The Issue Whether City of Marathon (“Marathon”) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2018-01, adopted on October 23, 2018 (the “Marathon Plan Amendment”); City of Key West (“Key West”) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-06, adopted on April 4, 2019 (the “Key West Plan Amendment”); and Islamorada, Village of Islands (“Islamorada”) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-03, adopted on March 5, 2019 (the “Islamorada Plan Amendment”) (collectively, the “Plan Amendments”), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Ms. Mattino resides in Marathon with her daughter and her fiancé. She submitted written objections to Marathon regarding the Marathon Plan Amendment prior to the October 23, 2018 public hearing at which Marathon adopted the Plan Amendment. 3 John H. Paul, Viral Tracer Studies Indicate Contamination of Marine Waters by Sewage Disposal Practices in Key Largo, Florida, Applied and Envtl. Microbiology, 2230-34 (June 1995). Ms. Mattino’s daughter is severely disabled, requires specialized equipment (including a specialized wheelchair), and requires full-time care, for which Ms. Mattino relies upon a variety of caretakers. Her daughter has to be transported in a specially-equipped vehicle to accommodate the wheelchair and other equipment. In the event Ms. Mattino is required to evacuate for a hurricane, she will need to bring an additional vehicle to transport her daughter’s medical equipment, which requires additional personnel. Prolonged car rides are dangerous for Ms. Mattino’s daughter because she has a seizure disorder that worsens when she is aggravated or stressed. Prolonged car rides are also stressful for Ms. Mattino, who has high blood pressure and has had several heart attacks. Ms. Mattino evacuated for Hurricane Irma and testified that she encountered heavy traffic, which was made more stressful by the need to stop approximately every two hours to attend to her daughter’s medical needs. Ms. Mattino claims that if the Plan Amendments increase the amount of time it takes her to evacuate the Florida Keys before a hurricane, it would cause additional stress and would put her and her daughter’s health at risk. Ms. Mattino maintains these concerns are unique to her and her family and that emergency evacuation is more difficult and dangerous for her and her family than it is for the general public. Ms. Bosworth resides in Islamorada with her daughter, son-in-law, and their two children. She submitted written objections to the Islamorada Plan Amendment prior to the April 4, 2019 public hearing at which Islamorada adopted the Plan Amendment. Ms. Bosworth previously evacuated for Hurricanes Andrew and Irma, which required preparation time to gather her pets, pack pet supplies, and secure her boat, as well as secure her outdoor belongings and put up her hurricane shutters. Securing her boat and putting up her shutters requires the assistance of her son-in-law. Ms. Bosworth believes her circumstances are unique because her son-in-law is a fire fighter and paramedic in Parkland, Florida, and is not always available to help her prepare her property for a hurricane. Ms. Bosworth claims that if traffic congestion increases or worsens as a result of the Plan Amendments, it would affect her and her family because she would be concerned that she would get stuck on the highway while trying to evacuate for a hurricane. Further, Ms. Bosworth testified that she and her family enjoy going out on the boat and snorkeling and that if Islamorada’s nearshore water quality became degraded or impaired it would affect her quality of life. Ms. Girard is a resident of Key West. She submitted oral or written objections to the Key West Plan Amendment prior to the March 5, 2019 public hearing at which Key West adopted the Plan Amendment. Ms. Girard testified that, due to her and husband’s marine-based business and residential tenants, she and her husband would wait until the very last minute to evacuate regardless of when an evacuation advisory was issued by the Monroe County Emergency Management Office. Ms. Girard did not evacuate for Hurricane Irma or any other hurricane since moving to a site-built home in Key West in 2007.4 Marathon, Islamorada, and Key West, are all municipalities with the duty and authority to adopt a comprehensive plan, pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes (2019). Background In 1972, the Florida Legislature enacted the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, which provided the basis for state designation of Areas of Critical State Concern (“ACSC”).5 The statute provides criteria for 4 Ms. Girard previously lived on vessels in the Key West area. 5 The Environmental Land and Water Management Act was enacted prior to the 1985 Growth Management Act, chapter 163, part II, when most local governments did not have programs and personnel to guide development in a manner that would ensure protection of natural resources. designating an ACSC, which is generally “[a]n area containing … environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide importance,” such as wildlife refuges, aquatic preserves, and state environmentally endangered lands. § 380.05(2), Fla. Stat. (2019).6 In 1974, the Florida Keys (Monroe County and its municipalities) were designated an ACSC due to the area’s environmental sensitivity and mounting development pressures. The designation was effectuated by the adoption in 1979 of section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, the “Florida Keys Area Protection Act.” The Act establishes the legislative intent to establish a land use management system that, among other things, “protects the natural environment,” “conserves and promotes the community character,” “promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services,” and “promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base” in the Keys. § 380.0552(2), Fla. Stat. (2019). The ACSC designation transferred all local Keys planning and development review and approval rights to the state land-planning agency, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”).7 While the Keys local governments can adopt and amend their plan and land development regulations, those provisions do not take effect until approved by administrative rule. See § 380.0552(9), Fla. Stat. 6 The statute contains additional specific criteria for designation, including the economic and ecological value of the area; presence of critical habitat of any state or federally designated threatened or endangered plant or animal species; inherent susceptibility to substantial development due to its geographical location or natural aesthetics; and the anticipated effect of development on the environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide importance. § 380.05(2), Fla. Stat. (2019). 7 The 2011 Legislature transferred the DCA Division of Community Planning, via Type II transfer, to the Department of Economic Opportunity. See ch. 2011-142, § 3, Laws of Fla. In 1986, Monroe County updated its comprehensive plan to be consistent with the 1985 Growth Management Act.8 Several administrative challenges followed, initiated by both DCA and private entities and individuals. Monroe County revised its comprehensive plan in 1993 to resolve many of the issues raised in the litigation, but those amendments were again challenged in administrative proceedings. The second challenge culminated in a final order of the Administration Commission in 1995 finding the 1993 Monroe County Plan not “in compliance,” with the Act and the Principles for Guiding Development in the Keys ACSC (“the Principles”), which are adopted by rule of the Administration Commission. The Final Order found that “the environment of the … Keys is the very essence of Monroe County’s economic base. The uniqueness of the environment … and the current condition of the environment must be addressed in any growth management decision[].” DCA v. Monroe Cty., 1995 Fla. ENV LEXIS 129 (Fla. ACC 1995). The litigation highlighted aspects of the Florida Keys ecosystem as having limited capacity to sustain additional impacts from development. Of particular concern was the declining water quality of the nearshore environment due to lack of central sewer facilities, the loss of habitat for state and federally-listed species, public safety in the event of hurricanes, and a deficit of affordable housing. Relevant to Petitioner’s challenge, the Final Order found that the ability of the nearshore waters of the Keys to withstand additional degradation from sewage and stormwater discharges “has already been reached or even exceeded,” and that development of the Keys “is degrading the nearshore waters at or over carrying capacity.” 8 The Growth Management Act was significantly amended and renamed the “Community Planning Act,” by chapter 2011-142, Laws of Florida. The 1995 Final Order required Monroe County to undertake certain “remedial actions” in order to bring the Plan into compliance with both the Act and the Principles, which are adopted in section 380.0552. Among the remedial actions was the requirement that Monroe County establish a Permit Allocation System (“PAS”) for new residential development. The Administration Commission explained, as follows: The [PAS] shall limit the number of permits issued for new residential development … provided that the hurricane evacuation clearance time does not exceed 24 hours …. The County shall adjust the allocation based upon environmental and hurricane evacuation constraints and … to account for permits and vested units in … the Keys. Monroe County amended its plan in 1996 to implement the PAS and other remedial actions, and adopted a “carrying capacity approach” to planning in the ACSC. The amended comprehensive plan was approved by rule of the Administration Commission—Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-20, which also established a comprehensive work program designed to improve the Keys’ water quality and protect the habitat of threatened and endangered species. The rule was subject to another administrative challenge, and the Division issued a final order upholding the rule in 1997. See Abbott v. Admin. Comm’n, Case No. 96-2027RP (Fla. DOAH May 21, 1997). The Carrying Capacity Study The work program adopted by the rule included the requirement to conduct a “carrying capacity analysis” for the Florida Keys. Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-20.100 provided, “The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the various segments thereof, to withstand impacts of additional land development activities.” The rule established that the analysis should be based on the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on December 12, 1995, “or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study,” and upon the benchmarks of, and all adverse impacts to, the Keys natural land and water systems, in addition to the impacts of nutrients on marine resources. The study was undertaken beginning in 1996 and was sponsored jointly by DCA and the Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) and involved 38 separate state and federal agencies. The study modeled a series of future development scenarios, as well as redevelopment and restoration scenarios. The Final Report9 of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (“FKCCS”) was issued in September 2002. The major findings include the following: Development suitability in the Florida Keys is extremely restricted, due to the following characteristics: Existing development has displaced nearly 50 percent of all upland habitats, and remaining uplands are distributed in patches of 10 or fewer acres; almost every native area is potential habitat for one or more endangered species; over 50 percent of all private lands are wetland parcels, and development suitability of remaining lands is low or marginal due to open space requirements, lack of infrastructure, and other factors. Future growth is limited in the next 20 years— less than 10 percent growth in the number of dwelling units and population—due to infrastructure limitations. Permitted capacity of potable water withdrawals was exceeded in 1999 and 2000; improvement of hurricane evacuation clearance times is dependent on structural improvements to U.S. Highway 1, which will increase government costs, nutrient loading, and indirect impacts to wildlife and 9 The document introduced in evidence is titled “Draft Final Report.” According to the testimony of Rebecca Jetton, no other final report was issued by the study sponsors. habitats; and residential capacity is limited to 6,000 units in order to maintain the state- mandated level of service for roadways. All six future scenarios would result in disproportionate increase in government expenditures with respect to increased population, which will require increased taxation on both local residents and tourists. The existing data “are insufficient to establish quantitative, predictive relationships between land use or development and the marine environment.” The study documented human impacts to the marine ecosystem and species. The study underscores the benefits of wastewater treatment, “but other impacts are more related to resource management than to land development.” The study provides the following four major guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys: Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats and species have been severely affected by development and further impacts would only exacerbate an already untenable condition. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental conditions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the wastewater and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Keys. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for additional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial ecosystems. Rule 28-20.001 required the findings of the FKCCS to be implemented by “adoption of all necessary [comprehensive plan] amendments to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards [to] ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county’s environment and marine system to accommodate additional impacts.” The study would provide the state and the Keys local governments with an analytical tool to support future comprehensive plan amendments and revisions of land development regulations. Hour Hurricane Evacuation In 2006, following the publication of the FKCCS, the Legislature amended section 380.0552 to require the local governments to adopt provisions in their comprehensive plans to “protect the public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster by maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more than 24 hours.” § 380.0552(4)(e)2., Fla. Stat. (2007). The requirement remains in effect and is enforced by the state through review of local government plan amendments. See § 380.0552(9)(a)2., Fla. Stat. ROGO and BPAS Principle among the Monroe County amendments to implement the remedial actions ordered by the Administration Commission was the PAS, implemented in the County by a Rate of Growth Ordinance (“ROGO”). The current version of the administrative rule approving the County’s comprehensive plan is rule 28-20.140, which also governs and approves ROGO. The rule provides the maximum number of permits for residential development that may be issued annually, with a split between affordable and market rate units. The current cap is 197 units per year, with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing and a maximum of 126 market rate units. Any unused affordable housing units “roll over” for affordable housing units the following year. Other unused allocations may be rolled over and used for affordable housing units or “administrative relief.”10 Islamorada and Marathon were not yet incorporated when the comprehensive plan litigation began and subsequent remedial measures were issued. Since their incorporation, each of the cities has been brought under the umbrella of the ACSC designation. The cities’ respective comprehensive plans and land development regulations are subject to the same review and approval authority of the Administration Commission, and are subject to similar work plans to implement the remedial measures required by the commission. The applicable administrative rules are chapter 28-19 for Islamorada and chapter 28-18 for Marathon. Marathon and Islamorada have permit allocation requirements similar to Monroe County, known as the Building Permit Allocation System (“BPAS”). Their respective administrative rules provide the annual maximum number of permits and the split between affordable and market rate units, as well as the rules governing rollover of unused allocations.11 BPAS is a competitive system. Permit applications are awarded points based on their alignment with specific development criteria, such as presence or absence of wetlands or protected habitat, and availability of public services. Those applications with the highest points are awarded available permits for the BPAS year. 10 Unused allocations may be provided to applicants who have been denied a permit, despite having met all the requirements of the land development regulations, if they have been in the allocation system for a significant number of years. 11 Marathon’s annual cap is 30 units and Islamorada’s is 28 (22 market rate and 6 affordable housing). Work Program Each of the municipalities’ governing rules includes a work program, broken down into the following categories: (1) carrying capacity implementation; (2) wastewater implementation; and (3) wastewater project implementation. Marathon’s work program includes a fourth category— stormwater treatment facilities. The specific activities of each work program differ somewhat. For example, with respect to environmentally-sensitive lands, Islamorada was required to apply for land acquisition funds, while Marathon was required to apply and adopt land development regulations limiting permit allocations in high quality habitats. Monroe County was required to adopt conservation planning mapping into its comprehensive plan. The wastewater implementation and wastewater project implementation sections of the work programs are of high importance. The litigation highlighted the declining water quality of the nearshore environment due to a lack of central sewer facilities. The Keys’ wastewater treatment “system” consisted of a hodgepodge of some 23,000 septic tanks, 2,800 cesspits, and at least 249 small package treatment plants. The work program represents a monumental, long-term, and expensive12 infrastructure project to build a central sewer system in the Keys, followed by a program to require existing developments to connect to the system, and land development regulations to direct new growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities. Each local government work program includes specific target dates to obtain funding for, and construction of, each component of the sewer system, as well as specific target 12 In both 2012 and 2016, the Florida Legislature authorized expenditure of Everglades restoration bond funds for Florida Keys wastewater and stormwater management projects; and, in 2016, appropriated $5 million in Florida Forever funds for said projects for the 2016/2017 year. More than $13 million was included in the general appropriations act for said projects in the 2017/2018 year. dates for initiating and completing connections of existing development to the newly-constructed system. Monroe County’s work program also includes directives for funding stormwater improvement projects and deadlines for completing said projects. ACSC Annual Reports The local governments and the Department of Economic Opportunity (“DEO”) are required to report to the Administration Commission annually documenting “the degree to which work program objectives for the work program year[13] have been achieved.” Achievement of work program objectives is directly tied to the BPAS and ROGO—if the Administration Commission finds that work program objectives have not been achieved, it can reduce the unit cap for residential development by 20 percent for the following year.14 Additionally, through the BPAS and ROGO, the local governments are required to direct new growth to areas served by central sewer. Each application for building permit is awarded an additional four points15 if the parcel is served by central sewer meeting statewide treatment standards. In the 2017 ACSC annual report, the most recent report for which the parties requested official recognition, Islamorada reported it had connected 85 percent of potential customers (with another five percent in the application process), Marathon had connected 97 percent, and Monroe County had an overall connection rate of 86 percent (with higher percentages for specific individual treatment facilities). 13 The work program year runs from July of one year to June of the following year. 14 The Islamorada rule does not contain this provision; however, it does provide that, if the Administration Commission determines progress has been made for the work program year, then the Commission “shall restore the unit cap” of 28 allocations for the following year. It is unclear whether Islamorada was already under penalty when the new rule was adopted or whether this is an oversight in the rule. 15 In Islamorada, the award is two additional points. City of Key West Key West challenged its inclusion in the original ACSC designation, and, in 1984, was designated as a separate area of critical state concern (“the Key West ACSC”), effectuated by the adoption of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 28-36. The Key West ACSC is subject to the same land planning and development regulation oversight as the Florida Keys ACSC, and the Key West comprehensive plan and land development regulations are approved by the state through Florida Administrative Code Chapters 28-37 and 9B-30. Key West is subject to separate principles for guiding development than the Florida Keys ACSC, which are found in rule 28-36.003. Key West is served by central sewer and does not have work program tasks. Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time The work program requires the local governments within the Florida Keys ACSC to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the DEO, the Division of Emergency Management, and each of the other Keys local governments, to stipulate to the input variables and assumptions for utilizing the Florida Keys Hurricane Model, or other models acceptable to DEO, to accurately depict hurricane evacuation clearance times for the population in the Keys. The work program required, by July 1, 2012, the local governments to run the model with the agreed upon variables from the MOU “to complete an analysis of the maximum build-out capacity for the ACSC, consistent with the requirement to maintain a 24-hour evacuation clearance time and the [FKCCS] constraints.” DEO appointed a Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time Work Group (the “Work Group”) including members of each of the six local governments and representatives from the tourism industry, chambers of commerce, and community organizations, as well as from state and federal agencies. The Work Group held a series of public workshops to consider hurricane model inputs—census data, behavioral studies, hurricane forecasting, military evacuation procedures, traffic flow rates, and number and location of vacant platted lots. The Work Group selected the Division of Emergency Management’s Transportation Interface for Modeling Evacuations (“TIME”) as the model to accurately depict evacuation clearance times for the population of the Keys ACSC and the Key West ACSC (“the Florida Keys ACSCs”). The Work Group agreed on 10 modeling assumptions, including the number of tourist units, and of those, the number occupied; the number of mobile home units and evacuation participation rates; and the number of site-built units, the occupancy rate, and participation rate of residents in those units, among other important variables. The inputs and assumptions were tested by modeling over 100 evacuation scenarios. The Work Group presented its findings on June 8, 2012, and selected evacuation scenario M5, which provided for continuation of then-existing annual building permit allocations that were adopted by rule or comprehensive plan amendment (with the exception of Key Colony Beach and Key West). Scenario M5 produced an evacuation clearance time of 24 hours with a future allocation of 3,550 new residential building permits. Notably, scenario M5 assumed that military, mobile home residents, and tourists would evacuate during Phase I of what DEO described as a two- phase evacuation plan. Further, M5 assumed that 15 percent of existing mobile homes would convert to site-built homes. In the two-phase evacuation plan, tourists are ordered to evacuate 48 hours in advance of predicted tropical storm force winds, and residents of mobile homes are ordered to evacuate 36 hours in advance. The model predicted an evacuation clearance time of 16 hours and 30 minutes for Phase I using tourist occupancy rates for July, and 17 hours and 30 minutes using tourist occupancy rates for the Labor Day weekend. Under Scenario M5, residents of site-built units are ordered to evacuate 30 hours in advance, giving those residents six hours of lead time to secure property and make other preparations. Under scenario M5, all site- built residences were evacuated within 24 hours of predicted tropical storm force winds, including an additional 3,550 units. As such, the work group determined 3,550 units to be the maximum buildout of the Keys through 2023 to maintain the 24-hour hurricane evacuation mandate in section 380.0552. The Work Program directed DEO to “apply the derived clearance time to assess and determine the remaining allocations for the [ACSC]” and recommend revisions to the allocation rates and distribution of allocations to the six local governments, as well as any recommended changes to the local government comprehensive plans. DEO completed that task, and determined that a maximum of 3,550 additional units could be distributed over the next ten years, beginning in July 2013. On November 5, 2012, Monroe County, Marathon, Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, Key West, the City of Layton, the Division of Emergency Management, and DEO, entered into an MOU agreeing on the use of the TIME model, as well as the data, input variables, and assumptions to be utilized in model runs. The following “whereas” clause succinctly provides the results of the M5 scenario: WHEREAS, from among the scenarios provided by DEO at the June 8, 2012, Work Group meeting, Scenario M5 included the 2010 Census site-built units (43,760 units); the maximum number of residential building permits for new construction for all Local Governments per year for 10 years (annually, County 197, Marathon 30, Islamorada 28, Key West 90, Key Colony Beach 6, and Layton 3); 1,248 mobile home units projected to convert to site-built units; the exclusion of 870 dwelling units on the Naval Air Station; as well as two (2) functional evacuation lanes from MM 108-126. Further the work group recommended Scenario M5 with the provision that the City of Key West would transfer annually (by July 13th) any remaining or unused (90 allocations) allocations to the other Local Governments based upon the Local Governments’ ratio of vacant land. Technical corrections made after the June 8, 2012 meeting, the census- based number of site-built units was revised to 43,718 and the Key West allocation was revised to 91. The MOU also memorializes the following staged evacuation procedure: Approximately 48 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, mandatory evacuation of non-residents, visitors, RVs, travel trailers, live-aboard vessels (transient and non-transient), and military personnel. Approximately 36 hours in advance, mandatory evacuation of mobile- home residents, special needs residents, and hospital and nursing home patients. Approximately 30 hours in advance, mandatory phased evacuation of permanent residents by evacuation zone.[16] The phased evacuation procedure is also adopted in each of the local government comprehensive plans, except Key West, which adopted the procedure by resolution. Affordable Housing The need for additional affordable housing in the Keys is well documented, and the parties stipulated, generally, to the need. Numerous factors contribute to the need for affordable housing, including, but not limited to, the high cost of living, higher construction costs, the high cost of land, as well as the limited supply and high demand for real estate and housing throughout the Florida Keys. The need for affordable housing was exacerbated by Hurricane Irma, which made landfall in the Florida Keys in September of 2017 and destroyed approximately 400 mobile 16 There are five hurricane evacuation zones in the Keys designated by mile marker numbers along US 1. homes, “permanent RV’s,” and ground-level single-family homes that served as affordable housing, many for members of the Keys workforce. Most of the site-built homes destroyed were not built to current building code standards, but were “grandfathered” from code compliance. Those structures must be rebuilt to code, which will likely take them out of financial reach of members of the Keys workforce. Provision of affordable housing is an important aspect of the regulatory framework for planning in the Keys. The litigation over the Monroe County comprehensive plan highlighted a deficit of affordable housing in the Keys. Among the Principles is the requirement to “[make] available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population” of the Keys. § 380.0552(7)(l), Fla. Stat. When designating the ACSC, the Legislature expressed the intent to “[p]rovide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment” in the Keys. § 380.0552(2)(d), Fla. Stat. The Keys Workforce Housing Initiative Shortly after Hurricane Irma, Marathon began discussions with DEO about the possibility of obtaining additional building permit allocations for workforce-affordable housing. In November 2017, Marathon passed Resolution 2017-99 requesting the allocation of 300 affordable housing allocations from DEO with approval of the Administration Commission. DEO determined there were not enough building permits available under the current regulatory structure to address the need for affordable housing in the Florida Keys. As a result, DEO developed the Keys Workforce Affordable Housing Initiative (the “Housing Initiative”) to allow up to 1,300 new building permit allocations for workforce housing throughout the Florida Keys, with an initial allocation not to exceed 300 per local government. Under the Housing Initiative, the additional units are to be deed- restricted for workforce affordable housing and required to evacuate in Phase I, along with tourists, visitors, mobile home residents, and military personnel. The Administration Commission approved the Housing Initiative at the June 13, 2018 meeting. In support of the Housing Initiative, DEO staff made a presentation asserting that the Phase I evacuation (under the existing staged evacuation plan) can be accomplished in 17.5 hours, leaving additional capacity of 6.5 hours in Phase I. DEO concluded that the Housing Initiative “will not interfere with the 24-hour evacuation model and satisfies the statutory mandate to provide affordable housing.” Following approval by the Administration Commission, DEO worked with Marathon and other local governments to amend their comprehensive plans to implement the Housing Initiative. The Plan Amendments The Marathon Plan Amendment creates a new Future Land Use (“FLU”) goal stating the intent to participate in the Housing Initiative approved by the Administration Commission. It further creates a new FLU Objective establishing a “new limited category” of building permit allocations known as “Affordable – Early Evacuation Pool” providing 300 workforce affordable building permit allocations in addition to the allocations identified in chapter 28-18. The Marathon Plan Amendment creates five new FLU policies. The first allows for distribution of the allocations “at any time” provided applicable Marathon public notice and hearing procedures are followed and the distribution is based on the BPAS ranking procedures in effect. The second policy provides the following “Specific Standards and Requirements for Workforce Affordable Housing”: Affordable-Early Evacuation residential units under this program shall: be multifamily structures; be rental units; require, at a minimum, adherence to the latest edition of the Florida Building Code[]; not be placed in the V-Zone or within the Coastal Barrier Resource Systems; require on-site property management; comply with applicable habitat and other locational criteria and densities for multifamily affordable housing units; shall not be placed in any habitat defined as mangroves, saltmarsh & buttonwood, hardwood hammock, or fresh water wetlands (disturbed categories excepted); incorporate sustainable and resilient design principles into the overall site design; ensure accessibility to employment centers and amenities; and require deed-restrictions ensuring: the property remains workforce-affordable housing in perpetuity; tenants evacuate during the period in which transient units are required to evacuate; rental agreements contain a separate disclosure requiring renters to acknowledge that failure to adhere to the evacuation requirement could result in severe penalties, including eviction, to the resident; and on-site property managers are formally trained in evacuation procedures. The third policy exempts from the early evacuation requirement all first responders, correctional officers, health care professionals, or other first- response workers required to remain during an emergency. The fourth policy requires the workforce-affordable developments to comply with federal accessibility standards. The last policy requires Marathon to provide DEO with an annual report on the implementation of the Housing Initiative, including documenting the number of workforce-affordable housing units built, occupancy rates, and compliance with the early evacuation requirement. The report is to be included in the DEO annual work program report to the Administration Commission. Islamorada’s plan amendment provides 300 workforce-affordable building permit allocations in addition to the allocations identified in chapter 28-19. In all other respects the amendment is identical to the Marathon Plan Amendment. The Key West Plan Amendment approves the receipt of 300 workforce- affordable building permit allocations “as well as any additional allocations which may be authorized by the Florida Administration Commission or transferred to Key West that are not accepted by other Florida Keys municipalities or Monroe County.” Rather than authorizing distribution of the allocation “at any time,” Key West authorizes distribution “on a first- come first-served basis and at any time” following public notice and hearing procedures. Allocation of the Key West permits is not required to follow BPAS ranking unless the number of applications received exceeds the authorized allocation. There are also two minor differences in the “Standards and Requirement for Workforce-Affordable Housing” in the Key West Plan Amendment: it does not contain the paragraph prohibiting placement of units in buttonwood and hardwood hammock; and it does not require that property managers be trained in evacuation procedures. Otherwise, the Key West Plan Amendment is virtually identical to that adopted by Marathon and Islamorada. Petitioners’ Challenges Petitioners challenge the Plan Amendments, generally, as inconsistent with the FKCCS and the carrying capacity approach to planning in the Keys. The two main contentions are hurricane evacuation and environmental concerns. Hurricane Evacuation Petitioners posit that the Plan Amendments violate the Principles and the MOU17, and render the local government comprehensive plans internally inconsistent, by exceeding the requirement to evacuate the Keys permanent population in no more than 24 hours. Petitioners also argue the plan amendments are not supported by adequate data, and a professionally- acceptable analysis thereof, on hurricane evacuation clearance times. At first blush, Petitioners’ argument has merit: the Plan Amendments allow up to 1,300 units to be built in the Keys beyond the previously- established maximum buildout of 3,550 units through the year 2023. That buildout number was derived directly from the Work Group after agreement on all assumptions and inputs for, and multiple runs of, the agreed-upon TIME model, and identification of the M5 scenario as the best model for evacuation of permanent population within 24 hours. It is undisputed that the new residential units to be allocated under the Housing Initiative will house permanent residents. That fact alone is not in direct conflict with the 24-hour evacuation requirement because, as implemented, the evacuation plan requires some permanent residents— residents of mobile homes, “permanent RVs,” live-aboard vessels, and military personnel—to evacuate in advance of the start of the 24-hour clock. 17 As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Petitioners’ contention that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the MOU is rejected. Inconsistency with the MOU is not a statutory compliance issue. That requirement is incorporated into the local government comprehensive plans which have previously been found to be “in compliance”—meaning both internally consistent and consistent with the Principles. Petitioners introduced the testimony of Richard Ogburn, a planning expert who has extensive experience with hurricane evacuation modeling in South Florida, including the Keys. Mr. Ogburn was directly involved in the Work Group hurricane evacuation modeling that culminated in the 2012 report and adoption of the MOUs. As Mr. Ogburn explained, Monroe County was the first local government in the state to update its hurricane evacuation modeling based on the 2010 census data. It was to be a pilot for updating the statewide regional evacuation plan utilizing the new census data. Specifically, Mr. Ogburn, who was at the time employed by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, extracted demographic data from the 2010 census and created the demographic data base for use with the TIME model. Mr. Ogburn subsequently completed “validation runs” of the TIME model results generated by DEO staff during the Work Group process.18 In 2013, while Mr. Ogburn was working on the update to the statewide regional evacuation model, Mr. Ogburn discovered some blank cells within the census block group data sets in the original spreadsheet he had created for DEO. The missing information was the number of vehicles identified within those specific census block groups. With respect to Monroe County, eight of the 76 block groups were missing vehicle data. Mr. Ogburn found an alternative data source from which to derive the number of vehicles in the associated census block groups and reran the model for purposes of updating the statewide regional model. In 2014, Mr. Ogburn reported the census data errors to DEO, which requested he rerun scenario M5 after including the missing vehicles. The result was an increase of two- 18 The validation process involved input of the data parameters into the model and repeating the same model run scenarios to ensure that the results from the initial runs were replicated. and-a-half hours for evacuation of Phase II—a total clearance time of 26.5 hours. Mr. Ogburn testified that, based on the best-available data on hurricane evacuation clearance times, the evacuation of site-built dwellings in the Keys already exceeds the 24-hour evacuation standard mandate by statute (and incorporated into Respondents’ comprehensive plans). In his opinion, adding units authorized by the Housing Initiative would further exacerbate the problem. Petitioners introduced other evidence aimed at tearing down the conclusion of the Work Group that the Keys could be safely evacuated in under 24 hours, based on the 2012 TIME model runs. For example, Mr. Ogburn questioned the vacancy rates utilized by the Work Group, which he described as “most likely” too high. Mr. Ogburn cast doubt on the 100% participation rate assumption, and the assumed 12-hour response curve, which he testified was unrealistic given that people will not leave at the same rate if the evacuation is ordered at midnight as they would if the order was given at 7:00 a.m. Petitioners likewise introduced evidence casting doubt on the ability of meteorologists to predict storms with accuracy 48 hours in advance of landfall. The Keys local government comprehensive plans, as adopted with use of the TIME model, and all underlying assumptions and inputs, have previously been determined to be “in compliance.” The question of whether those assumptions and model inputs are supported by data and analysis is not properly before the undersigned in this proceeding. The evidence was, for the most part, irrelevant.19 The Housing Initiative is grounded on the availability of evacuation time in Phase I of the agreed evacuation procedure, which is adopted in each of the local government comprehensive plans. Mr. Ogburn agreed on cross- 19 Moreover, the evidence served to undercut Petitioners’ argument that the best available data and analysis supports the 24-hour evacuation clearance time cap. examination, that the TIME model was run separately for Phase I and Phase II, that the results from Phase I were not taken into consideration in the data for Phase II, and that if the units are presumed to evacuate in Phase I, it would have no effect on the analysis for Phase II. Notably, when Mr. Ogburn was asked directly whether the additional 1,300 units added to permanent population would cause the Keys evacuation time to exceed 24 hours, Mr. Ogburn testified: If the evacuation takes place ahead of time, it’s a different question and I don’t have a clear answer for that because I have not had the opportunity to run the model to determine whether or not that would cause the clearance times in the original phase to increase significantly.