-acre residential estates in the Redland. This trend began with Krome Avenue as a two-lane road and it is reasonably expected to continue, regardless of whether Krome is improved to four lanes or not. The trend toward development of five-acre residential estates will likely stave off further urbanization of the Redland. As the area is developed at one house per five acres, it becomes difficult to reassemble acreage to create subdivisions of higher density. For properties in the Redland that do not directly abut the road, the price of land is unrelated to Krome Avenue. Rather, it is based on the increasing demand for five-acre estates. The New Land Use Policies will likely restrain speculation based on the re-designation of Krome Avenue. One of the components of value is the probability of rezoning. Often much more important to land values are other factors: the land use plan designation and the history of land use in the surrounding areas. The planning and zoning restrictions, particularly in the light of the New Land Use Policies, send a signal to the market that the area around Krome Avenue is not slated for urbanization. The restrictions thereby limit increase in value and dampen speculation based on the potential widening of Krome Avenue. The trend in converting agricultural lands to residential uses has been in the making in Miami-Dade County for at least 30 years. The interplay between the agricultural and housing markets is the result of far larger forces than whether Krome Avenue is re-designated for improvement up to a divided four-lane roadway making any such re-designation of minor impact. As Mark Quinlivan, an expert in the field of real estate valuation in particular with regard to the areas along the Krome Avenue Corridor and the Redland, summed up the situation at hearing: So the trend is and has been for the last few years . . . to convert [the Redland] to five acre estates. Once they are converted to five acre estates and the homes are actually built, there is really not much else that can be done. Now you can't tear down the house and re-subdivide it if you could rezone. . . . [W]hether you put Krome as two lanes, four lanes, six lanes this trend is way beyond this amendment . . . Tr. 264. Environmental Impacts Although whether Krome Avenue will ever be improved to four lanes north of US 41, most of which crosses lands designated Environmental Protection depends on an environmental evaluation and other factors subject to an FDOT PD&E Study, it must be assumed for purposes of this compliance determination that it is allowed to be four lanes. The same assumption must be made for all of Krome Avenue subject to the Plan Amendment. Were a new plan amendment to be applied for, however, to re- designate land adjacent to Krome Avenue, road capacity would be a "minor" consideration because development control "policies in the plan are very strong and they're much more important and that would override the fact that there happens to be road capacity available." Tr. 737. The County recognizes the importance of maintaining a buffer between urban development and the Everglades. This recognition is reflected in CDMP policies. The CDMP, moreover, attempts to prevent the loss of environmentally sensitive lands. In the 1990's Congress required the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to reverse as much as possible the anthropogenic damage inflicted upon the Everglades. The result was CERP, a joint federal/state plan to restore the Everglades by completing sixty-eight individual projects by 2038 costing many billions of dollars. Adopted by an Act of Congress in 2000, CERP directs the Corps to restore the Everglades using CERP as a guideline. With the exception of 10 of the projects authorized by the act, each of the other 58 individual CERP projects must undergo a specific process of planning and then Congressional authorization and appropriation. There have been no Congressional authorizations since 2000. The 58 projects not authorized in 2000 still await final planning and design and Congressional authorization and appropriation. Because of a design of Krome Avenue improvement has not been proposed, it is not possible to determine whether the widening of Krome Avenue will physically impact CERP projects. The concern advanced by Petitioners is that improvement to Krome Avenue will not only decrease the availability of land availability to CERP but will also raise land values. The concern is appropriate because, in general, the primary strategy of CERP is the acquisition of privately-owned land to dedicate to water storage, wetland restoration, and other related uses. "Most [CERP] projects have land acquisitions as the single largest factor in their cost." Tr. 415. Escalating real estate costs is a significant issue for CERP project managers attempting to stay within budget. As land acquisition costs increase, it becomes more difficult to get adequate funding or even authorization of a project. Furthermore, the federal authorization law requires a re- authorization by Congress if projected initial costs are exceeded by more than 20 percent. One of the critical aspects of CERP is water storage for which significant amounts of land must be acquired. There are numerous water storage restoration projects planned in the vicinity of Krome Avenue dependent on land acquisition. Petitioners recognize, however, that there is a certain amount of speculation in any anticipation of a rise in land values in the area of Krome Avenue. "If widening Krome Avenue raises the value . . . of surrounding lands it will have an adverse affect on the success of the Everglades restoration project." Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 95, p. 16 (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, as found already, the rise is dependent on re- designation of lands in the area of Krome Avenue, which are subject to policies in the CDMP, such as the existing Conservation Element, that discourage re-designation in a manner that would stimulate a rise in land values. It is sufficient for the CDMP to have policies that direct development to minimize impacts to environmental resources and guide the more detailed analysis that will be performed pursuant to the PD&E Study and further regulations. As Thomas Pelham explained: The purpose of the comprehensive plan is to establish policies that will be applied to and will govern actual development proposals that come in under the plan. It's not the purpose of a comprehensive plan to do a development permit level analysis. You do that when development permits are applied for . . . until you have . . . a specific proposal for a road, actual alignment, design features, you can't really fully analyze the impacts of it, anyway. . . . [T]he comprehensive plan . . . establish[es]] in advance policies that are reviewed for adequacy for protecting natural resources, the environment, so, that when someone comes in with an actual development proposal, then, it has to be evaluated in terms of the policies in the plan, and if it's not consistent, the law requires that it be denied. Tr. 686-7. The existing Conservation Element and other CDMP policies that protect environmental resources adequately address the potential impacts of the Krome Avenue Amendment vis-à-vis the environment and environmental considerations. South Florida Regional Policy Plan Amendments must be consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) in order to be in compliance. § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. SRPP Goal 2.1 is to achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development patterns by guiding new development and redevelopment into area which are most intrinsically suited for development. This includes areas where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal and where public facilities/services already exist, are programmed, or on an aggregate basis, can be provided most economically. SRPP Policy 2.1.4 requires development to be directed away from environmentally sensitive areas. Strategic Regional Goal 2.2 is designed to revitalize deteriorating urban areas. SRPP Policy 2.2.1 requires priority for development in blighted areas characterized by underdevelopment/under- employment that are in need of re-development. SRPP Policy 3.9.1 is designed to direct development and uses of land inconsistent with restoration away from Everglades and adjacent natural resources of significance. State Comprehensive Plan Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes, states the following with regard to the construction of the State Comprehensive Plan: The [state comprehensive] plan shall be construed and applied as a whole, and no specific goal or policy in the plan shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plan. Petitioners do not ignore this provision of the statutes, citing to it in their proposed recommended order. See Petitioners and Intervenor Monroe County's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 41. Petitioners contend that it is beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the State Plan as a whole and that it is specifically inconsistent with the following provisions in the State Plan: LAND USE.