[20] The 2012 run of the TIME model demonstrated a clearance time in Phase I of 16 hours and 30 minutes, or 17 hours and 30 minutes, depending on the transient occupancy rate utilized. Respondents introduced the testimony of Joaquin Vargas, a traffic engineering consultant who was accepted as an expert in transportation planning, including roadway capacity issues related to hurricane evacuation. Mr. Vargas participated in hurricane evacuation modeling in the Keys in the 1990s to determine potential roadway improvements that could reduce Keys evacuation clearance time. Mr. Vargas was the principal author of the “Miller Model,” which was utilized in these studies. Mr. Vargas’ modeling was not based on a two-phased evacuation. Instead, the Miller Model assumed evacuation of all permanent population simultaneously in order to identify where roadway improvements would reduce the evacuation clearance time. Mr. Vargas introduced the results of a model run of simultaneous evacuation of the Keys without units authorized under the Housing Initiative, and a second adding 300 units each for Marathon, Islamorada, and 20 T2:79;1-6. Key West. The model run without the 900 combined units yielded an evacuation clearance time of 21 hours and 34 minutes. With the additional 900 units, the model yielded a clearance time of 21 hours and 42 minutes. This evidence had little relevance because the models are not comparable, and because Mr. Vargas utilized inputs and assumptions that differed greatly from the TIME model runs underlying the carrying capacity analysis utilized by the Work Group. The Miller Model assumes the evacuation of all permanent residents (including mobile home residents) simultaneously, so it is useless as a comparator to the Phase II run of the TIME model. Additionally, Mr. Vargas utilized 2000 census data, rather than the more recent 2010 data, which Mr. Vargas admitted “w[ould] provide more accurate information,” and included inaccurate data, such as non-existent lane segments which inflated capacity on some roadway segments. While Mr. Vargas expressed the opinion that the Miller Model is superior because it was designed expressly for the Keys, the fact remains that the existing “in compliance” comprehensive plans are based on use of the TIME model to determine maximum buildout in the Keys. Mr. Ogburn completed a run of the TIME model in 2014 which included the previously-missing vehicles from the census block groups in Phase I. That rerun produced a clearance time of 19 hours. The best available data and analysis (the 2014 rerun) supports a finding that the clearance time for Phase I, without the additional units from the Housing Initiative, is 19 hours. Thus, the evidence does not support a finding that the evacuation of Phase I with the additional 1,300 units cannot be completed within the first 24 hours of a 48-hour evacuation scenario. The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the inclusion of the 1,300 units in Phase I will violate the requirement to evacuate Keys permanent residents in 24 hours or less. On the theory that the addition of up to 1,300 residential units in the Keys will cause the hurricane evacuation clearance time to exceed 24 hours, Petitioners alleged the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the following provisions of Respondents’ comprehensive plans: Marathon: FLU Objective 1-2.1, which requires Marathon to “ensure the availability of adequate public facilities and services[.]” FLU Objective 1-2.2, requiring Marathon to “meet the required 24- hour hurricane evacuation time or other applicable state standard for hurricane evacuation.” FLU Objective 1-3.5, requiring Marathon to “manage the rate of new development to ... support safe and timely evacuation prior to a hurricane.” Conservation and Coastal Element Policy 4-1.21.2, requiring Marathon to coordinate with Monroe County in updating policy formulations regarding land use and emergency preparedness and to plan for future land use densities that will not adversely impact the efficiency of hurricane evacuations or increase evacuation times. Intergovernmental Coordination Element (“ICE”) Objective 5-1.1, requiring Marathon to maintain coordination mechanisms with the comprehensive plans of Monroe County and adjacent municipalities. ICE Policy 5-1.1.2, requiring Marathon to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions “for the development of joint strategies to address development, zoning, and land-use decisions that transcend jurisdictional boundaries.” ICE Policy 5-1.1.10, requiring Marathon to establish a program to provide and review proposed plan amendments of adjacent local governments to ensure consistency. Policy 5-1.2.1(j), requiring Marathon to enter into interlocal agreements or develop joint resolutions in areas of mutual concern, including the coordination of hurricane evacuation plans. Islamorada: FLU Goal 1-1, which provides that the comprehensive plan shall “[e]ncourage[] sustainability by limiting growth in order to establish and maintain acceptable levels of service for hurricane evacuation[.]” Transportation Element (“TE”) Policy 2-1.2.8, which requires Islamorada to “address long-term strategies to reduce clearance time and coordinate permit allocations” by implementing specifically-listed programs with FDOT, FDCA, and other local governments in the Keys. TE Policy 2-1.2.9, which provides for the staged/phased evacuation procedure to maintain a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time. TE Policy 2-1.2.10, which requires Islamorada to “support state funding for the update of the hurricane evacuation model that considers the impact of Miami-Dade County on evacuees[.]” TE Policy 2-1.6.3, by which Islamorada “adopts 24 hours as the maximum allowable hurricane evacuation clearance time standard,” and provides that “[t]he Village shall reduce and maintain hurricane evacuation clearance time at or below 24 hours by … limiting the annual allocation of permits … as determined by interlocal agreement with the affected local governments in the Keys and the [DEO].” Coastal Management Element (“CME”) Objective 5-1.9, requiring Islamorada to “avoid population concentrations in the coastal high hazard area.” CME Policy 5-1.10.2, requiring Islamorada to “coordinate with Monroe County in emergency preparedness.” CME Objective 5-1.15, requiring Islamorada to “ensure intergovernmental coordination within the coastal area.” ICE Objective 8-1.1, requiring Islamorada to “ensure intergovernmental coordination.” ICE Policy 8-1.2.1, titled “Coordinate Development and Growth Management Issues.” ICE Policy 8-1.2.8, titled “Implement Intergovernmental Coordination.” Key West: FLU Objective 1-1.16, requiring Key West to “regulate the rate of population growth commensurate with planned increases in evacuation capacity in order to maintain and improve hurricane evacuation clearance times[,]” and “in concert with Monroe County, its municipalities, and the State of Florida, [Key West] shall manage the rate of growth in order to maintain an evacuation clearance time of 24 hours for permanent residents.” CME Goal 5-1, “Protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters[.]” CME Objective 5-1.6, requiring Key West to “coordinate with the State, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, [Monroe] County, and other local governments in order to regulate population growth and stage evacuations in a manner that maintains hurricane evacuation clearance times in accordance with the executed [MOU][.]” ICE Policy 8-1.1.3, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Considering the growth and development limitations in Monroe County as a whole resulting from hurricane evacuation requirements … and considering the impact that growth and development in the City of Key West will have on the rest of Monroe County, [Key West] shall coordinate with Monroe County and the Cities … regarding the allocation of additional development. * * * The City shall pursue resolution of development and growth management issues with impacts transcending the [Key West’s] political jurisdiction. Issues of regional and state significance shall be coordinated with the [SFRPC], the [SFWMD], and/or State agencies having jurisdictional authority. Issues to be pursued include but are not limited to the following: [Key West] shall implement the hurricane and transportation conclusions and policies relative to residential units’ allocation which are adopted by Monroe County and all municipalities as described in the [MOU] dated July 14, 2012. Petitioners did not prove that the Marathon Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Objectives 1-2.1, 1-2.2, 1-3.5, and 5-1.1; and Policies 4-1.21.2, 5-1.1.(2), 5-1.1.10, and 5-1.2.1.j. Petitioners did not prove the Islamorada Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Islamorada Comprehensive Plan Goal 1-1; Policies 2-1.2.8, 2-1.2.9, 2-1.2.10, and 2-1.6.3; Objective 5-1.9 and Policy 5-1.10.2; Objective 5- 1.15; and Objective 8-1.1 and Policies 8-1.2.1 and 8-1.2.8. Petitioners did not prove the Key West Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Key West Comprehensive Plan Objectives 1-1.16, 5-1.6, Goal 5-1, and Policy 8-1.1.3. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Petitioners did not prove that the Marathon and Islamorada Plan Amendments are inconsistent with section 380.0552(9)(a)2., which requires the local governments in the ACSC to adopt goals, objectives, and policies to “maintain a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent residents of no more than 24 hours.” Environmental Concerns Petitioners next contend the Plan Amendments are not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the environmental carrying capacity of the Keys can support development of an additional 1,300 residential units. Petitioners’ concerns fall into two categories which were the focus of the FKCCS: nearshore water quality and ecological impacts. Nearshore Water Quality of the Florida Keys Petitioners claim that the nearshore water quality of the Keys was determined over 25 years ago to have exceeded its capacity to assimilate additional nutrients, that it remains nutrient-impaired today, and that the additional development authorized under the Plan Amendments will further increase nutrient pollution from additional wastewater and stormwater associated with development. In 1990, Congress created the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (“FKNMS”), and required development of a Water Quality Protection Program (“WQPP”), establishing comprehensive, long-term monitoring of water quality in the FKNMS. Under the Water Quality Monitoring Project (“WQMP”), water quality has been monitored quarterly at approximately 150 sampling stations since 1995. In 1997, the Governor and Cabinet approved the FKNMS Management Plan for implementation in state waters, and required annual reports from the FKNMS. The 2011 FKNMS annual report stated that, “in general, water quality is good Sanctuary-wide but documentation of elevated nitrate in the inshore waters of the Keys has been evident since” sampling began in 1995. The report notes, “Observance of this type … implies an inshore source which is diluted by low nutrient ocean waters,” and that “[a]nalysis of monitoring data from 1995 through 2008 indicates a statistically significant improvement in some parameters, such as dissolved inorganic nitrogen …” The report concludes that “this trend will be watched closely in the future, particularly with regard to any potential effect attributable to … water treatment infrastructure improvements.” The report further cited “[e]xcessive nutrients from inadequately treated wastewater” as the “primary contributor to water quality degradation in near shore waters.” In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) developed Strategic Targets for the WQMP, setting limits for DIN (dissolved inorganic nitrogen) at < 0.010 parts per million (“ppm”), and TP (total phosphorous) at < 0.0077 ppm, among other nutrients, which are considered the values “essential to promote coral growth and overall health.” Future sampling was compared to the “baseline” from the 1995-2005 timeframe (e.g., the baseline for DIN was 76.3 percent—the average percentage the samples complied with the target of < 0.010 ppm). In 2011, FKNMS added 10 sampling stations, located within 500 meters of the shore in the Keys, referred to in the reports as the SHORE stations. In 2015, FKNMS reported that an average of all stations (excluding SHORE stations) met or exceeded the target value for DIN in 2008 through 2011, but fell short of the target in 2012 through 2015. The stations reported meeting or exceeding the target for TP in 2011 through 2015, while falling short in 2008 and 2010. The 2017 annual report showed the stations meeting or exceeding the DIN target in 2017, but not 2016; and meeting or exceeding the TP target in both 2016 and 2017. The 2017 study reported that “the FKNMS exhibited very good water quality with median concentrations of” TP at .0058, well below the target of .008. In 2018, FKNMS reported the stations meeting or exceeding the target for both nutrients. Again, in 2018, FKNMS reported “very good water quality with median concentrations of” TP at .0051, lower than the 2017 level, and again well below the EPA target. In summary, the reports demonstrate the stations fell below the target for TP in 2008 and 2010, but met or exceeded the target every year since 2010. The samples fell below the target for DIN in 2012 through 2016, but met or exceeded the target value in subsequent years. Petitioners emphasize that the EPA’s Strategic Targets for nutrients in the FKNMS are not consistently being met. But the reports do show a trend of improvement, at least with respect to DIN and TP. The 2014 report documented elevated nutrient concentrations of DIN and TP in waters close to shore along the Keys, attributable to “human impact.” The 2015, 2017, and 2018 reports exclude the data from the SHORE stations for purposes of demonstrating compliance with target values because they “introduce a bias to the dataset which results in a reporting problem[.]”21 The 2017 report does include an analysis of the geographic differences between testing stations. The report indicates a significant difference between the median levels of nutrients sampled in SHORE stations when compared with the “alongshore,” “channel,” and “reef” stations. However, the median levels of many of the nutrients are still at or below the EPA targets, even measured at SHORE stations. For example, the median level of TP, which the report recognizes as one of the most important determinants of local ecosystem health, at the SHORE stations was just below .007, compared to the EPA target of .008. More importantly, Petitioners focus on the SHORE station data was inconsistent with their challenge that the nearshore water quality remains impaired. Petitioners’ planning expert, Ms. Jetton, defined nearshore as approximately 12,000 meters from shore, not merely within 500 meters of 21 Petitioners sought to introduce raw sample data from SHORE stations and an analysis of said data by Kathleen McKee. That evidence was admitted as hearsay only, and was not corroborated by any non-hearsay evidence. shore. The 2017 report breaks out the “alongshore” stations as well as the SHORE stations. That data shows the median value of TP at the alongshore stations is approximately .0055, well below the target of .008. Notably, 75 percent of the alongshore stations sampled TP below the target .008. With respect to DIN, the median of alongshore station samples is below the target of .01; and 75 percent fall below .015. In 2018, FKNMS reported a trend of increased DO (dissolved oxygen) in both surface and bottom waters throughout the Keys, and declining turbidity in the surface waters, for the 24-year period from 1995 through 2018. Increased DO is beneficial for animal life. Declining turbidity means the water is becoming clearer. The 2014 report showed no significant trends in TP, but the 2018 report noted small, but significant, declining trends in TP values in most surface waters.22 In 1995, the EPA and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) listed the Keys waters as “impaired,” pursuant to the Clean Water Act.23 DEP is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”) for impaired water bodies, which define the maximum pollutant loading that can be discharged to those water bodies while still achieving water quality targets. An alternative mechanism, a Reasonable Assurance Document (“RAD”) can be developed in lieu of TMDLs when, as in the Keys, local management activities are planned to achieve water quality targets. The Florida Keys RADs (“FKRADs”) were developed in 2008, and each of the affected local governments became a signatory to a Stakeholder’s Agreement to implement the FKRADs. The FKRADs established two sets of nutrient targets: (1) an insignificant increase in concentration above natural background within the HALO zone, which is 500 meters of shore, not including canals; and (2) the average of values measured at the nearshore 22 The 2018 report does not contain the same detailed comparison of SHORE station samples with the other stations, as did the 2017 report. 23 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (500 meters to 12,100 meters from the shoreline). The FKRADs identify 23 impaired estuarine water body identifications (“WBIDs”). The WBIDs are Class III water bodies, defined by the Clean Water Act as “used for recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife.” The FKRAD identifies specific restoration projects to be completed by 2020 to improve each WBID, designates the government stakeholder responsible for each project, and sets water quality targets to be achieved by each project. The FKRAD focuses on TN (total nitrogen) and TP, and establishes different water quality target values than the FKNMS. For the HALO Zone the target is an “as insignificant increase above natural background for each nutrient.” “Insignificant” is defined as less than ten micrograms per liter (<10 µg/l) of TN, and < 2µg/l for TP. Petitioner’s planning expert, Ms. Jetton, testified that the 2018 Update to the FKRAD “tells me that the surface water still isn’t able to assimilate all the nutrients that are going into it because … we’re not meeting the strategic targets[.]” Ms. Jetton concluded, based on the 2018 Update to the FKRAD, that “there should be no more development added to [the Keys] until the [WBIDs] can consistently meet their strategic targets.” She further testified that the RAD documents identify the Keys’ waters as not meeting the DEP necessary levels of nutrients for healthy waters and that the RADs reflect “current water quality as it’s been affected by the wastewater facilities that have been upgraded in the Keys to date.” That testimony is unreliable. The purpose of the 2018 Update is plainly set forth in the document itself: to document actions taken by stakeholders since 2011 and to address the DO impairment identified by DEP is some water segments; to include a revised approach to monitoring and reporting results; and to identify a schedule to meet water quality targets and restoration goals. The 2018 Update to the FKRAD contains neither data on samples of TN and TP in the HALO zone waters, nor any analysis of whether the target—insignificant increases above natural background—has been achieved. The 2018 Update provides that “water quality data will be compared to the FKRAD water quality targets … to evaluate achievement of targets,” and that “[m]onitoring for success will include, among other data sets, “decrease in nearshore nutrient concentrations in comparison to water quality targets and OFW background concentrations.” Injection Wells and Nearshore Water Quality Absent concrete evidence to support Petitioners’ claim that the nearshore waters have not recovered from their 1995 impaired designation such that they can assimilate pollutants from additional development, Petitioners argue that the existing “improved” wastewater and stormwater treatment infrastructure in the Keys does not adequately protect marine and coastal resources of the Keys, and that the addition of new development will exacerbate the problem. Specifically, Petitioners posit that shallow wastewater injection wells degrade nearshore water quality. Marathon injects treated wastewater effluent into shallow injection wells, which are drilled to a depth of at least 90 feet and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Marathon’s five injection wells are permitted to, and currently operate at, a permitted capacity of .200 million gallons per day (“MGD”), .400 MGD, .200 MGD, .500 MGD, and .450 MGD, respectively. Marathon’s injection wells are designed and permitted to exceed full build out. Key West injects its treated wastewater effluent into deep injection wells, which are 3,000 feet deep and are cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet.24 24 Petitioners concede that deep injection wells have no quantified impact on the water quality of the nearshore waters of Key West or the Florida Keys. Key West’s injection wells are permitted at a capacity of 10 MGD, and Key West currently uses approximately 50 percent or less of the total permitted capacity for its injection wells. Islamorada does not have its own municipal wastewater effluent injection wells or wastewater treatment plant. Islamorada’s wastewater is transmitted to the Key Largo Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (“Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility”), which treats and injects effluent into a deep injection well that is cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. The Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility is permitted by DEP and operates at a permitted capacity of 2 MGD. The injection wells at the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment facility are designed and permitted to exceed full build out. Ms. Jetton testified that, based on reports she has reviewed, when you inject effluent into shallow injection wells, that water will reach the surface water “within a few hours or a few days.” She referenced numerous scientific reports which were admitted in evidence as sources on which she based her opinions. She further referred to findings in the Administration Commission’s 1995 Final Order that deep water injection wells are a better form of treatment than shallow injections wells. Finally, Ms. Jetton pointed to the 2014 and 2017 FKNMS reports as evidence that shallow well injections may contribute to nutrients in nearshore waters. The excerpt of the 2014 report introduced in evidence contains no reference to a relationship between shallow injection wells and the water quality of nearshore waters. The 2017 report mentions there may be a connection. Respondents introduced the testimony of Michael C. Alfieri, who is a licensed professional geologist, certified by the National Groundwater Association as a ground water professional, and certified by the American Institute of Hydrology as a professional registered hydrogeologist. Mr. Alfieri’s main practice in Florida is in karst hydrogeology, and he is one of the authors of the definitive text in Florida on karstology. Mr. Alfieri testified that the subsurface conditions in Marathon, as shown in the core samples and boring logs he personally reviewed, indicate the presence of aquitards25 and semi-confining materials, including calcite calcrete with clay silt, which would significantly inhibit vertical migration of injectate into surface water adjacent to Marathon’s shallow injection wells.26 Based on his knowledge and experience, Mr. Alfieri testified that treated wastewater or stormwater injected down a shallow injection well does not rise to the surface in the nearshore waters surrounding the Keys. He further explained that once treated effluent is injected into either a deep or shallow well, it undergoes geochemical reactions as it interacts with, and is absorbed by, the surrounding rock, which reduces nutrient concentration. Mr. Alfieri testified that based on the advanced wastewater treatment facilities and injection wells used by Respondents, the depths of the injection wells and their current level of usage, as well as the surrounding geological features, including the confining layers, which are horizontally transmissive, the additional residential units authorized by the Plan Amendments would have no impact on nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. The undersigned finds Mr. Alfieri’s testimony more persuasive and reliable than Ms. Jetton’s recounting of studies undertaken by other professionals. On the theory that injected treated effluent contaminates the nearshore waters of the Keys, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendments 25 Aquitards are materials that have a low potential to transmit water. Clay is the best material to serve as an aquitard given that it has high porosity and low permeability which makes it difficult for water to move through. 26 The parties stipulated that deep injection wells “do not have a quantified impact on the water quality of the nearshore waters of Key West or the Florida Keys.” render Respondents’ comprehensive plans internally inconsistent with the following policies, respectively: Marathon Infrastructure Element (“IE”) Goal 3-1: “[E]nsure availability of needed public facilities associated with wastewater disposal … in a manner that is environmentally sound and protects marine environments, including sea grass beds and nearshore waters[.]” IE Goal 3-2: “[Marathon] shall provide for environmentally … sound treatment and disposal of sewage, which meets the needs of … residents, while ensuring the protection of public health and the maintenance and protection of ground, nearshore and offshore, water quality[.]” IE Objective 3-2.2: “[Marathon] shall regulate land use and development to … protect the functions of natural drainage features and groundwater from the impacts of wastewater systems.” Islamorada FLU Goal 1-1, which provides in pertinent part, as follows: The comprehensive Plan shall provide a growth management framework that … encourages sustainability by limiting growth in order to establish and maintain acceptable levels of service for … wastewater services … and … reclaim and preserve the quality of [Islamorada’s] natural resources … [r]elies on ecological constraints to establish limits for growth … to ensure that human induced activities do not diminish assets of our unique coastal environment; and provides a sound basis for developing land use controls that … protect coastal resources, including nearshore waters, wetlands, grassbed flats, mangroves… and establish a basis for managing … water quality[.] CE Goal 6-1: “Islamorada … shall conserve, manage, use and protect the natural and environmental resources … based on their carrying capacity limitations to ensure continued resource availability and environmental quality.” CE Objective 6-1.9: “Islamorada … shall provide requirements designed to protect fisheries, wildlife and wildlife habitat from the adverse impacts of development by regulating the location, density and intensity of those activities that cause the adverse impact.” Key West FLU Goal 1-1: “Minimize Threats To Health, Safety, And Welfare Which May Be Caused By Incompatible Land Uses, Environmental Degradation[.]”27 CME Goal 5-1: “Coastal Management. Restrict development activities that would damage or destroy coastal resources. Protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas subject to destruction by natural disasters[.]” CME Objective 5-1.1: “Protect Coastal Resources, Wetlands, Estuarine Salt Pond Environmental Quality, Living Marine Resources, And Wildlife Habitats. … (1) Preventing potentially adverse impacts of development and redevelopment on wetlands, estuaries, water resources, living marine resources, and other natural resources; (2) Maintaining or improving coastal environmental quality by improving stormwater management[.]” 27 Petitioners inaccurately cite the monitoring measure attributable to Objective 1-1.16 as if it relates to Goal 1-1. The Monitoring Measure attributable to Objective 1-1.16 is “Number of building permits allocated annually in accordance with the implementing policies.” CME Policy 5-1.1.4: “Protect Living Marine Resources, Coastal Marsh, and Seagrass Beds … [Key West] shall seek to enhance seagrass beds and coastal nontidal wetland habitats[.]” CME Policy 5-1.2.2: “[Key West] shall continue to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of development and redevelopment upon water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources by enforcing performance standards cited herein. Wastewater system improvements shall also be carried out to reduce potential adverse impacts on the coral reef. In amending its land development regulations, the City shall consider the establishment of additional protective policies for coral.” CME Policy 5-1.4.1: “Public Investments in Coastal High-Hazard Area. Publicly funded facilities shall not be built in the Coastal High-Hazard Area, unless the facility is for the protection of the public health and safety.” CE Objective 6-1.2: “Detrimental water quality impacts, including adverse impacts to the coral reef system shall continue to be combated by public facility improvements identified in the Public Facilities Element …. Monitoring Measure: Achievement of water quality … standards.” Respondents’ wastewater treatment plants are in compliance with their DEP wastewater treatment plant and injection well permits. Furthermore, there have been no violations of the permits for Respondents’ wastewater treatment facilities that could potentially impair nearshore water quality. As a condition precedent to issuing permits for Respondents’ injection wells, DEP required Respondents to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the wells will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards and will not harm environmental resources. Petitioners did not prove that the Marathon Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with the Marathon Comprehensive Plan Goal 3-1, Goal 3-2, and Objective 3.2.2. Petitioners did not prove the Islamorada Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Islamorada Comprehensive Plan Goal 1-1, Goal 6-1, and Objective 6-1.9. Petitioners did not prove the Key West Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Key West Comprehensive Plan Goals 1-1 and 5-1; Objective 5-1.1 and Policies 5-1.1.4, 5-1.2.2, and 5-1.4.1; and Objective 6-1.2. Ecological Impacts Petitioners maintain the Plan Amendments are not supported by the best available data on the ecological carrying capacity of the Keys with regard to habitat protection. The FKCCS recommended four guidelines for future development in the Keys: (1) prevent encroachment into native habitat; (2) continue and intensify existing programs (e.g., land acquisition, wastewater treatment); focus future growth on redevelopment and infill; and (4) increase efforts to manage the resources. Since the FKCCS was published in 2002, the local governments in the ACSC have completed numerous work programs designed to implement the recommendations, including updating habitat mapping, maximizing grant funding for land acquisition, and acquiring environmentally-sensitive lands to remove them from potential development. Furthermore, the BPAS system integrates environmental concerns when scoring applications for the units allocated. In Marathon, Policy 1-3.5.4 affords the greatest weight to applications for development of scarified and infill lots with existing paved roads, water, and electric service. The Plan affords the least weight to applications on lots containing sensitive areas as identified on the vegetation and species maps. Further, the Marathon plan provides that, “in no case shall more than one (1) BPAS allocation per year be issued for properties which in part or whole designated as Hardwood Hammock, Palm Hammock, Cactus Hammock, or Beach/Berm.” The Key West comprehensive plan mandates that new development preserve, at a minimum, “all wetlands and ninety (90) percent of hardwood hammocks.” The Key West plan does not allow development in any wetlands “except where State and/or federal agencies having jurisdiction provide for development rights.” The Islamorada comprehensive plan mandates that new development preserve “all undisturbed wetlands” and 90 percent of high quality tropical hardwood hammocks on the parcel being developed. The Islamorada comprehensive plan also discourages development of lots containing both disturbed and undisturbed habitats by applying the most stringent open space requirements to development sites containing the highest quality habitats. For example, the minimum open space requirement for high quality hammock is .90; while for undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, as well as undisturbed mangrove and freshwater wetlands, the ratio is 1.0. The plan requires an open space ratio of .90 for disturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, as well as disturbed mangrove and freshwater wetlands. Nevertheless, Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendments allow new units to be built in disturbed hammock, which constitutes additional encroachment into hammock, contrary to the FKCCS. Petitioners point to the provision of the Plan Amendments which provides that the workforce affordable units “shall not be placed in any habitat defined as mangroves, saltmarsh & buttonwood, hardwood hammock,[28] or fresh water wetlands (disturbed categories excepted)[.]” 28 The Islamorada Plan Amendment refers to “tropical” hardwood hammock. The provisions of the Plan Amendments must be read together with existing comprehensive plan provisions. When read together, the Marathon comprehensive plan may not allow any of the affordable-early evacuation units to be built on any hammock habitat because it only allows one BPAS permit per year be allocated to any parcel containing designated hardwood hammock. Since the Plan Amendment requires the units be built as multifamily, thereby utilizing multiple allocations for one application, it is impossible to permit the new affordable units on any lot designated hardwood hammock. Further, the Marathon BPAS weighting system will apply to the new allocations,29 which will continue to direct development to scarified lots, and those lots with maximum disturbed areas. The Islamorada plan open space requirements will apply to disincentivize development of parcels with high quality hammock, buttonwood wetlands, and freshwater wetlands, by requiring the most stringent open space ratios. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments are not based on data and analysis of the ecological carrying capacity of the Keys. Petitioners allege that the Plan Amendments are internally inconsistent with the following provisions of the Marathon and Islamorada plans relating to ecological concerns: Islamorada: GOAL 1-1: IMPLEMENT FUTURE LAND USE VISION, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: [Islamorada was] incorporated to create a Comprehensive Plan to reclaim the Keys by conserving, preserving, and retaining our remarkable assets—our waters and natural environment—and our quality of life; Encourages sustainability by limiting growth in order to … reclaim and preserve the quality of our natural 29 Only the Key West Plan Amendment exempts the allocation of the affordable-early evacuation units from the BPAS. resources; Relies on ecological constraints to establish limits for growth and create standards and criteria to ensure that human induced activities do not diminish assets of our unique coastal environment[.] Policy 2-1.9.3: Participate in the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study. … “[Islamorada] shall continue to support the technical undertakings of this study, and the establishment of carrying capacity limitations for the Florida Keys.” Goal 6-1: “Islamorada … shall conserve, manage, use and protect the natural and environmental resources … based on their carrying capacity limitations to ensure continued resource availability and environmental quality.” Policy 6-1.4.4: “Islamorada … shall use the best available technical criteria and information to formulate regulations and ordinances which shall ensure that future development is compatible with the functioning and carrying capacity of existing natural systems and resources conservation.” Marathon Objective 1-2.1: which calls for adequate public facilities and services for future growth “to … protect valuable natural resources….” Petitioners did not prove the Marathon Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Objective 1-2.1. Petitioners did not prove the Islamorada Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Goal 1-1, Policy 2-1.9.3, Goal 6-1, and Policy 6-1.4.4. Other Contentions Petitioners alleged the Plan Amendments violate section 163.3177(6)(a)2., which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: [P]lan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The projected permanent population of the area. The character of undeveloped land. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. The need for redevelopment, including renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport[.] The discouragement of urban sprawl. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. (emphasis added). Many of the listed criteria are not applicable to the Plan Amendments because the Plan Amendments do not propose a specific type of development at a specific location, do not implicate antiquated subdivisions, and do not specifically implicate redevelopment of blighted areas. Respondents considered the availability of water supplies and other public services, such as the capacity of wastewater treatment facilities, during plan review and adoption. Respondents also considered the need of the service sector of the economy—including retail and restaurant services, as well as public school and first-responder services—during plan review and adoption. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendments are not based upon applicable surveys, studies, and data as required by section 163.3177(6)(a)2.
Conclusions For Petitioners: Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso, P.A. 6511 Nova Drive, Mail Box 300 Davie, Florida 33317 Sarah Hayter, Esquire Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert Hartsell, P.A. 61 Northeast 1st Street, Suite C Pompano Beach, FL 33060 For Respondents City of Marathon; and Islamorada, Village of Islands, Florida : Nicole Pappas, Esquire Barton Smith, Esquire Smith Hawks, PL 138 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 For Respondent, City of Key West: George Wallace, Esquire City of Key West, City Attorney’s Office 1300 White Street Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33040
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2018-01, adopted on October 23, 2018; City of Key West Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-06, adopted on April 4, 2019; and Islamorada, Village of Islands, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 19-03, adopted on March 5, 2019; are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. Suite C 61 Northeast 1st Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Sarah M. Hayter, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, P.A. Suite C 61 Northeast 1st Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Shai Ozery, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell P.A. Suite C 61 Northeast 1st Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 (eServed) Barton William Smith, Esquire Smith Hawks, PL 138 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 (eServed) Christopher B. Deem, Esquire Smith Hawks, PL 138 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 (eServed) Nicola J. Pappas, Esquire Smith Hawks, PL 138 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 (eServed) Richard J. Grosso, Esquire Richard Grosso P.A. Mail Box 300 6511 Nova Drive Davie, Florida 33317 (eServed) Shawn D. Smith, City Attorney City of Key West, City Attorney's Office 1300 White Street Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33040 (eServed) George B. Wallace, Esquire City of Key West, City Attorney's Office 1300 White Street Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33040 (eServed) Roget V. Bryan, Esquire Islamorada, Village of Islands 86800 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 (eServed) Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Ken Lawson, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) William Chorba, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding concerns whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed bridge project will meet the requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the various provisions contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, so that a dredge and fill permit should be issued. More specifically, the issues concern whether the various water quality standards embodied in Title 17 of the Code and Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, will be complied with and whether the public interest standards in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, will be met in the sense that the project can be assured not to be contrary to those standards.
Findings Of Fact Taylor County, through its duly-elected representative body, the Taylor County Commission, has filed an application seeking authority, by the grant of a "dredge and fill permit", to place fill material and to perform construction of a bridge across an unnamed canal in Taylor County, Florida, in the vicinity of Keaton Beach. The proposed bridge would connect Balboa Road and Marina Road on Pine Island in the community of Keaton Beach. Pine Island is an elongated strip of land separated from the Taylor County mainland by water and lying generally in a north/south direction. It is an artificial island created by dredge spoil from dredging activities by which certain canals were constructed during the decade of the 1950's. It is bounded on the west by what is known as "Main Canal", on the north by an unnamed canal, and on the east by what is known as "Back Canal". South of Pine Island is an inlet of the Gulf of Mexico. The canals involved in this proceeding, named above, are Class III waters of the State of Florida. Marina Road runs down the center of Pine Island. Lots to the west of Marina Road abut Main Canal and lots to the east of that road abut the Back Canal. Pine Island has been platted into approximately 110 lots. There were 47 homes and two (2) trailers on Pine Island at the time of the hearing. Only 17 full-time residents live there. Keaton Beach Road, also known as County Road 361, runs in a north/south direction generally and relatively parallel to Marina Road on land lying across Main Canal from Pine Island. In the past, Pine Island Drive connected Keaton Beach Road and Marina Road. It traversed Main Canal over what was known as the "humpback bridge", a wooden structure. The bridge ultimately became decayed and hazardous so that it was removed by the County in 1983. East of Pine Island, forming a continuation of Pine Island Drive, is a limerock road. This road presently provides the only vehicular or pedestrian access to Pine Island. It crosses the Back Canal over a culverted-fill area, making a 90 degree turn to the north and runs north along Back Canal. It then turns in an easterly direction until it meets Balboa Road. The property to the east of the center line of Back Canal and to the east of Balboa Road belongs to Dr. William Kohler. Other than the one-half of the culverted-fill area that lies west of the center line of Back Canal, the limerock road is on Dr. Kohler's land. In 1974, Taylor County was concerned about the use of the humpback bridge by school buses. It asked Dr. Kohler to grant it an easement over the limerock road for use by school buses. That limerock road passes over portions of Lots 44 and 45. Although Lots 44 and 45, east of Balboa Road, were not included in the written easement, Dr. Kohler has allowed use of the limerock road that passes over portions of Lots 44 and 45 since that time. Balboa Road presently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the edge of the unnamed canal that bounds the north end of Pine Island. On Pine Island, Marina Road is paved at the present time past the front of and to the northern property boundary of Lot 13, Petitioner Brumbley's residence lot. At that point, Marina Road ends at the south side of an unnamed dirt road. Between the north side of that unnamed dirt road and the unnamed canal lie Lots 2-6. The proposed Balboa bridge will start at the end of Balboa Road, cross the unnamed canal, cross a portion of Lot 2 and 3 on Pine Island, and tie into the existing grade at the "T" intersection where Marina Road deadends into the unnamed dirt road. The unnamed canal runs approximately east and west at the location of the proposed bridge. The bridge would be constructed on top of revetted fill material that will be placed to the north and south of a 15-foot wide span over the middle of the unnamed canal. The bridge construction shall be according to the Florida Department of Transportation specifications for road and bridge construction. The bridge will have a DOT approved guard rail on each side. No water quality violations will result from the proposed project. Turbidity violations may occur on a temporary basis during construction and so turbidity screens and silt barriers will be installed by the applicant to prevent such turbidity from migrating away from the site itself. A condition on the grant of the proposed permit has already been agreed to by the Respondent parties which will require turbidity and erosion-control devices prior to any excavation or placement of fill material. Specific condition eight also requires that these control devices