-- Goal.--In recognition of the importance of preserving the natural resources and enhancing the quality of life of the state, development shall be directed to those areas which have in place, or have agreements to provide, the land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. Policies.-- Promote state programs, investments, and development and redevelopment activities which encourage efficient development and occur in areas which will have the capacity to service new population and commerce. Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats. 6. Consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. URBAN AND DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION.-- (a) Goal.--In recognition of the importance of Florida's vital urban centers and of the need to develop and redevelop downtowns to the state's ability to use existing infrastructure and to accommodate growth in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally acceptable manner, Florida shall encourage the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. PUBLIC FACILITIES.-- Goal.--Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for an finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Policies.-- 1. Provide incentives for developing land in a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities. TRANSPORTATION.-- Goal.--Florida shall direct future transportation improvements to aid in the management of growth and shall have a state transportation system that integrates highway, air, mass transit, and other transportation modes. 12. Avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in coastal high-hazard areas or in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways, or productive marine areas. AGRICULTURE.-- (a) Goal.--Florida shall maintain and strive to expand its food, agriculture, ornamental horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, and related industries in order to be a healthy and competitive force in the national and international marketplace. Id. at pgs. 41-43.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the October 2002 Plan Amendment to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan of Miami- Dade County adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County as reflected in Ordinance No. 02-198 be determined to be "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether a proposed amendment to the Pinellas County Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) changing the land use designation on a 22.18-acre parcel located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue in the City of Clearwater (City) from Residential Suburban/Preservation to Residential Low/Preservation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In 1988, the Legislature provided the County with countywide planning authority (see Chapter 88-458, Laws of Florida). That same year, the Legislature enacted Chapter 88- 464, Laws of Florida, which amended Chapter 73-594, Laws of Florida, and required the County to develop "a countywide future land use plan" and "other [necessary] elements," also known as the Countywide Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Pinellas County. Among other things, Chapter 88-464 prescribes the process by which changes to land use designations are made within the County. Under that process, all local government comprehensive plans, including the City's, are required to be consistent with the FLUP. Presumably, the laws were enacted because of the County's dense development (it is one of, if not the most, densely developed counties in the State), the large number of incorporated cities and towns (24) within the County, and the desire to have some degree of countywide uniformity in land use planning decisions. The law goes on to provide that amendments to the FLUP "relating to land use designation for a particular parcel of property may be initiated only by a local government that has jurisdiction over the subject property." In this case, the subject property lies within the City; therefore, the proposed change was initiated by the City. Under the review process in place for adopting an amendment to the FLUP, the proposed amendment is first presented to the City, then to the PPC, which consists of 13 representatives from various towns and cities in the County, the School Board, and the County, and finally to the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA. The subject property is located at 2301 Chautauqua Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Chautauqua Avenue (also identified as Main Street on some maps) runs for a short distance in a north-south direction parallel to, and just east of, U.S. Highway 19 in the northeastern part of the City. Except for two houses, some tennis courts, and assessory buildings, the 22.18-acre tract of land is largely undeveloped. The land also includes a small pond located in the northwest quadrant and wetlands along its eastern side, which fronts on Lake Chautauqua (the Lake). Mr. Lawrence H. Dimmitt, III, one of the two co-trustees, acquired ownership of the southern half of the property in January 1986, while the remainder of the parcel was not acquired by the Trustee until December 2001. In June 2002, the property was annexed by the City pursuant to a request by the Trustee (to enable City water and wastewater services to be extended to the property). The property is now under contract to be sold to a developer (The Rottlund Company, Inc.), who desires to construct 90 town homes in 34 buildings, assuming the amendment is approved. Since July 21, 1982, the upland portion of the property (16.22 acres) has been classified as RS, which allows 2.5 residential units per acre. The wetlands and some adjacent land totaling around 4.6 acres on the eastern portion of the property next to the Lake are classified as, and must remain, Preservation. In addition, a small pond (1.35 acres) on the property is classified as Water/Drainage Feature. The proposed amendment does not affect the classifications of the wetlands and pond. All of the surrounding property (except the property immediately to the west between Chautauqua Avenue and U.S. Highway 19, which is classified as Commercial Limited) also carries an RS land use designation. The other nearby property along U.S. Highway 19 is classified as some form of commercial or mixed office/residential use. Countrywide Mall, the County's only regional shopping mall, is situated on U.S. Highway 19, less than a mile away. The property is located approximately 700 feet east of U.S. Highway 19 between Second Avenue South and Second Avenue North. U.S. Highway 19 is six lanes wide, was described by witnesses as being the most heavily traveled roadway in the County, and has intense commercial or mixed use development on both sides of the highway. Immediately to the