remain in place until the fill has been vegetatively stabilized after construction is over. The proposed project will have a positive impact on public safety and welfare by providing proper and appropriate access to Pine Island by a more stable, safe roadway to which the bridge will be connected. During periods of high water, the present limerock access road floods, limiting emergency access to the Island. On one occasion, an injured person had to be carried down the limerock road to meet an ambulance at another location because the ambulance was unable to traverse the flooded limerock road. It is Dr. Kohler's intention to terminate use of the limerock road by members of the public since it is on his property. When that occurs, there will be no access to Pine Island unless the proposed bridge is built. The present limerock access road can be dangerous and slippery when wet, and persons using the limerock road often travel "dangerously fast", as testified to by Petitioner, Doris D. Brumbley. The 90-degree turn of the limerock road has no guardrails. The proposed project will, to a minimal, temporary degree, adversely impact fish or wildlife and their habitats, marine productivity and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the area affected by the proposed bridge. The canal system was originally excavated out of the salt marsh. Being man-made structures, their sides have slumped somewhat and have established a small, littoral zone where vegetation grows. Mud flats at the bottom of the canal bank allow the growth of oysters. The fill area associated with the proposed bridge, however, will have a surface area and volume comparable to the culverted fill that will be removed at the point where the road presently crosses Back Canal. When the culverted-fill area or plug across Back Canal is removed, the lost vegetation and oysters will become re- established at that location, offsetting the loss that will occur at the location of the bridge. Various marine species will also become established on and benefit from the shelter of the bridge and its structure, as well. The project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The banks that will result from the removal of the culverted fill and the sides of the filled areas associated with the bridge will be protected from erosion with vegetation and revetments. The proposed project will enhance the flow of water in Back Canal and will improve navigation and flushing. Water flow through the existing culvert is presently considerably restricted when compared to the water flow beneath the proposed Balboa bridge area. The existing culvert is not at the bottom of the filled area. Therefore, at low water, most of the culvert is exposed, precluding the culvert from functioning at maximum capacity to aid in flushing with the water quality benefits caused by flushing being thus retarded. The lack of water flow has caused a portion of Back Canal, south of the culverted-fill area, to fill up with sediment. At low tide, parts of the Back Canal are without water. The increased flow that will result from removal of the fill plug and culvert where the road presently crosses Back Canal will allow property owners along Back Canal to navigate their boats out into the Gulf of Mexico, thus improving the recreational value of Back Canal and the navigation in the canal system. There are no similar fill projects planned for or expected in the Keaton Beach area. All three Petitioners are concerned that storm water runoff from the proposed bridge will flood their property, however. At the present time, the road in front of the Petitioners' lots is paved, with the pavement ending at the northernmost end of the Brumbley property. Since the Petitioners' lots already receive roadway runoff from the existing paved road, any increase in runoff to their lots would have to come from storm water flowing along the length of the road from the proposed project. The road which is to cross the proposed bridge will be composed of a 20-foot wide strip of asphalt, with 5-foot shoulders on each side. The slope from the crown of the road to the outer edge of the pavement will be one-quarter inch per one foot. The shoulders will have a slope of one-half inch per foot. Thus, rain water will flow off the sides of the road and down the shoulders, rather than down the length of the road towards the Petitioners' lots. Moreover, no additional water should be directed to the Petitioners' lots since the proposed road extension between the end of the bridge and the Petitioners' lots would be flattened. Water flowing off the bridge due to gravity will be shed toward the revetment which extends down to the canal, rather than towards the Petitioners' property. Storm water impacts will be addressed again by the Suwannee River Water Management District. A storm water permit application has been submitted to the Suwannee River Water Management District and is required before the proposed project construction can start. In that storm water permit application, the applicant acknowledged its obligation and responsibility to obtain all required permitting before construction starts. The draft permit reinforces this at specific condition six: "This permit does not constitute any approval of the storm water management system which must be obtained separately from the appropriate agency." All of the Petitioners are concerned about the increase in vehicular traffic which would pass in front of their lots and the Brumbley's particularly are concerned that light from headlights of increased traffic will be cast upon and into their house at night. It is clear that traffic passing the Petitioners' lots will increase due to the proposed project. It is equally clear from the angle of the bridge shown on Joint Exhibit 2 and the elevations of the bridge, shown on Joint Exhibit 3, that light from the headlights of vehicles approaching Pine Island after dark will illuminate, at least momentarily, portions of the Brumbley home.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of the Taylor County Commission for the dredge and fill permit at issue, as described in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, be granted on the terms and conditions set forth in the Department's draft permit, in evidence as Joint Exhibit 7. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-24. Accepted. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. Respondent Taylor County Commission's Proposed Findings of Fact: The County adopted the proposed findings of fact filed by the Department. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulatin Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 William & Maria Greene P.O. Box 38 Madison, FL 32340 Doris S. Brumbley P.O. Box 742 Monticello, FL 32344 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 167 Perry, FL 32347
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by Ordinances 97-56, 97-59, 97-61, 97-63, 97-64, 97-66, and 97-67 are in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Background On November 14, 1997, Respondent Collier County (the County) adopted numerous amendments to its Growth Management Plan (the Plan). The County adopted these Plan amendments (the Plan Amendments) pursuant to its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). By law, local governments must assess their comprehensive plans every seven years and prepare an EAR. On December 24, 1997, Petitioner Department of Community Affairs (DCA) published its Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendments not in compliance with the criteria of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (Chapter 163), and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (Chapter 9J-5). A detailed Statement of Intent is attached to the Notice of Intent. The petition of DCA incorporates the Statement of Intent. The petition of Intervenors Collier County Audubon Society, Inc., and Florida Wildlife Federation (Intervenors) also incorporates by reference the Statement of Intent. The petitions cite 16 grounds for a determination that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance with Chapter 163 and Chapter 9J-5, although, at hearing, Intervenors dropped Issue 5. Intervenor Collier County School Board (School Board) intervened to defend the Plan Amendments regarding the siting of schools. The parties stipulated to the standing of all of the parties. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments (County Exhibit 1), discloses repealed and added language by strikeouts and underlines, respectively. All but two of the issues involve amended Plan provisions. The two exceptions are the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) (Issue 1) and Housing Element (Issue 4). In Issue 1, DCA and Intervenors challenge ICE Policy 1.2.6 and its effect of allowing schools to be sited anywhere in Collier County. Although the County did not amend ICE Policy 1.2.6, it substantially amended another Plan provision with the effect of relaxing restrictions on the siting of schools. In Issue 4, DCA and Intervenors challenge Plan provisions governing farmworker housing as not supported by the best available data and analysis. Although the County did not amend these Plan provisions, Petitioner and Intervenors contend that updated data and analysis demanded that the County do so. Issue 1 ICE Policy 1.2.6 states: The County shall continue to coordinate with the Collier County School Board on the site selection for new schools and the provision of infrastructure, particularly roads, to support existing and proposed school facilities in accordance with the Interlocal Agreement adopted in accordance with Chapter 163.3177 F.S. on June 25, 1996. Although unamended by the Plan Amendments, ICE Policy 1.2.6 is subject to challenge because of the effect of other EAR amendments on school siting. Plan Amendments in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affect school siting, but the effect of other Plan Amendments is to restrict slightly school-siting standards. For instance, prior to the Plan Amendments, the Plan generally allowed schools in areas designated Agricultural/Rural. As amended, FLUE II.g adds some restrictions to schools as a land use in areas designated Agricultural/Rural. This provision reads: Community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, and schools which shall be subject to the following criteria: Site area and school size shall be subject to the General Educational Facilities Report submitted annually by the Collier County School Board to the Board of County Commissioners. The Site must comply with the State Requirements for Educational Facilities adopted by the State Board of Education. The site shall be subject to all applicable State or Federal Regulations. The County made the identical change in permitting schools in the Conservation designation. For the Urban designation, the County repealed the identical former language, but, in adding schools as a permitted use, did not include the three bulleted provisions quoted above. However, a Plan Amendment to the Sanitary Sewer Subelement (Sanitary Sewer) outweighs the slight restrictions added in the Plan Amendments to the FLUE and results in a net relaxation of the school-siting standards. In the Plan Amendments, the County repealed Sanitary Sewer Subelement (Sanitary Sewer) Policy 1.1.6, which provided: By January 1, 1990, review existing criteria and regulatory framework for septic tank installations and determine the suitability of same for Collier County by December 31, 1990, implement local ordinances regulating septic tank installations if above review indicates need to do so. Prior to its repeal, Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 threatened the continued reliance on septic tanks, especially for more intensive uses, such as schools. Although reliance upon septic tanks is not the School Board's preferred means of disposing of sanitary sewage, the School Board has determined that the use of septic tanks is economically feasible. At present, septic tanks exclusively serve the sanitary sewer needs of one public school, Big Cypress Elementary School, which is located on Golden Gate Boulevard east of State Road 951 and is attended by over 1000 students. As long as Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 was in effect, the School District was on notice that its ability to site schools without regard to the availability of central sewer, including larger package plants, was in doubt. The repeal of Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.1.6 eliminates that doubt and invites school-siting decisions without regard to Plan-imposed, or at least -threatened, requirements of central sewer. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the Plan effectively allows the School District to site schools through the entire range of future land use designations, including conservation areas. In place of regulating school uses like other land uses--i.e., in the Plan--the County instead has elected to resolve school-siting issues through another means--i.e., an Interlocal Agreement, which is mentioned in Sanitary Sewer Policy 1.2.6. However, the use of the Interlocal Agreement, rather than the Plan, attenuates public participation, precludes plan challenges by the public or DCA under Chapters 163 and 9J-5, and fails to ensure that the two parties will site schools consistent with the minimum criteria of Chapters 163 and 9J-5. Withdrawing school-siting decisions from the comprehensive planning process interferes with the ability of the Plan to address the demand that schools will place upon public facilities, such as traffic, sewer, water, solid waste, drainage, and recreation. As do the County and School Board in the Interlocal Agreement, the Florida Department of Education likewise recognizes the direct effects of school siting. Section 1.4(2) of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities, 1997, published by the Florida Department of Education, identifies numerous factors that school boards should consider in siting schools, including the compatibility of uses of adjacent property, the capacity of roads, and the effect (on the buildings) of siting in a floodplain. As the floodplain can affect the school, so the school can affect the floodplain, but the effects of schools on natural and manmade resources receives little, if any, attention in the State Requirements for Educational Facilities or the Interlocal Agreement. When addressing public facilities, the educational planning documents focus on the effects upon the users of the school, such as the capacity of the roads to accommodate the parents driving their children to school or the location of the school in an area safe from flooding. Schools also have indirect effects on natural and manmade resources, especially when a public school is sited in a relatively undeveloped area. Induced sometimes by the availability of relative inexpensive land and developer-provided incentives, the construction of a public school exemplifies the "if you build it, they will come" scenario. The construction of a public school may compete with excess road capacity as a development-attractor to a relatively undeveloped area within a larger area undergoing brisk population growth. Thus, school- siting decisions may have large indirect effects on the natural and manmade resources in an area, well in excess of the impact of the school itself or the demand upon public facilities made by its users. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, after consideration of the Plan Amendments affecting the siting of schools, ICE Policy 1.2.6 is inconsistent with the criterion of designating the future general distribution, location, and extent of educational uses of land. By ignoring the issue of school-siting in the Plan, the County has failed to address, in the planning process and in the Plan, issues such as the proximity of schools to existing or future residential development, the identification of land uses incompatible with schools, and the prohibition of the siting of schools in locations that fail to preserve environmentally sensitive lands, such as floodplains, unique native habitats, or habitats for listed species. By relaxing its school-siting standards, the Plan fails to meet the pleaded minimum criteria of land use planning and forfeits an opportunity to discourage urban sprawl and encourage a comprehensive planning solution to the challenges of population growth and the development and redevelopment of land. Issue 2 As amended, Natural Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Subelement (Groundwater) Objective 1.2 replaces a promise to adopt a groundwater protection ordinance by August 1, 1989, with the following: Implement the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance that includes: regulation of land use activities County-wide as well as within wellfield protection zones surrounding identified public water supply wellfields and identified sensitive recharge areas; and County-wide ground water quality criteria, to protect the County's ground water resources as well as sensitive recharge areas. Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4 provide: The Ordinance will address both existing and projected future land use and surface activities. Apply action criteria specified in the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance to both existing and future regulated development according to procedures specified in the Ordinance to protect the County's ground water resources. The Ordinance will continue Apply criteria for ground water protection specified in enforcement procedures specified in the Ordinance, to provide an appropriate level of protection to sensitive recharge areas. The Ordinance will address the breaching of confining units by improper well construction, rock mining and other excavations, blasting and other similar activities. Apply the criteria of those sections of the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance that address: breaching of confining units by improper well construction, rock mining and other excavations, blasting, and other similar activities to protect recharge of the Surficial Aquifer System, to planned/permitted future development. The County will implement the Ordinance in a manner to minimize duplication of effort between the County and other State agencies. Implementation of the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance will follow Ordinance procedures, and other internal County procedures in a manner to minimize duplication of effort among County, municipal, and State agencies. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Groundwater Objective 1.2 does not supply a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. As presently formulated, this objective is nothing but a promise of the implementation of a land development regulation whose regulatory content or performance criteria are omitted from the Plan. The objective defers the establishment of regulatory content and performance standards to the land development regulations. The objective itself offers no protection to the groundwater resources or aquifer recharge areas because the County has relegated this crucial task to the land development regulations. The deferral and relegation of regulatory content and performance standards--required by Chapters 163 and 9J-5--to the land development regulations gravely undermines the entire comprehensive planning process for several reasons. Through deferral and relegation, the County retains the ability to amend or repeal the regulatory content and performance standards without a Plan amendment, which means without the public participation, agency review, and opportunity for a hearing that must accompany Plan amendments. Through deferral and relegation, the County insulates the regulatory content and performance criteria that are required to be in the Plan from determinations of consistency with the criteria of Chapters 163 and 9J-5 (including the crucial criteria of minimum content and supporting data and analysis), the regional policy plan, and the state comprehensive plan. Deferral and relegation to land development regulations do not insulate the provisions setting regulatory content and performance criteria from a consistency determination with the provisions of the Plan. However, the deferral and relegation effectively limit substantially affected persons to challenging the consistency of the land development regulations with the Plan, although this may be a meaningless right if the Plan lacks the required regulatory content and performance standards, against which the land development regulations may be compared. Also, because the comparison is between a land development regulation and Plan provision, the result of a finding of any inconsistency raises the likelihood of the elimination of the land development regulation, rather than the Plan provision with which it is in conflict, due to the relative ease of amendment or repeal of land development regulations as opposed to Plan provisions. Lastly, through deferral and relegation, the County insulates any regulatory content and performance criteria from an enforcement action, under Chapter 163, concerning development orders that are inconsistent with Plan provisions. Although other enforcement actions may be available for development orders inconsistent with land development regulations, the Chapter 163 action provides the added safeguards of statutory intervention by the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and recognition of relatively broad standing among private parties. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the four policies do not identify programs and activities by which the County will achieve the planning goals or objectives that the policies are supposed to serve. Like Groundwater Objective 1.2, Policies 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4 improperly defer and relegate to the land development regulations the identification of those programs and activities that are required to be in the Plan. The policies are impermissibly vague because they rely on land development regulations to identify the programs and activities necessary to achieve goals and objectives, rather than identify in the Plan the programs and activities, possibly leaving to the land development regulations the task of providing an additional level of detail for these programs and activities. For the reasons stated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, the County has improperly deferred and relegated to the land development regulations descriptive material that must be contained in the Plan. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan, including Groundwater Objective 1.2, is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective protecting the functions of natural groundwater recharge, and the Plan, including Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 through 1.2.4, is inconsistent with the criterion of regulating land use and development to protect the functions of natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. Issue 3 Drainage Subelement (Drainage) Policy 1.1.2 provides: Outline how to iImplement procedures and projects within the County's Land Development Code and those procedures delegated by South Florida Water Management District during 5 year planning time frame to ensure that at the time a development permit is issued, pre- development versus post development discharge rates are monitored to assure that adequate water management facility capacity is available or will be available when needed to serve the development. The flaws of the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 start with the County's failure to adopt, in the Plan, an enforceable level of service (LOS) standard for drainage. Drainage Objective 1.2 provides that the County shall "Adopt Maintain adopted level of service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Water Management Master Plan." This master plan appears to be a part of the land development regulations, not the Plan. For the reasons stated in Paragraphs 26-30 above, this deferral and relegation of a crucial and required provision of a Plan--i.e., setting a drainage LOS--undermine the Plan's approach to drainage. Drainage Policy 1.2.1 formerly provided that the County would use the findings from a study to be conducted under the master plan to "identify existing levels of service for all the drainage basins and sub-basins." A parenthetical note states that the County completed this task in May 1990. New Drainage Policy 1.2.1.A provides, for "future 'private'" development, that the drainage LOS standards are the "water quantity and quality standards" specified in various ordinances that are not incorporated into the Plan. New Drainage Policy 1.2.1.B assigns "existing 'private'" development and "existing or future public drainage facilities" LOS standards identified in the master plan. For such development, a table assigns letters to various basins, but the meaning of the letter is not explained in the Plan. The net effect of this objective and policies is that the Plan defers and relegates to the land development regulations the crucial task of setting comprehensive drainage LOS standards--comprehensive in the components of drainage (e.g., hydroperiod, rate, quality, and basin) and comprehensive in the scope of development (i.e., all private and public development and redevelopment, including public development, not just "public drainage facilities"). In the context of other Drainage provisions, Drainage Policy 1.1.2 is essentially useless. It defers and relegates to the land development regulations the regulatory content (including setting a drainage LOS), performance criteria, and identification of programs and activities. On its face, given the failure of the Plan to set a drainage LOS, Drainage Policy 1.1.2 promises nothing more than the monitoring of post- development runoff. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Drainage Policy 1.1.2 does not identify programs and activities by which by which the County will achieve the planning goals or objectives that the policy is supposed to serve and that the Plan lacks a policy regulating land use and development to protect the functions of natural drainage features. Issue 4 This issue raises the question whether the County relied on the best available data when preparing Plan provisions concerning farmworker housing. In their joint proposed recommended order, the County and School Board offer proposed Plan amendments providing for the collection of new farmworker housing data in 1998, the analysis of the data in 1999, and the adoption of any necessary Plan amendments in 2000. This is consistent with the tenor of the testimony of their witnesses: the County wants more time to conduct more studies to determine if farmworker housing needs may have lessened somewhat. The data and analysis accompanying the revisions to the Housing Element (Housing) include analysis of 1990 census data done by the Shimberg Center at the University of Florida. Tables showing the percentage in the unincorporated County of owners and renters, respectively, paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing reveal that, for persons with annual incomes of less than $10,000, the percentages are 76.1 and 95.9; for persons with annual incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, the percentages are 44.3 and 75.9; and for persons with incomes of $20,000 to $34,999, the percentages are 32.3 and 31.4. After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis state: The previous tables indicate a strong need for more affordable owner and rental opportunities throughout the County. Very low, low[,] and moderate income families who pay more than 30 [percent] of their gross monthly income on housing cost are considered to be "cost burdened" according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a County witness testified, 85-90 percent of County farmworkers reside in Immokalee. According to the County's own data, 36.8 percent of the housing units in the Immokalee area are substandard. The next highest area has 13.4 percent substandard housing, and the next highest has 4.7 percent substandard housing. Of the 4507 units in the Immokalee area, 101 lack plumbing, 74 lack kitchens, and 134 have more than 1.01 persons per room (with some units appearing in more than one category). After reciting these data, the Housing data and analysis state: As the housing stock continues to age, there is a need to provide housing rehabilitation programs for the very low to moderate income rental and owner occupied households in order to prevent continuing deterioration and potential substandard housing conditions. After displaying other data, the Housing data and analysis report that various tables prepared by the Shimberg Center project a very large deficit of affordable, renter occupied and owner occupied dwelling units for the years 2000, 2005 and 2010. Local estimates have not been calculated but efforts to address the estimated deficits are identified in the Housing Element. According to the Shimberg Center data, there is a county wide need for 4,973 affordable rental units and 9,500 affordable owner occupied units by 2000 for a total of 14,473 affordable housing units. Responding to these data, the Housing data and analysis state: The City [Naples] established a goal of encouraging the development of 500 affordable housing units each year within the urban area boundaries identified in a 1994 Interlocal Agreement. Based upon County data collected for this Interlocal Agreement's 500 unit goal, the statistics indicate that 30 [percent] of all single family building permits issued since July 1994 meet the Interlocal Agreement[']s affordable housing criteria. Since the adoption of this Interlocal Agreement, an average of 600+ affordable housing units have been produced countywide each year. Since the urban area target of 500 unit[s] per year has been met, it is recommended that the target be increased to 750 units countywide. A target of 750 units countywide is realistic based upon building permits and [certificates of occupancy] issued annually. The tables contain a comprehensive projection of affordable housing for all income ranges and are not limited to persons with moderate or less annual incomes. Thus, for unincorporated Collier County, one table discloses a deficit of 287 units by 2010 for persons making over $150,000 annually. Addressing farmworker housing specifically, the Housing data and analysis mention the County's 1994 Immokalee Housing Study. Housing designated exclusively for farmworkers consists of privately owned migrant labor camps and Farm Worker Village, which was built with the assistance of the Farmers Home Administration and is owned and operated by the County. The Housing data and analysis note that farmworkers "are also housed in a variety of other housing that is usually substandard, deteriorated or overcrowded." The Housing data and analysis report that farmworker housing in the Immokalee area includes migrant labor camps and shared housing. The Housing data and analysis note that there is no farmworker housing located on the farms in the Immokalee area. According to the Housing data and analysis, the 109 migrant camps in the County comprise 1987 units. The County owns and operates 571 one- to four-bedroom units for rent at affordable rates, but, at the time of the survey, there were 60 applications on the waiting list for these units. The County also has 276 Section 8 certificates from the Farmers Home Administration. Families paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing are eligible for these certificates, which are limited to housing expenses in rural areas. Surveying existing studies, the Housing data and analysis concludes that 4.5 persons reside in each farmworker household. Restating projections from the County's 1994 Immokalee Housing Study, the Housing data and analysis report that, in 2005, farmworker housing demand will consist of 10,711 permanent units and 3251 seasonal units for a total of 13,962 units. For 1995, the Housing data and analysis calculate that the 2961 available seasonal units could accommodate, at 4.5 persons per dwelling unit, 13,324 of the 33,134 seasonal residents, leaving a shortfall of housing for nearly 20,000 seasonal residents or, at 4.5 persons per dwelling unit, 4402 units. However, this analysis understates projected needs for farmworker housing because, without analysis, it uses for all future years the current estimate of 4.5 persons per dwelling unit without considering whether greater availability of affordable housing would reduce the number of persons per dwelling unit. The dispute begins to emerge when the Housing data and analysis note the obvious difficulty of establishing accurate farmworker population figures and conclude that the population increases are relative to the amount of acreage in production at the time of the population count. The County contends that future farmworker housing demands are artificially high because they do not reflect recent trends reducing agricultural operations. However, the County's contentions are unsupported by data and analysis collected in accordance with a professionally recognized methodology. To the contrary, the County elsewhere in the Plan estimated that seasonal farmworker residents, who are present in the Immokalee area during the winter months, would increase by 25 percent after 1992 "to reflect the anticipated expansion of the citrus industry." FLUE, page 57. The County elsewhere relied on the projection of the South Florida Water Management District that agricultural water demands will increase by 46 percent from 1990 to 2010. Conservation, page 35. According to the FLUE data and analysis, nearly 6000 acres of land in the Immokalee area were devoted to agricultural uses. This is only about 2.5 percent of the nearly 250,000 acres in agricultural uses in the County and only about 0.4 percent of the 1.3 million acres in the County. The County's contention of declining needs for farmworker housing repudiates the findings and conclusions of the County's own 1994 Immokalee Housing Plan and the Shimberg Center's more recent work. Rather than address these data and analysis in preparing the Housing goals, objectives, and policies, the County relied on speculation and conjecture that farmworker housing needs may have declined, or may soon decline, due to a perceived decline in agricultural operations. No data indicate what agricultural operations have declined or may decline or, more importantly, the effect of any such decline on the need for farmworker housing. The County did not analyze even this conjecture and speculation from the perspective of other relevant data and analysis, such as the leveling off of a decline, in the mid-1990s, in tomato farming; possibly offsetting trends in other labor-intensive farming; possibly offsetting trends in labor-intensive farming around Immokalee; and trends in Hendry County labor-intensive farming and the impact of Hendry County farmworkers choosing to reside in Immokalee. The available data and analysis reveal ongoing shortages in affordable housing of nearly 15,000 units by 2000. For migrant farmworkers, the available data and analysis suggest a shortage of nearly 4500 units in 1995. The data and analysis suggest that other farmworker substandard housing units will be lost to attrition. Except as it involves farmworker housing, the County relied on a 25 percent increase in farmworkers after 1992 and a 46 percent increase in agricultural water demands from 1990 to 2010. Ignoring the available data and analysis, the County relied on vague concerns about a reduction in labor-intensive agricultural operations in support of its development of affordable housing strategies that do not focus on the unique and pressing needs of farmworkers. The following Plan provisions repeatedly fail to respond adequately to the quantitative and qualitative housing needs of farmworkers. Housing Objective 1 is to increase by only 500 units annually the number of new affordable housing units for persons earning a wider range of incomes than do farmworkers "to continue to meet the housing needs of all current and future very-low, low[,] and moderate income residents of the County, including those households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County." Failing to focus measurably the affordable-housing effort on farmworker housing, Housing Policy 1.4 states: Affordable housing will be distributed equitably throughout the County using strategies which include, but are not limited to, density bonus agreements and impact fee waivers or deferrals. In addition, affordable housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are available. Housing Objective 2 is to create a nonprofit housing development corporation by 2000, with representatives from business, government, housing advocates, and the general community, to assist the County in achieving the annual goal of 500 new units, as stated in Housing Objective 1. Housing Policy 2.1 is to increase the supply of housing for very low, low, and moderate income residents, including farmworker housing, through the use of existing programs, such as low income housing tax credits, density bonuses, and impact fee waivers or deferrals. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the cited Housing objectives and policies are not supported by the data and analysis. In preparing the revised provisions of the Housing Element, the County relied on speculation and anecdotal evidence of reductions in the numbers of farmworkers, declining to address the professionally collected data and analysis of that data, including the County's own data- collection and -analysis. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plan lacks policies providing guidelines or criteria for the location of farmworker housing. The data and analysis reveal a crucial need for such housing in the Immokalee area, but the Plan, most notably Housing Policy 1.4, fails to address these data and analysis by failing to focus affordable- housing efforts for farmworkers where the need is greatest. The Plan also fails to establish locational criteria or guidelines to assure that the farmworker housing best serves the needs of the farmworkers. Issue 5 Prior to these amendments, Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Golden Gate) Policy 2.2.3 provided that the County would apply the stricter of its special development standards or Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications for development within South Golden Gate Estates. However, these amendments repealed Golden Gate Policy 2.2.3 and replaced it with new Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, which provides that the County will apply Chapter 28-25, Florida Administrative Code, to applications in "those Golden Gate Estates units located within the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern." The state rules limit site alterations to 10 percent of the total site, limit impervious areas to 50 percent of the site, and prohibit alteration of the natural flow of water. The effect of the Plan Amendment is to remove these land use restrictions from the part of the South Golden Gate Estates that is not in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern. As reported in the Golden Gate data and analysis, "hailed as the world's largest subdivision," the Golden Gates Estates subdivision encompasses about 170 square miles or eight percent of the County. Golden Gates Estates is located in central Collier County. Part of Golden Gate Estates is located east of Interstate 75, north of the point at which the interstate turns east and heads toward Miami. South Golden Gate Estates is located south of Interstate 75. Gulf American sold 95 percent of the lots in Golden Gate Estates by 1965. South Golden Gate Estates comprises around 17,000 parcels, including about 10,000 parcels under 2.25 acres. Approximately 2000 people live in South Golden Gate Estates, although the actual number may be higher due to unpermitted construction. About 8000 people live in the remainder of Golden Gate Estates. Totaling 94 square miles, South Golden Gate Estates is surrounded by the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge to the north, the Picayune Strand State Forest and Belle Meade (about 16,000 acres on the CARL list for state acquisition) to the west, the Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve to the south, and Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve to the east. The Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve is separated from Big Cypress National Preserve to the east by State Road 29. Northwest of the Cape Romano/Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve is Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve, which lies between Marco Island and Naples Bay. Major public conservation lands in the County--all near Golden Gate Estates--include Big Cypress National Preserve (534,947 acres), Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve (65,524 acres), and Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (24,300 acres). Major additions include another 100,000 acres added to the Big Cypress National Preserve, but in the northeast part of the County away from Golden Gate Estates, and 30,000 acres in Golden Gate Estates (with nearly 12,000 acres already acquired). A large portion, if not all, of South Golden Gate Estates is proposed for state acquisition under the Save Our Everglades program, but progress, until recently at least, has been slow. The state has imposed the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern over the entire County east of Golden Gate Estates, as well as a large area south of South Golden Gate Estates. Most of the Area of Critical State Concern encompasses publicly owned land, but privately owned land is also within the Area of Critical State Concern. DCA contends that the data and analysis do not support the Plan Amendments that are the subject of Issue 5. The effect of the replacement of one policy with another policy is to relax development restrictions in the part of Golden Gate Estates outside of Areas of Critical State Concern. The Drainage data and analysis describe the patterns of surface water runoff characteristic of the County prior to alteration of these natural drainage features. In general, there is a nearly imperceptible ground slope in the County from a high point near Immokalee in the north-northeast corner of the County to the south and southwest to the Gulf of Mexico. Slopes as little as 4 inches per mile are common east of State Road 29; slopes of 12 inches per mile are typical to the west of State Road 29. Prior to construction of artificial drainage facilities, the runoff traveled slowly through long sloughs, which are shallow but wide depressions, and extensive cypress forests in its journey toward the estuaries and bays of the Gulf of Mexico. The natural rhythm between the wet season and the slow, natural drainage left vast parts of the County, including what is now Golden Gate Estates, seasonally inundated. The natural drainage patterns attenuated the runoff, so as to permit the upstream deposit of much of the sediments and nutrients borne by the runoff prior to its entry into rivers and bays. The natural drainage patterns also created native habitat for various plant and wildlife species seeking the periodic or permanent wetlands hydrated by the runoff. The first major disturbance of this natural drainage process came with road construction. Development of roads in the County typically involved the excavation of a canal and the application of the excavated material into the road base, so as to raise the road surface above the surrounding water level. State Road 29, which runs south from Immokalee to Everglades City in the southeast corner of the County, was constructed in this matter in 1926, as was U.S. Route 41 (Tamiami Trail) two years later, reportedly in a transaction in which Baron Collier constructed the road in return for a conveyance from the state of what became Collier County. The logging industry used the same process to construct tramways for transporting cypress logs during the 1950s. The extension of these early canals allowed the expansion of agricultural and other uses of seasonally or permanently inundated lands. The Drainage data and analysis conclude their description of this process as follows: The above described method of "ditch and drain" development in Collier County resulted in a haphazard series of canals that had a tendency to lower the water table and change the flow patterns of the natural drainage basins. In addition to canals, many dikes were constructed around very large tracts of land and the water levels lowered by pumping to create agricultural land. This combination of development events impacted large areas of wetland and began to concentrate the flow of stormwater run-off instead of allowing the traditional sheetflow across the land. In the area adjacent to Naples, developers had cut canals in order to lower the water table and facilitate the construction of housing. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gulf American Corporation took this practice to a new level in the development and worldwide marketing of 173 square miles of land and water that came to be known as Golden Gate Estates. Prior to development, much of the area consisted of waterbodies several feet deep through the wet season. In general, the area was flat swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest islands, and wet and dry prairie. In order to market Golden Gate Estates as a vacation and retirement community, Gulf American undertook a vast drainage project in an effort to eliminate from the landscape and waterscape waterbodies several feet deep through the wet season and flat swamp lands featuring cypress forests, pine forest islands, and wet and dry prairie. Major components of this effort were clearing 813 miles of paved and limerock roads and dredging 183 miles of canals, which drain into the Gordon River, Naples Bay, and Faka Union Bay. The County approved the Golden Gate Estates subdivision in early 1960, and, five years later, 90 percent of the land had been platted and sold in parcels of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 acres. As the Golden Gate data and analysis explain, the County rezoned the area to low-density residential when it became apparent that it could not provide essential facilities and services. The artificial drainage facilities that replaced natural drainage features and converted land from water facilitated the urbanization of the County. Urbanization brought large increases in impervious surface. Large increases in impervious surface produced even more and faster runoff and a decrease in percolation into the groundwater system. The effect on the artificial drainage system was to overwhelm it during major or serial storm events, resulting in flooding. Flooding completed the cycle by resulting in additional artificial drainage facilities. The addition of more artificial drainage capacity adversely affected natural resources in several respects. The addition of more artificial drainage capacity accelerated the rate at which canals transported stormwater into the Gulf, so as to eliminate or reduce the duration of flooding. But the rushing stormwater destabilized channels and reduced the opportunity for natural filtration of sediments and nutrients. The bays and estuaries into which the stormwater eventually runs thus received increased loads of sediments from destabilized channels and increased loads of sediments, nutrients, and pollutants from decreased filtration. Another effect of the addition of more artificial drainage capacity was to lower the water table elevation at all times, not just during the wet season. Thus, the canals overdrained large areas, including Golden Gate Estates, leaving them especially vulnerable to fire during the dry season and droughts during the wet season. The Golden Gate data and analysis report that the annual acreage consumed by fire increased eightfold after Golden Gate Estates was drained so as to alter the hydroperiod and lower the water table. The fires became more severe, eliminating the organic (humus) part of soils and thus discouraging post-fire, vegetative recolonization. The replacement of natural drainage features with artificial drainage facilities dramatically altered natural hydroperiods and, in so doing, destroyed wetlands and wetlands habitat, encouraged saltwater intrusion, and degraded estuaries and eliminated marine habitat by altering the timing and amount of freshwater infusions on which commercially harvested fin fish, shellfish, and sport fish depend at some point in their life cycle. The effect of artificial drainage facilities on water quality, water quantity, and hydroperiod adversely affected recharge of the surficial aquifer, on which the County depends for most of its drinking water. The surficial aquifer receives 90 percent of its recharge from rain and surface flow with direct infiltration from rainfall being the most important source of recharge of the water table aquifer, according to the Groundwater data and analysis. As the Drainage data and analysis concede, artificial drainage facilities have reduced aquifer recharge, which is often best served during flood events when the drainage facilities are overwhelmed. Additionally, as the Groundwater data and analysis note, runoff-transported pollutants can enter the groundwater, just as they can enter surface waters. The Groundwater data and analysis state that protection of natural groundwater recharge relies on land use restrictions that ensure that land uses do not change the recharge process in terms of timing, water quantity, or water quality. The Groundwater data and analysis identify two factors as affecting timing and water quantity: covering recharge areas with impervious surfaces and overdraining recharge areas by canals. In terms of water quality, the Groundwater data and analysis warn of pollutants introduced directly into the water table aquifer by stormwater detention/retention facilities, sewage treatment percolation ponds and absorption fields, and septic systems. Based on a formula developed by the Environmental Protection Agency that considers, among other things, water table elevation and soil permeability, the Groundwater data and analysis warn that County groundwater is highly sensitive to groundwater contamination. In particular, the Groundwater data and analysis recommend the investigation of possible groundwater contamination through the agricultural use of pesticides and fertilizer and the residential use of septic tanks in the area of the East Golden Gate Wellfield. The Groundwater data and analysis recommend, among other things, land use controls around wellfields, areas of high transmissivity, and major hydrological flowways. In light of the deleterious impacts of artificial drainage facilities on water quality, water quantity, and aquifer recharge, the Drainage data and analysis suggest that the drainage LOS standards address these three factors. The Drainage data and analysis state that it is "essential" that the stormwater management standards concerning water quality provide treatment levels "at least compatible with current state requirements. Drainage, page D-I-3. Regarding water quantity, the Drainage data and analysis state that the standards must provide adequate flood protection for developed areas and sufficient water to maintain aquifers, wetlands, and estuarine systems. The Drainage data and analysis discuss the difficulties the County experienced in trying to set a drainage LOS. Historically inadequate systems compounded the problem. Developments permitted prior to 1977, including all of Golden Gate Estates, were designed only to protect against flooding in the event of the ten-year storm, and these developments have an inconsistent record in meeting even these relaxed standards. The County required post-1977 development to meet the more demanding standards of the 25-year, 3-day storm event, and these developments have generally done so. The Drainage data and analysis report that the County hired consulting engineers in 1989 to prepare the Stormwater Management Master Plan. Out of this work emerged LOS standards using water quality as a function of the storm event, water quantity, and the potential of the area to provide aquifer recharge. However, neither the Plan nor even the Drainage data and analysis disclose these drainage LOS standards. The discussion of the drainage LOS standards does not focus extensively on basin issues as to water quantity. Another feature of a drainage LOS, the basin in which runoff is naturally found is important because drastic alterations of basin may alter the periodic, natural changes in salinity necessary to the health of the receiving estuaries. Due to the flatness of the topography, basins in the County naturally shift, depending on the location of rainfall and amount of rainfall compared to the capacity of the natural drainage features. Roads that run along the barely perceptible ridge lines defining a basin change the dynamic of location and amount of rainfall compared to the capacity of the natural drainage feature, so as possibly to change the basin receiving the resulting runoff. Roads that cut across ridge lines have an obvious effect on receiving basins. Canals have similar effects on these basins. Citing the results of the Stormwater Management Master Plan, the Drainage data and analysis list the ten major basins in the County. However, after listing these basins, the Drainage data and analysis note: At this time, an aggressive stormwater management capital improvement project construction is not proposed. The intent is to respond to the will of the local citizens as they petition the Board of County Commissioners to design and construct stormwater management improvements through the creation of taxing and/or assessment districts. The omission of the drainage LOS standards from the Plan (and, although not strictly relevant, even from the data and analysis) precludes an determination of the scope and effect of the County's decision not to schedule stormwater improvements until residents demand such public facilities. Nothing in the Plan allows the informed reader to learn whether the County's undisclosed drainage LOS standards have adequately blended the objective of natural-resource protection with the objective of flood control. Nothing in the Plan allows the informed reader to learn of the extent to which the County must apply these undisclosed drainage LOS standards to development, redevelopment, and unchanged land uses (i.e., retrofitting). The effect of the omission of drainage LOS standards from the Plan is heightened by certain water-quality trends during the ten-year period ending in 1989, coupled with the County's reduction in water-quality monitoring during the ensuing ten years. Map LU-92 in the Conservation data and analysis identifies 24 "estuarine bays" from the Lee County line south to Everglades City. These bays include Clam Bay, which is just north and west of the terminus of Pine Ridge Road; Doctors Bay, which is immediately north of Naples; Naples Bay, which is immediately south of Naples and receives water from the Gordon River and Haldeman Creek; Rookery Bay, which is south of Naples about midway between Naples and Marco Island and receives water from Henderson Creek; and Faka Union Bay and Fakahatchee Bay, which are roughly midway between Marco Island and Everglades City. According to the Conservation data and analysis, the worst water quality reported by the Department of Environmental Protection in a 1994 statewide assessment of water quality was the estuarine portion of the Gordon River, which violated water quality standards for conductivity and dissolved oxygen. Rated as "threatened or moderately impaired" in this study, Naples Bay violated water quality standards for conductivity. A portion of the Henderson Creek Canal violated water quality standards for conductivity and dissolved oxygen. The Conservation data and analysis note that the County assessed available data collected from 1979 through 1989 and determined that, during this period, surface waters may have experienced an increase in nutrients. Inland-water data indicate that nutrient levels (nitrogen, phosphorus, or both) increased from 1979 through 1989 in the Gordon River Extension, Henderson Creek, Main Golden Gate Canal, and Faka Union Canal. Although there are less estuarine nutrient data, the data for Clam Bay reveal a steep increase in nitrogen and a slower increase in phosphorus. The sediments of numerous inland waterways contain organochlorine pesticides. Although polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are not widespread in estuarine sediments, they were detected among 80 percent of samples taken in Naples Bay in 1992. Among inland sediments, they are very high in the Gordon River Extension. Heavy metals are at very slightly elevated levels in urbanized estuaries, which include Naples Bay. The Golden Gate data and analysis predict "substantial population increases" for Golden Gate Estates. However, the Golden Gate data and analysis indicate that only a 4 square-mile area is served by central sewer; the same area is the only area served by central water. The Golden Gate data and analysis of the relevant drainage facilities report that the drainage basin for Golden Gate Estates is the 107 square-mile Golden Gate Basin and the 185.3 square-mile Faka Union Canal System Basin. The Faka Union Canal System Basin discharges into the Faka Union Bay, and the Golden Gate Basin appears to discharge into Naples Bay. Given the role of drainage in preserving or restoring the health of bays and estuaries, maintaining or improving natural recharge of the aquifer on which the County depends for its drinking water, and maintaining or restoring viable wetlands habitat for a variety of terrestrial and marine wildlife and plant life, and the historic exacerbation of flooding and fire by poorly planned artificial drainage facilities, DCA has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data and analysis do not support the Plan amendments that repealed Golden Gate Policy 2.2.3 and replaced it with Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4, so as to restrict the coverage of pre-existing restrictions on site alterations that substantially impact the drainage of South Golden Gate Estates. Issue 6 Conservation Objective 1.1 provides: By August 1, 1994, the County will complete continue with the development and implementation of a comprehensive environmental management and conservation program that will ensure that the natural resources, including species of special status, of Collier County are properly, appropriately, and effectively identified, managed, and protected. Species of special status are defined as species listed in the current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida," published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Conservation Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 respectively provide: By August 1, 1989, appoint and establish operational procedures for Continue with using a Technical Advisory Committee to advise and assist the County in the activities involved in the development and implementation of the County Environmental Resources Management Program. By the time mandated for the adoption of land development regulations pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, F.S., including any amendments thereto[,] incorporate the Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained within this Element into the County's land development regulations as interim environmental resources protection and management standards. Conservation Objective 1.3 provides: By August 1, 1994, complete Continue with the phased delineation, data gathering, management guidelines and implementation of the County Natural Resources Protection Areas (NRPA) program by implementing the Board- approved process for nominating potential areas for review. The purpose of Natural Resources Protection Areas will be to protect endangered or potentially endangered species (as listed in current "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora in Florida," published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission) and their habitats. Conservation Policy 1.3.1 specifies the components of the NRPA program. Specific requirements include identifying NRPAs on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), establishing development standards applicable within NRPAs to maintain functioning natural resources and restore or mitigate natural resources within NRPAs that are already degraded, identifying an NRPA review process, and deferring development within NRPAs through purchase, tax incentives, and transfer of development rights. Conservation Appendix D, which is part of the data and analysis, is devoted to Natural Resource Protection Areas (NRPAs). The issue is not what the County did or did not provide DCA during the review and adoption process. This historical fact is superseded by the opportunity presented to both sides to present data and analysis at the de novo hearing. Conservation Appendix D states that the Board of County Commissioners approved on March 1, 1994, a process for identifying NRPAs and establishing management plans for NRPAs. The process requires initial Board approval before the process commences. Appendix D identifies 33 criteria to be considered in designating NRPAs. Nearly all of the criteria involve environmental factors. The criteria represent a comprehensive range of environmental factors. Appendix D notes that, on February 28, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved Clam Bay as a NRPA and directed staff to begin the preparation of a management plan for Clam Bay. Clam Bay is a wetland area within an approved development of regional impact. Clam Bay was the site of a considerable mangrove die- off in 1992 and 1995. County staff appear to believe that there is a problem with flushing and possibly high water levels, as well, so the County is seeking a permit to dredge the pass. Historically, Clam Pass was connected to Vanderbilt Pond to the north, but land development severed this connection. Clam Bay is the only NRPA that the Board of County Commissioners has designated. DCA contends that the data show that the NRPA process does not adequately protect wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. Intervenors likewise argue that the NRPA is ineffective, and the County's ineffectual implementation of the NRPA program deprives Conservation Objective 1.3 of support from the data and analysis. The issue of whether these two objectives and three policies are supported by data and analysis requires consideration of their purpose and the efficacy of the programs to be established to help attain these objectives and realize their purpose. Conservation Objective 1.1, with its policies, establishes the Environmental Resources Management Program, whose purpose is to identify, manage, and protect "properly, appropriately, and effectively" natural resources, including species of special status. Conservation Objective 1.3, with its policy, establishes the NRPA program, whose purpose is to protect endangered or potentially endangered wildlife and plant life. The broader scope of the Environmental Resources Management Program is offset by its offer of only conditional protection, as disclosed by the three quoted adverbs. The highly conditional promise of Conservation Objective 1.1 means that this objective and its policies do not require much in the way of supporting data and analysis. For this reason, DCA and Intervenors have failed to prove that Conservation Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 are not supported by data and analysis. The focus of Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 is narrower--limited to endangered species and potentially endangered species--and its promise of protection is unconditional. A fair definition of potentially endangered species is threatened species and species of special concern, so this recommended order shall use the phrase, "listed species," to describe the species covered by Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1. In determining the extent to which Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 are supported by data and analysis, it is necessary to consider the County's role in providing habitat to listed species, any trends in wildlife habitat and listed species, the treatment of listed species by other Plan provisions, and the County's use of NRPAs. In 1994, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission published Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System (Closing the Gaps). This report divides Florida into geographic regions; Southwest Florida comprises Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Glades, and Hendry counties. Closing the Gaps cites this region as "the most important region in Florida" in terms of "maintaining several wide-ranging species that make up an important component of wildlife diversity in Florida . . .." Closing the Gaps, page 173. Most prominent in Southwest Florida are the only stable panther population east of the Mississippi River; the only stable black bear population south of Interstate 4; the greatest populations of Audubon's crested caracara in the United States; core populations of sandhill cranes, swallow-tail kites, and burrowing owls; important foraging and nesting habitats for colonies of many species of wading birds; and favorable conditions for several species of tropical plants that are rare elsewhere in Florida. Closing the Gaps states that most of the County hosts at least seven "focal species." "Focal species" are 40 species-- many of which are listed--selected for their role as indicators of natural communities or requirement of large areas for habitat. Closing the Gaps, page 8. Although most of this area is within Big Cypress and other publicly owned lands, it extends through Golden Gate Estates and into extreme west