west of the property (between U.S. Highway 19 and Chautauqua Avenue) is a Chevrolet automobile dealership and repair facility owned by the Dimmitts. A Cadillac dealership (also owned by the Dimmitts) is just south of the Chevrolet dealership. The entire eastern boundary of the property fronts on the Lake, while perhaps a dozen or so single-family homes, mainly constructed in the 1990s, sit on large lots scattered throughout the area immediately north of the property. From that area to Enterprise Road, a major arterial east-west roadway approximately 2,000 feet north of the Trustee's property, the land is largely undeveloped. The property immediately to the south is also classified as RS and is also largely vacant at the present time, except for a few single-family dwellings. The land which lies southeast of the property and the Lake is also designated RS and consists of a series of upscale, large, single-family residential subdivisions. The local roads adjacent to and near the property are substandard and do not meet the City or County standards. The main access to the property (from the west) is from U.S. Highway 19 using First Avenue North, which intersects with U.S. Highway 19 next to the car dealership. Because of a median in the middle of U.S. Highway 19, however, cars entering U.S. Highway 19 from First Avenue North can only turn right (northbound).1 The only access from the property to an intersection allowing vehicles to turn north or south on U.S. Highway 19 is provided by traveling south on a series of narrow, meandering, residential County roads (e.g., Third Avenue South, Second Street East, Fourth Avenue South, Union Street, and Soule Road) and eventually reaching Sunset Point Road (State Road 588), an east-west roadway intersecting with U.S. Highway 19 to the west. There is no access to the property from the north. The evidence shows that partly because of the poor road access, the nearby car dealerships and other commercial development, and the commercial lighting at the car dealerships which remains on throughout the night, the property has never been developed. Another contributing factor is that the former long-time owners of the northern half of the property (until it was sold to the Dimmitts in December 2001) had no wish to develop the property while they retained ownership. The Land Use Categories and History of the Area When the County's first comprehensive plan was adopted in 1974, three residential categories were established: low density (up to 7.5 units per acre); medium density (up to 15 units per acre); and high density (up to 30 units per acre). At that time, the Trustee's property and most of the surrounding residential properties were designated the least intensive residential use category and remained unchanged until 1982. In response to the state Growth Management Act, in 1980 the PPC developed more specific residential categories to manage population growth. The low density category was further defined to include five residential categories: Preservation (0.5 units per acre); Residential Conservation (1.0 units per acre); Residential Suburban (2.5 units per acre); Residential Low (5.0 units per acre); and Residential Urban (7.5 units per acre). As noted above, in 1982 the County reclassified the upland portion of the property, as well as the properties to its north and south, and west of the Lake, as RS. Some other areas to the southeast and northwest of the Trustee's land were reclassified at 5.0 dwelling units per acre, which category is now known as RL. In September 1984, two zoning requests "in the neighborhood [of the Trustee's property]" to allow "multifamily development at 5.0 units/acre" were denied by the County, mainly because the area contained "very low density single-family housing, with houses sitting on large lots (mostly about 2 acres in size), used in a residential/agricultural manner." At the same time, the County instructed its staff to "review zoning and Land Use Plan designation in the area to insure protection of the existing character of the land." That same year, the County amended the land use classification on these properties from RL, which permitted 5.0 units per acre, to RS, which permitted only 2.5 units per acre. In 1987, the City annexed a 17.4-acre vacant tract of land directly south of the Lake (and southeast of the Trustee's property). Before annexation, the property was classified as Residential/Open Space. According to a PPC recommendation presented to the County, the City filed an application with the County seeking to amend the CLUP (now known as the FLUP) by changing the land use to RS so that the vacant land would "be compatible with the existing land use pattern in this vicinity." The change was approved by the County. In all, at least thirteen parcels in the Lake Chautauqua area have been reclassified since 1980. Many of these are downzoning changes which merely reflect what had actually been planned, developed, and built pursuant to the dictates of the marketplace. In other words, the change reflected existing development of not more than 2.5 units per acre. There are also two instances when the Commission upzoned parcels in the area, that is, increased the allowable density from Recreation/Open Space to a higher category (7.5 units per acre), but these properties are outlying parcels and not in the immediate area. Most recently (early 2003), a developer proposed (and has pending a request) to develop six lots 130 feet by 600 feet in depth with single-family dwellings on property lying on the western shore of the Lake just north of the Trustee's property. These large lots would be consistent with the development now existing immediately to the west (and just north of the Trustee's property). It is fair to infer from the evidence that the County's intent over the last 25 years or so has been to restrict development in the area around the Trustee's property to single-family residences with a density of no more than 2.5 units per acre. The Application On February 21, 2002, the Trustee filed an application with the City for a change in land use designation on its property from RS and P to RL and P (so as to increase density from 2.5 to 7.0 units per acre). Although not a part of this proceeding, the Trustee also filed an application seeking to rezone the property from Rural Residential to Low Medium Residential and Preservation. The City's Zoning Department reviewed the application, found that all applicable criteria had been met, and recommended approval. The application then proceeded to a public hearing before the City's Community Development Board (CDB) on May 21, 2002. Following the public hearing, the CDB recommended approval of both applications. On June 20, 2002, the matters were taken up by the City Commission. The staff's detailed report recommending approval is found in Petitioners' Exhibit 2. Because of neighborhood opposition, however, the Trustee agreed to amend the application by reducing the density from 7.5 units per acre (RL) to 5.0 units per acre (RS). Thereafter, the City approved the application. This approval was formalized through the adoption of Ordinance No. 6978-02. At that point, the City became the nominal applicant for the amendment. A copy of the amendment was then forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA's review was completed on October 3, 2002, when it advised the City by letter that it had "no objections to the proposed amendment" and that its letter would serve as the DCA's Objections, Recommendations and Comments. The application was submitted to the PPC on August 13, 2002. Following its review, the PPC staff, together with the staff of the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC), which is composed of professional planning staff members from the various municipalities throughout the County, recommended that the application be approved. On September 18, 2002, the PPC, by a 6-5 vote, recommended denial of the application, mainly because of traffic issues. Under the review process, the matter then came before the CPA. However, the City and the Trustee requested that the matter be remanded to the PPC to enable the Trustee to address the traffic issues. A remand was approved by the CPA on October 15, 2002. After reconsideration of the matter, which included proposed changes by the City to mitigate the traffic impact, the PPC staff and PAC unanimously recommended approval of the application. The application then proceeded to the PPC, and by a 9-3 vote on March 19, 2003, the PPC recommended approval. Although land use amendments recommended for approval by the PPC are "rarely" overturned or changed by the CPA, on April 1, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the CPA, unanimously rejected the proposed amendment. The same date, Resolution No. 03-55 was adopted which memorialized this action and indicated that the decision was based "upon the facts presented at the hearing, which included the character of the neighborhood and transportation impacts." According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the rejection was "due to [the amendment's] incompatibility with and negative impact on the established character of the neighborhood and the precedence [sic] of allowing multi-family development into an overwhelming single-family residential area." This appeal followed. The issues in the case Under the Countywide Rules, which were adopted in 1989 and govern changes to the FLUP, depending on their size and nature, plan amendments are classified into two categories: subthreshold amendments and general amendments. The former type of amendment is minor in nature and entails a less rigid review process while general amendments (those that do not qualify as subthreshold amendments) must be evaluated according to six "Relevant Countywide Considerations" (Considerations) found in Sections 5.3.5.1 through 5.3.5.6. Because the proposed amendment falls within the general amendment category, the six Considerations must be reviewed to determine if any come into play. If an amendment adversely impacts a Consideration, it is not consistent with the FLUP. In denying the amendment, the CPA determined that only two Considerations were relevant and would be impacted - Section 5.3.5.2 (Adopted Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Standard) and Section 5.3.5.6 (Adjacent to or Impacting an Adjoining Jurisdiction). All other Considerations were determined to be inapplicable. Although the County's Resolution indicated that the traffic Consideration played a part in its decision to deny the amendment, the parties' Prehearing Stipulation reflects that the CPA no longer considers that Consideration to be in issue. However, because evidence concerning traffic was presented at hearing, albeit more in the context of impacts on the character of the neighborhood than on LOS standards on U.S. Highway 19, a discussion of that Consideration is appropriate. Section 5.3.5.2 provides in part that "the amendment must not be located on or impact a roadway segment where the existing Level of Service (LOS) is below LOS 'D', or where projected traffic resulting from the amendment would cause the existing LOS to fall below LOS 'D'." Here, however, the evidence shows that the portion of U.S. Highway 19 (directly west of the property) between Enterprise Road and Sunset Point Road is already operating at LOS "F". Under the existing land use classification (RS), the Trustee (or developer) can construct as many as 46 single- family homes. At hearing, the developer acknowledged that the property can be successfully developed in that mode. Assuming that the maximum number of homes would be built, regardless of which type of development occurs, the traffic impacts would be essentially the same since a town home generates only 60 percent of the traffic of a single-family home. The evidence also shows that any additional traffic generated by development will have a negligible overall impact (less than three-tenths of one percent of the existing capacity) on U.S. Highway 19, which is already at LOS "F". The Florida Department of Transportation concurs in this finding, and has concluded that the development will not adversely impact that road. As noted above, the plan amendment was initially rejected by the PPC by a 6-5 vote, mainly because of traffic issues, and a concern that the additional traffic onto U.S. Highway 19 at First Avenue South might have a negative impact on that roadway. The City and Trustee then requested that the CPA remand the application to the PPC so that traffic issues could be further addressed. At that time, the City considered two alternatives to alleviate traffic concerns and provide a different access route to the area. First, it considered the possibility of extending Second Avenue South to the east and southeast to connect with, and widen, Lake Shore Drive (a County road), which runs around parts of the northwestern and southwestern sections of the Lake, and eventually provides access to Sunset Point Road, which then runs west to U.S. Highway 19. However, the County declined to participate in that effort and thus this proposal was not considered to be feasible. The City also considered extending Chautauqua Avenue north (over City right-of-way) to Enterprise Road, a main arterial east-west roadway that also intersects with U.S. Highway 19 (and enables the driver to turn either left or right at that intersection). If the road is extended in that fashion, it would provide residents in and near the subject property with access to Enterprise Road, and also provide other area residents with access to a City park that may be built just south of Enterprise Road. As to this alternative, even though the developer's share of costs (using the City's calculations) is only 17 percent, the developer has agreed to pay one-half of the cost of the road improvements. With this improvement, both parties now agree that the traffic Consideration has been resolved. Based on the foregoing, it is found that the plan amendment is consistent with the transportation Consideration and will not adversely impact LOS standards on U.S. Highway Two of the County witnesses conceded as much at the final hearing. Section 5.3.5.6 generally provides that if the property adjoins another jurisdiction, the plan amendment must not adversely impact that jurisdiction. In determining whether the plan amendment is consistent with this Consideration (and does not impact the adjoining County land), reference to the goals and policies within the Countywide Comprehensive Plan is necessary. The Land Use Element Goal provides in part that "[t]he land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest." Two unnumbered Policies within the same Element further provide that "land development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods," and that "land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominately developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated." In this case, there are enclaves of County land lying on the northern, southern, and eastern boundaries of the Trustee's land. The County contends that the proposed change is inconsistent with the Consideration because it adversely affects the "character" of the adjoining County land in two ways: (a) by the creation of a new access road to the north through a quiet, residential neighborhood, and (b) by the construction of town homes in an area historically classified as RS, which only allows the construction of single-family homes. If the plan amendment is approved, the City has decided to extend Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, giving the new (and existing) residents an outlet to the north. This alternative was chosen since the County has declined to participate in the southern alternative. The extension will provide access to a new City park, and the developer will pay more than his fair share to aid in the construction of the road. According to the City, the extension is necessary to mitigate the increased traffic from the new project. Currently, the roads in the area around where the extension will be built can be characterized as secluded and rural, with only a small amount of traffic. Besides the automobiles of the existing residents, the only other vehicles using the roads are those being tested by the nearby Chevrolet dealership after being repaired. If the plan amendment is approved, and the town homes constructed, the project will generate hundreds of new trips per day. Understandably so, existing residents of the area (as well as the County) fear that if the road is extended, it will become a "cut-through" street for non-residents traveling north on U.S. Highway 19 to Enterprise Road and who wish to avoid that intersection. Given the current level of traffic on U.S. Highway 19 (LOS "F"), it is fair to infer that this fear is well-founded. Accordingly, by extending Chautauqua Avenue to Enterprise Road, the character of the existing neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the increased traffic generated by new residents seeking an outlet and non-residents using the street as a cut-through. It is true that some form of traffic mitigation will still be required if the plan amendment is not approved, and single-family homes are built on the Trustee's property. However, when or if the property will be developed, and the extent of such development, is not known, and there is no indication in the record that the City will still seek to mitigate this traffic by extending Chautauqua Avenue. The evidence shows that the established character of the neighborhood is quiet, secluded, and low density residential, with many of the homes having large, oversized lots. As noted earlier, a proposal is now pending before the County to develop the area directly north of the Trustee's property along the Lake with six single-family dwellings on "large estate lots behind a gated wall." By doubling the density on the Trustee's property from 2.5 to 5.0 units per acre, the character of the area would be changed, and the new density would be inconsistent with the historic land use and development pattern of the area. The evidence also shows that the residents who live immediately north of the Trustee's property purchased their land, and built their homes, with the expectation that the area would be "a detached single-family residential community within the 2.5 units per acre limitation." For more than 20 years, the County's land use decisions have been consistent with this expectation. Petitioners' witnesses contend, however, that the town homes will (a) serve as a buffer between the commercial uses which lie on the western side of Chautauqua Road and the existing single-family homes which lie on the eastern side, and (b) provide a transition or gradual stepdown in intensity from the commercial uses along U.S. Highway 19 to town homes to single-family homes, which practice is consistent with good land use planning. However, the area maps and site plan introduced into evidence clearly show that the town homes would not buffer anything except the Lake, since the town homes would run from the Lake all the way westward to the rear of the Chevrolet dealership. In other words, to provide a buffer, logically it would be necessary that the town homes be placed between the commercial areas and the single-family homes. The residential property to the north and south (which purportedly would be buffered) is already located adjacent to, and directly east of, the commercial development along U.S. Highway 19, and the town homes would simply increase the density of the property between the two residential areas by 100 percent. For the same reasons, the construction of town homes would not provide a transition or step down in the intensity of development from west to east since they would not be built between the existing homes and U.S. Highway 19. Based on the foregoing facts, it is found that the proposed amendment will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood (and impact the adjoining County land) and is therefore inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 of the Countywide Rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, sitting as the Countywide Planning Authority, enter a final order determining that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Section 5.3.5.6 and that the amendment should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2003.
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 issues to be determined in this appeal are: (1) whether Petitioner was afforded procedural due process; (2) whether the City failed to observe the essential requirements of law; and (3) whether the City's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence.
The Issue The issue is whether Polk County's small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Ordinance No. 03-03 on January 22, 2003, as later amended by Ordinance No. 03-19 on March 15, 2003, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Berry is the owner of a tract of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road (County Road 540-A) and Pollard Road in Section 16, Township 29, Range 26 in the eastern part of unincorporated Polk County, Florida. The property lies south of the City of Winter Haven, east-southeast of the City of Eagle Lake, less than a mile south of Lake Eloise (on which Cypress Gardens is located), and west of U.S. Highway 27. Because Berry owns property within the County, and submitted oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the challenged amendment, it has standing to participate in this action. On July 19, 2002, Berry filed an application with the County Planning Department seeking to change the land use on 9.99 acres (or just below the threshold of 10.0 acres for a small scale amendment) from RL-1 to Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC) to include approximately 4.95 acres of various neighborhood specialty shops such as a grocery store, drug store, convenience store, and dry cleaners, with the remaining acreage used as a mini-warehouse self-storage facility. In September 2002, Berry amended its application by seeking to change 3.93 acres from RL-1 to CC and 6.06 acres from RL-1 to BPC-1. The application was assigned Case File No. CPA2003S- 02. Under the County's review process, the application is first reviewed by the County Development Review Committee (Committee), then by the County Planning Commission (CPC), which either accepts or rejects the Committee's recommendation, and finally by the Board of County Commissioners (Board), which either adopts the amendment, adopts the amendment as amended by the Board, or rejects the amendment. After conducting a preliminary review of the application, on September 16, 2002, the Committee conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend approval. The matter was then transmitted to the CPC, which conducted a meeting on October 9, 2002, and recommended that the Board approve the amendment. On January 22, 2003, by a 3-2 vote, the Board adopted CPA2003S-02 changing the designation on the FLUM of the County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) as proposed by Berry. This was confirmed by the County's adoption of Ordinance No. 03-03. On February 21, 2003, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the Berry amendment. The matter was again placed on the Board's agenda on March 19, 2003, after the County discovered that Ordinance No. 03-03 had inadvertently changed the land use on the entire parcel to CC rather a mix of CC and BPC-1. In addition, there were minor errors in the legal description of both the 3.93 and 6.06-acre parcels. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 03-19 was enacted to correct those errors. A second Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings (with essentially the same allegations, but also adding an allegation that the same property had been improperly subject to two small scale amendments within a 12- month period) was filed by Petitioners on March 19, 2003, challenging the action taken in Ordinance No. 03-19. At the outset of the final hearing, Petitioners voluntarily dismissed two allegations contained in their Petition. In their Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioners have further narrowed the issues by addressing only the following allegations: that the property which is the subject of this proceeding exceeds 10.0 acres in size and therefore cannot qualify as a small scale amendment; and that the amendment violates Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies 2.102-A1, 2.113-B-3, 2.113-B-4, 2.110-C3, and 2.113-B-1 and is thus internally inconsistent with the Plan. These issues will be discussed separately below. All other allegations contained in the second Petition and the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation are deemed to have been withdrawn or abandoned. Because the change in the FLUM was filed and approved as a small scale plan amendment under Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003),1 a compliance review of the amendment was not made by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). See § 163.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Standing of Petitioners Durham is a realtor/developer who owns property within 250 feet of Berry's property and resides at 10 Lake Eloise Lane, Southeast, Winter Haven, Florida. He made oral and written comments to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment. As such, he qualifies as an affected person under Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to bring this action. CPPI began as an association in November 2002 and was later incorporated in February 2003. Presently, it has around 100 members, all of whom reside in the County. According to its chairperson, its purpose is to "help educate and inform residents of Polk County . . . towards growth matters that may affect their daily lives." The organization "encourages donations" from its members; it was scheduled to have conducted its first annual meeting on January 10, 2004; and members prepared and circulated petitions opposing the amendment to residents of the area in December 2002 and January 2003. At least one member of CPPI made written and oral comments on its behalf to the County prior to the adoption of the amendment in March 2003. There is no evidence, however, that CPPI (as opposed to its individual members) owns property or owns or operates a business within the County. Therefore, it lacks standing to file a petition. The land and surrounding uses Berry owns a triangle-shaped parcel of land (the parent parcel) totaling around 14 acres which fronts on Eagle Lake Loop Road (a 24-foot wide urban collector road) to the north, Pollard Road (a local road) to the east, and a CSX railroad track, with right-of-way, on its western side. (Pollard Road dead ends at Eagle Lake Loop Road, and another collector road, Eloise Loop Road, continues to the north from the intersection). Pollard Road provides access to eight nearby single-family homes, which lie south of the Berry property and front on Pollard Road, and eventually terminates at the City of Winter Haven's Sewage Treatment Plant (an institutional use), which lies slightly more than a mile south of the site. To the west of the site directly across the railroad tracks and fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road is additional property owned by Berry and on which were once located the original Berry corporate offices. The Berry office buildings are now used, at least partially, by other tenants. Although the land across the railroad tracks is classified as Residential Suburban (RS), the property can be used for offices since the buildings were constructed, and office use began, prior to the adoption of the Plan. Directly across Pollard Road to the east is a vacant 10-acre tract of land owned by the Baptist Ridge Association, which intends to construct a church on the property. Berry's property is now classified as RL-1, a land use classification which "is characterized by single-family dwelling units, duplex units, and small-scale multi-family units." Since at least the 1950s, however, or long before the County adopted its Plan, the property has been used primarily for agriculture purposes (citrus groves); therefore, Berry is grandfathered to continue this non-conforming use on its property. Presently, the entire tract of land is undeveloped and largely covered by an orange grove, which Berry describes as "past maturation and is declining." Citrus trucks and trailers have been parked on the extreme northwestern corner of the parent parcel and are used in conjunction with the citrus operation. Except for the former Berry offices, a nearby beauty salon operating out of a house, and a convenience store about three-quarters of a mile away, which all began operation before the Plan was adopted and are grandfathered as non- conforming uses, and the City of Winter Haven's large tract of institutional land to the south, all of the property within slightly less than a one-mile radius of the Berry property is classified in various residential land use categories with only residential uses. The Amendment As noted above, Berry has owned the subject property for many years. In 1987, Berry (then under the name of Jack M. Berry, Sr.) made application with the County for a zoning change on the property from Rural Conservation (RC) to Commercial (C-3) to allow typical commercial uses. The application was ultimately denied by the County on the ground, among others, that the zoning district being proposed was inconsistent with the Plan, "given the residential development pattern in the area." At least partly on the theory that the area has changed substantially in the last 15 years, Berry has filed (and the County has approved) an application seeking to change the land use on the property to commercial uses. Berry has carved out of the parent parcel two smaller parcels totaling 9.99 acres in size and seeks to change the land use on the northern parcel (3.93 acres) to CC and the land use on the southern parcel (6.06 acres) to BPC-1. The remaining land in the parent parcel, which consists of a 0.43-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the northwestern corner of the parent parcel and now used by citrus trucks, and a vacant 2.74-acre triangle-shaped parcel on the southern end, will remain R-1. (However, all parties agree that if the amendment is approved, these remaining parcels will be unsuitable for residential development.) In addition, strips of land ranging from 22 to 28 feet in width which front on Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road will be dedicated to the County for right-of-way and have not been included in the 9.99-acre amendment. Presumably, the proposed change is being done in this manner so that the total acreage is less than 10.0 acres, which qualifies the application to be processed as a small scale development amendment rather than a regular plan amendment and subject to DCA review and approval. If the change is approved, the northern part of the parcel (3.93 acres) will be changed to CC to develop convenience commercial uses. Under the Plan, the most typical tenant in this category is a convenience store, while other typical tenants include laundry, dry cleaning, barber, restaurant, gas station, and office uses. The southern (and larger) portion of the tract will be changed to BPC-1. The most typical tenant in this category is "[o]ne or more light- assembly plants, or warehouse facilities," which include a mini-warehouse storage facility. Other typical tenants described in the Plan are offices, distribution centers, research and development firms, and high-density residential, with proper buffering. (Berry says it intends to build a mini-warehouse facility on the southern parcel; however, any of the above described uses could be placed on the property if the change is approved.) Petitioners' Objections In broad terms, Petitioners have contended that the small scale amendment actually involves a use of more than 10 acres since the strips of land being dedicated as right-of-way to the County must be counted as a part of the land being amended. They also contend that the plan amendment violates five FLUE policies and is therefore internally inconsistent with the Plan. A small scale development amendment can only be adopted if "[t]he proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer." See § 163.3187(1)(c)1., Fla. Stat. The parties have agreed that the legal description of the parcel subject to the change includes only 9.99 acres, or less than the 10-acre threshold. However, prior to the development of the site, Berry intends to dedicate to the County two strips of land, one fronting on Eagle Lake Loop Road (28 feet wide), and the other on Pollard Road (22 feet wide), for future right-of-way for some public purpose. Petitioners contend that the right-of-way constitutes essential infrastructure for the development and must be included as a part of the amendment. If this land is added to the amendment, the total acreage would obviously exceed 10.0 acres. The dedicated land is not "essential infrastructure" needed for the development activities on the land, since two roadways (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road) already exist on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and they are sufficient in size to provide ingress to, and egress from, the property. Instead, the County will "bank" the land in the event some form of right-of-way activity is needed in the future. It is noted that Eagle Lake Loop Road was recently widened to 24 feet, and it is not anticipated that a further widening will occur for a number of years. There is nothing in the Plan which requires an applicant for an amendment to include all of its property in a proposed amendment, or prevents an applicant from leaving a residual piece of property out of the application. Therefore, Berry was not required to include in the amendment the right- of-way or the two smaller residual pieces of property that will remain R-1. Finally, assuming arguendo that Petitioners' contention is correct, that is, that an applicant must include right-of-way land dedicated to the local government in the total acreage calculation, Berry could still lawfully comply with the 10-acre threshold by simply reducing the other acreage being changed to CC or BPC by the amount of land being dedicated to the local government for right-of-way. Therefore, it is found that Berry has not improperly excluded from the amendment land necessary for essential infrastructure so as to violate Section 163.3187(1)(c)1., Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners. Policy 2.102-A1 requires compatibility between adjacent uses. More specifically, it provides that: Land shall be developed so that adjacent uses are compatible with each other, pursuant to the requirements of other Policies in this Future Land Use Element, so that one or more of the following provisions are accomplished: there have been provisions made which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses; incompatible uses are made to be more compatible to each other through limiting the intensity and scale of the more intense use; uses are transitioned through a gradual scaling of different land use activities through the use of innovative development techniques such as a Planned Unit Development. Therefore, as the Plan is now written, so long as Berry develops the land in a manner which accomplishes at least one of the three "provisions" in paragraphs a - c of the policy, so as to make the adjacent uses compatible, the proposed land use change is permissible. As noted above, except for a few non-conforming uses adjacent to, or near the property, virtually all of the area around the Berry property is designated for residential use. The area to the north and northeast is developed with up-scale (with some homes ranging to as high as $1 million in value), low density, large lot, single-family residential subdivisions, including Harbour Estates, Cedar Cove, Cypress Cove, Gaines Cove, and Valhalla. To the east of the site are more subdivisions, including Eloise Place, Skidmore, Cypress Point, Lake Eloise Estates, Eloise Pointe Estates, a mobile home park, and Little Lake Estates. The lands to the south are primarily agriculture and in active citrus groves, with eight single-family homes on Pollard Road. Finally, a church will be built on the property directly across the street from the Berry property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eagle Lake Loop Road and Pollard Road. The County Planning Director agrees that a convenience store (which is an authorized use on CC land), standing alone, is incompatible with adjacent single-family residences. Given this acknowledgement, and the fact that a non-binding, proposed site plan submitted by Berry with its application does not provide for any buffering between the commercial uses and the residential areas, Petitioners contend that none of the conditions required for compatibility in paragraphs a through c have been met, and thus the policy has been violated. The County has made clear, however, that when a final site plan is submitted, there must be "provisions [in the site plan] . . . which buffer incompatible uses from dissimilar uses," as required by the policy. Assuming that this is done at the site plan stage, at least one of the three provisions will be accomplished, thereby satisfying the compatibility requirement. This being so, the plan amendment does not violate the policy and in this respect is not internally inconsistent with the Plan. Petitioners next contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.110-C3, which contains locational criteria for CC property. One such criterion requires that "Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads." Because the property is at a T-shaped intersection (as opposed to a traditional cross intersection with four directions for traffic to move off the site), Petitioners assert that the property is not located at an "intersection" within the meaning of the policy. Eagle Lake Loop Road, on which the northern boundary of the property fronts, is designated as an urban collector road. That road forms an intersection with Pollard Road (a local road) and Eloise Loop Road (also an urban collector road), which meets Eagle Lake Loop Road from the north at the intersection, and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east. (When Eagle Lake Loop Road continues to the east beyond the intersection, it turns into Eloise Loop Road, and later into Thompson Nursery Road, until it eventually intersects with U.S. Highway 17.) There is no dispute that the two collector roads (Eagle Loop Lake Road and Eloise Loop Road) form a T intersection, rather than a traditional cross intersection. For many years, however, the County has considered a T intersection and a cross intersection to be the same in terms of satisfying Plan requirements. Indeed, at the present time, at least four other CC designated properties within the County are located at T intersections. The County's interpretation of the policy is consistent with sound planning principles, is reasonable and logical, and is more persuasive than the contrary view offered by Petitioners. Accordingly, it is found that the amendment does not conflict with Policy 2.110- C3. Petitioners also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Policy 2.113-B-3, which provides that "Business-Park Centers shall be located with consideration being given to regional transportation issues, and should be located at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line." (Emphasis added.) The use of the word "should" (rather than "shall") is intended to state a preference, but not an absolute requirement, that BPC lands be located at the intersections of arterial roads. According to the County's Planning Director, this is because "most cases that come [before the County] don't meet the ideal situation" of satisfying every requirement, and the County has used this permissive language to give itself some degree of flexibility in handling cases that do not meet every Plan requirement. Therefore, even though it is preferable that BPC land be located at the intersection of arterial roads, this requirement is not mandatory, and the County has the flexibility to approve a BPC land use change at property not sited at the intersection of arterial roads. In contrast to the permissive language described above, Policy 2.113-B-4 provides that development within a Business-Park Center shall conform to certain development criteria, including one that Business-Park Centers shall have frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves an arterial roadway. Business-Park Centers shall incorporate the use of frontage roads or shared ingress/egress facilities wherever practical. In this case, the closest arterial roadway to Berry's property is State Road 17 to the west, which is four miles away, while State Road 60, another arterial roadway, is approximately six miles to the south. These arterial roads must be accessed, at least at the beginning of the trip, by Eagle Lake Loop Road, a two-lane, 24-foot wide urban collector that runs through predominately residential neighborhoods with some homes having fences within a foot or two from the road. The County interprets the requirement that BPC land have "direct access to an arterial road" to be satisfied if the property fronts on a collector road, which then provides access to an arterial road. Under the County's interpretation, the requirement is met since Eagle Lake Loop Road provides access (albeit 4 to 6 miles away) to State Roads 17 and 60. The County says it has consistently interpreted this provision in this manner for at least ten years, and has approved other applications for changes to BPC when those parcels were located on urban collector roads. (The distance between these other BPC parcels and the arterial roads is not of record, however.) While Policy 2.113-B-1 provides that Business-Park Centers are "not intended to accommodate major commercial or other high-traffic producing facilities," they "are intended to promote employment opportunities within the region by allowing for the establishment of office parks, research and development parks, areas for light-industrial facilities, distribution centers, and mixed-use employment parks." The same policy provides that they must have a usable area of 10 acres or more, have a service-area radius of 20 miles or more, be supported by a population of 150,000 or more people, and have a gross leasable area of 500,000 to 2,000,000 square feet. Given this description of their purpose and characteristics, and the wide range of commercial activities that are allowed on Business-Park Center lands, it is not surprising that Policy 2.113-B-3 provides that BPC lands should be located "at the intersections of arterial roads, and preferably on a fixed-route mass-transit line," while Policy 2.113-B-4 requires that they "have direct frontage on, or direct access to, an arterial roadway, or a frontage road or service drive which directly serves on an arterial roadway." When reading these provisions as a whole, it is unreasonable to conclude, as the County does, that "direct access" contemplates a drive of over 4 miles, partly on a narrow two- lane road, in order to reach an arterial road. Accordingly, on this issue, Petitioners' evidence is the most persuasive, and it is found that the plan amendment conflicts with Policy 2.113-B-4 and in this respect is internally inconsistent with the Plan. Policy 2.110-C3 sets forth the following location criteria for Convenience Centers: LOCATION CRITERIA Convenience Centers shall be located at the intersections of arterial and/or collector roads. There shall be the following traveling distance, on public roads, between the center of Convenience Center and the center of any other Convenience Center, or other higher- level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor, or Commercial Enclave providing for the same convenience shopping needs: One (1) mile within the UDA and UGA Two (2) miles within the SDA and UEA This required separation may be reduced if: The higher-level Activity Center, Linear Commercial Corridor or Commercial Enclave within the required distance separation is over 80 percent developed; or the proposed Convenience Center market- area radius, minimum population support is over 5,000 people. Petitioners contend that this policy has been violated in two respects: the Berry property is not located at the intersection of arterial roads; and there is an existing convenience center located within 0.8 mile of the Barry property, and Berry cannot qualify for a reduction in the required separation, as described in paragraphs a and b. For the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 30-32, it is found that the Berry property is located at the intersection of two collector roads (Eagle Lake Loop Road and Eloise Loop Road) and that a T intersection satisfies the requirements of the policy. As to the second contention, the Berry property is located within an UGA (Urban Growth Area), and an existing convenience store is located at the intersection of Rifle Range Road and Eagle Lake Loop Road, or less than a mile west of Berry's property. The land use on the property on which the store sits was recently changed (in December 2003) to BPC, which does not allow a convenience store. However, the store is a non-conforming use, having been located at that site before the Plan was adopted. The locational requirement in Policy 2.110-C-3 that CC lands within the UGA be located at least a mile apart is not the least bit vague or ambiguous: CC designated lands (and not individual convenience stores, as Petitioners suggest) must be separated by at least a mile, unless one of the two criteria for reducing this separation is met. Because there is no CC land within a one-mile radius of the Berry land, the policy has not been violated. Policy 2.113-B-1 sets forth the following relevant characteristic for Business-Park Centers: General characteristics of Business-Park Centers are: Usable Area 10 acres or more There is no dispute that the useable area for the BPC land is only 6.06 acres, or approximately 60 percent of the required acreage. Petitioners contend that the amendment violates the foregoing policy because the useable area on Barry's property is much less than "10 acres or more." While the former County Planning Director conceded that the 10-acre usable area requirement is "mandatory," he justified the amendment on the ground that the 6.06 acres "approximates" 10 acres, and thus satisfies the policy. In the same vein, the current County Planning Director asserted that if Berry was proposing a stand-alone BPC, it would have been required to have 10 usable acres. In this case, though, he pointed out that the Berry property will be used for a nonresidential mixed use (BPC and CC) totaling almost 10 acres, and therefore Berry has satisfied the requirement. The Planning Director admitted, however, that nothing in the Plan specifically allows this type of exception. He justified the County's action on the theory that the Plan "doesn't anticipate every situation that comes in," and "interpretations have to be made of the comprehensive plan and how it's applied." The requirement that Business-Park Centers have a usable area of 10 or more acres is clear and unambiguous, was characterized as being "mandatory," and is not subject to any exceptions in the Plan. This being so, the County's interpretation is found to be unreasonable and contrary to the plain language in the policy, and in this respect the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with the Plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the small scale development amendment (CPA2003S-02) adopted by Polk County by Ordinance No. 03-03, as amended by Ordinance No. 03-19, is not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2004.