Collier County. A land-cover map in Closing the Gaps shows that the largest contiguous area of cypress swamp occupies Golden Gate Estates. Another map depicts this area as a large area of "strategic habitat" that runs to the north and northeast to link with strategic habitat running through central Hendry County and eventually to the western half of Glades County. Closing the Gaps, page 172. "Strategic habitat" is intended to provide habitat to species "lacking adequate representation in current conservation areas." Closing the Gaps, page 7. Closing the Gaps divides Collier County into two geographic areas for more detailed analysis. One area is north of Golden Gate Estates, reaching the Lee County line. The other area is west of Fakahatchee Strand and occupies South Golden Gate Estates and the remainder of Golden Gate Estates to the north. The more northerly area consists of cypress swamp, hardwood swamp, dry prairie, and pineland and "represents one of the most important wildlife areas remaining in Florida." Closing the Gaps, page 174. This area includes Lake Trafford, which is the highest part of the County and the only area supplying relatively high, natural aquifer recharge, and provides strategic habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, wood stork, and American swallow-tailed kite. The more southerly area provides strategic habitat for the Florida panther, Florida black bear, red-cockaded woodpecker, and several rare wading birds that nest elsewhere. South Golden Gate Estates provides strategic habitat for the American swallow- tailed kite, southern bald eagle, eastern indigo snake, and several plant species. Central Golden Gate Estates provides strategic habitat for the American swallow-tail kite, red- cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, and several plant species. Both the northerly and southerly areas provide the "largest contiguous blocks of high-quality habitat . . . outside of conservation areas" for Florida bears. Closing the Gaps, page The County hosts the largest black bears in Florida and one of the largest groups of bears. Closing the Gaps asserts that bear habitat in the County "appears to be of the potentially greatest importance to black bears and many other rare species." Closing the Gaps, page 62. Coastal Collier County also provides strategic habitat for numerous species, including the southern bald eagle, gopher tortoise, loggerhead turtle, least tern, snowy plover, Florida black bear (Rookery Bay), peregrine falcon (Rookery Bay and Cape Romano), yellow-crowned night heron, brown pelican, Florida burrowing owl, American oystercatcher, and Florida scrub lizard. An aquatic mammal of prominence is the West Indian manatee, which frequents the waters of the County. The greatest number of citings throughout the year are in the Faka Union Canal and around Marco Island. During the winter months, the animals congregate in the Faka Union Canal. Manatees are under considerable stress. According to Conservation data and analysis, the number of manatee deaths in the County was 71 in 1996, the last year for which data were available. This was 25 percent of the total manatee deaths recorded for the preceding 22 years and was five less than the total for the preceding five years. The other large mammal under stress is the Florida panther. In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and National Park Service published Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan: South Florida Population (Panther Plan). The purpose of the Panther Plan is to identify actions to assure the long-term preservation of habitats that are essential for maintaining a self-sustaining population of panthers in South Florida. Data indicate that a minimum self- sustaining population in this area is 50 adult panthers. The reproducing South Florida panther population occupies only Collier, Dade, Hendry, and Lee Counties. Although estimates vary, approximately 30-50 adult panthers probably remain in the South Florida area. In 1990, an estimated 46 panthers (of all ages) roamed the Big Cypress basin. During the study period of 1979 through 1991, 46.9 percent of panther deaths were due to highway collisions, mostly along State Road 29 and Old Alligator Alley (State Road 84), which are both in Collier County. Range demands of the panther are substantial. Males panthers require 180-200 square miles with minimal overlap with other males. Females require 75-150 square miles and tolerate overlapping territories with other females. The vast area in public ownership represented by Big Cypress Preserve and Everglades National Park offer lower-quality habitat for the panther, which prefers drier land, as does the bear, although it is less demanding than the panther in terms of habitat type. The northern 53 percent of the South Florida panther range is in private ownership, but the higher soil fertility and forested habitat characteristic of this land allow it to accommodate over half of the adult panthers, who are healthier and more productive than their counterparts in the southern portion of the South Florida range. Partly for these reasons, the vast publicly owned lands can support only 9-22 of the adult panthers in South Florida. Publicly owned lands in the South Florida range are probably at their limit in supporting panthers. The first two recommendations of the Panther Plan are to develop "site-specific habitat preservation plans" for land south of the Caloosahatchee River, which comprises 75 percent of known panther range and contains 39 of the 41 panthers studied between 1981 and 1991, and for land north of the Caloosahatchee River, which offers superior habitat that may in the future become more available for settlement by panthers. Other Plan provisions address wildlife and wildlife habitat. Conservation Policy 1.3.2 is to continue management guidelines for wildlife and wildlife habitat, but the guidelines are deferred and relegated to the land development regulations. Moreover, a County witness conceded at the hearing that staff was having difficult preparing these management guidelines. Conservation Objective 6.1 is to prepare development standards for all important native habitats, but the Plan Amendments extended the deadline for doing so another six years, until June 1, 1998, and largely deferred and relegated to the land development regulations. However, Conservation Objective 6.1 incorporates Policies 6.4.6 and 6.4.7 until the County prepares the development standards. For new residential developments greater than 2.5 acres in the Coastal Area or 20 acres in the coastal urban area, Policy 6.4.6 requires the retention of a minimum percentage of viable, naturally functioning native habitat. However, this policy is undermined by vagueness concerning "Coastal Area," "coastal urban area," and "viable, naturally functioning native habitat"; the emphasis on the preservation of sample habitats, rather than contiguous wildlife habitat; and the County's practice of allowing compliance with this requirement through total landclearing following by replanting. For all new development, Policy 6.4.7 addresses contiguous habitat, but only by encouraging, not requiring, preservation, and without specifying a minimum area to be preserved. Conservation Policy 7.2 is to maintain the average annual number of deaths of manatees from boat collisions at 3.2, although this is a small fraction of the total annual manatee deaths. Conservation Policy 7.3.3 is to prepare management guidelines in the land development regulations to inform landowners of the proper ways to reduce disturbances to red- cockaded woodpeckers, Florida panthers, other listed species, eagle nests, and wood stork habitat. Pending the preparation of these land development regulations, Conservation Policy 7.3.4 is for the County to "evaluate and apply applicable recommendations" of two governmental agencies regarding the protection of listed species. Lastly, the County will designate unspecified portions of known panther habitat as Areas of Environmental Concern on the FLUM. There is no explanation in the record why the County has designated only Clam Pass as an NRPA. However, the record does not support an inference that the NRPA program has had any effect whatsoever in addressing the needs of wildlife and habitat. In 1993 and 1994, County staff recommended 10-12 areas as NRPAs, including Belle Meade, Cap Key Strand (which runs from Immokalee and Lake Trafford south to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge), and South Golden Gate Estates. These areas, which the County declined to designate as NRPAs, provide considerably more wildlife habitat and more wildlife habitat of higher quality than does Clam Pass, whose designation seems to reflect a reaction to mangrove dieoffs and possibly water quantity, but not habitat or even water quality. Considering the County's role in providing crucial wildlife habitat to listed species, weak Plan provisions concerning wildlife and wildlife habitat, and ineffective utilization of the NRPA program (at least for the purpose of protecting wildlife habitat), DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 1.3 and Policy 1.3.1 are not support by data and analysis. Issue 7 Conservation Objective 12.1 is: Continue to Eencourage the undertaking of activities necessary to attain maintain by 1994, hurricane evacuation clearance time for a Category 3 storm at a maximum of 28 hours as defined by the 1987 1996 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Plan Evacuation Study Update, and by 1999, 27.2 hours. Activities will include on-site sheltering for mobile home developments, increased shelter space, and maintenance of equal or lower densities of the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone Coastal high hazard area in the land use plan. Conservation Policy 12.1.1 states: Land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone Coastal high hazard area shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. shall be re-evaluated within three years and may change to a density level consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Conservation Objective 12.1 is not to maintain or reduce evacuation times; it is not even to encourage the maintenance of evacuation times. Objective 12.1 merely encourages activities that are necessary to maintain evacuation times. Additionally, Conservation Objective 12.1 refers to the misdefined Coastal High Hazard Area, as discussed in Issue 8. These two flaws in Conservation Objective 12.1 mean that this objective has not responded to the Conservation data and analysis, including Conservation Appendix E, which discusses hurricane evacuation times. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 12.1 and Policy 12.1.1 are not supported by data and analysis and Objective 12.1 is inconsistent with a criterion to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times. Issues 8 and 15 Following amendment, Conservation Policy 12.2.5 defines the Coastal High Hazard Area as the area "lying within the Category 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the Emergency Management Director." The County amended the FLUM to depict the coastal high hazard area, as defined in Conservation Policy 12.2.5. The "Category 1 Evacuation Zone as determined by the Emergency Management Director" omits areas within the category 1 hurricane zone, as established in the 1996 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update, which is the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the County. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Policy 12.2.5 and the conforming FLUM amendment reflect a Coastal High Hazard Area that is not the category 1 hurricane zone, as established by the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the County. Issue 9 Conservation Objective 6.3 states: A portion of the viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands defined by State and Federal permitting requirements shall be preserved in any new non-agricultural development unless otherwise mitigated through the DER State and the ACOE permitting process and approved by the County. Conservation Objective 6.3 does not state what portion of the transitional zone wetlands shall be preserved, nor does it define "viable, naturally functioning transitional zone wetlands." Each of these concepts--viable, naturally functioning, and transitional zone--requires definition. There is thus no way to evaluate the success of the policies under the objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 6.3 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Issue 10 Conservation Objective 7.3 states: By January 1, 1992, The County shall continue to develop and implement programs for protecting fisheries and other animal wildlife by including measures for protection and/or relocation of endangered, threatened, or species of special concern of status. The effect of the amendment of Conservation Objective 7.3 is to remove the deadline by which the County was to develop and implement programs to protect wildlife, including listed species. There is thus no way to evaluate the success of the policies under this objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objective 7.3 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Issues 11, 12, 13, and 14 Conservation Objective 9.4 is: By September 30, 1989, the County shall establish The County shall implement the existing a local storage tank compliance program to protect ground and surface water quality including site inspections and information transfer. Conservation Objective 9.5 is: By August 31, 1989, the The County shall adopt implement construction, pretreatment, monitoring, and effluent limit requirements of the Collier County Ground Water Protection an Ordinance regulating the use of septic tanks serving industrial and manufacturing activities. Conservation Objective 10.6 is: By August 1, 1990, tThe County shall continue to implement the Coastal Barrier and Beach System Management Program by conserving the habitats, species, natural shoreline and dune systems contained within the County coastal zone. FLUE Policy 3.1.d is: Protect potable water wellfields and aquifer recharge areas. This shall be accomplished through the creation and implementation of a wellfield protection ordinance. The ordinance shall establish cones of influence based on groundwater travel times, restrict land uses and activities within the cones of influence and establish development standards for those activities beyond the cones of influence which may endanger the wellfields and aquifer recharge areas based on their potential for pollution. The Groundwater Protection Ordinance shall be implemented to protect existing and future wellfields, natural aquifer recharge areas and groundwater resources through standards for development involving the use, storage, generation and disposal of hazardous waste products, disposal of sewage and effluent, stormwater management, earthmining, petroleum exploration, solid waste and other related aspects of land use and development within the mapped wellfield protection zones. Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are: The [Groundwater Protection] Ordinance [to be adopted by August 1, 1989, under Groundwater Objective 1.2] will address both existing and projected future land use and surface activities. Apply action criteria specified in the Collier County Ground Water Protection Ordinance to both existing and future regulated development according to procedures specified in the Ordinance to protect the County's ground water resources. The [Groundwater Protection] Ordinance will continue Apply criteria for ground water protection specified in enforcement procedures specified in the Ordinance to provide an appropriate level of protection to sensitive recharge areas. Conservation Objective 9.4 promises the implementation of a storage tank program that is contained in the land development regulations, which are not incorporated by reference into the Plan. Because these land development regulations are not themselves subject to the compliance determinations that are the subject of this case, Conservation Objective 9.4 is not a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. This deferral and relegation to the land development regulations leaves no way of evaluating the success of the policies under this objective or that attainment of this objective marks progress toward a stated goal. The same deficiencies characterize Conservation Objectives 9.5 and 10.6, FLUE Policy 3.1.3, and Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, except that, for the policies, this deferral and relegation to the land development regulations leaves no way of identifying the way in which the County will conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Conservation Objectives 9.4, 9.5, and 10.6, are not specific, measurable, intermediate ends that are achievable and mark progress toward a goal. DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that FLUE Policy 3.1.d and Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 do not identify the way in which the County will conduct programs and activities to achieve identified goals. Issue 15 Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, sets out the State comprehensive plan. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to "[I]dentify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4 and FLUE Policy 3.1.d. Section 187.201(8)(b)9 is to "[p]rotect aquifers from depletion and contamination through appropriate regulatory programs and through incentives." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4, and FLUE Policy 3.1.d. Section 187.201(8)(b)10 is to "[p]rotect surface and groundwater quality and quantity in the state." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 6.3, FLUE Policy 3.1.d, Groundwater Objective 1.2 and Policies 1.2.1-1.2.4, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to "[e]liminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 9.5, FLUE Policy 3.1.d, Groundwater Policies 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(9)(b)4 is to "[p]rotect coastal resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3, 7.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 12.2.5; FLUE Policy 3.1.d; Drainage Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(9)(b)9 is to prohibit development that disturbs coastal dune systems. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objective 10.6 and Policy 12.2.5. Section 187.201(10)(b)1 to "[c]onserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental, economic, aesthetic, and recreational values." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3, and 9.5 and Policy 1.3.1; Drainage Policy 1.1.2; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(10)(b)3 is to "[p]rohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3, 9.5, and 10.6 and Policy 1.3.1; and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(10)(b)7 is to "[p]rotect and restore the ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term environmental, economic, and recreational value." In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 6.3 and 9.5, Drainage Policy 1.1.2, and Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4. Section 187.201(26)(b)7 is to ensure the development of local government comprehensive plans that implement and reflect state goals and policies and that address issues of particular concern to a region. In light of the provision of the State comprehensive plan cited in the preceding paragraph, DCA and Intervenors have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the following Plan provisions are inconsistent with the State comprehensive plan, construed as a whole: Conservation Objectives 1.3, 6.3, 7.3 10.6, and 12.1 and Policies 1.3.1, 12.1.1, and 12.2.5; Golden Gate Policy 2.1.4; and ICE Policy 1.2.6.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller Colin M. Roopnarine Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas W. Reese 2951 61st Avenue South Saint Petersburg, Florida 33712 Marjorie M. Student Rodney C. Wade Assistant County Attorneys 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Richard D. Yovanovich Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Naples, Florida 34103 Donna Arduin, Secretary Executive Office of the Governor 1601 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 David Schwartz, Esquire Executive Office of the Governor 209 Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations of misconduct set forth in a four-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violation of the following statutory provisions: Sections 489.129(1)(g), 489.129(1)(h)2, 489.129(1)(k), and 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Allen Fader, is, and has been at all times material, a licensed Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C007504 by the State of Florida. At all times material, the Respondent was licensed to contract as an individual. The Respondent, by virtue of his license, advertised construction services for Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., during 1997. The Respondent presented a business card, with the name of Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., to Ruby M. Shepherd, a customer, in April of 1997. On April 14, 1997, the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., contracted with Ruby M. Shepherd to enclose a patio and to install hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence located at 12325 Northwest 19th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract was conditioned on Ms. Shepherd being able to obtain financing to pay for the construction described in the contract. The exact amount Ms. Shepherd was required to pay under the original April 14, 1997, contract cannot be determined from the evidence in this case.4 The Respondent assisted Ms. Shepherd in obtaining a loan for the financing of the construction work described in the contract. It took several months to obtain a loan. Ultimately, through the efforts of the Respondent, and of a person engaged by the Respondent to help obtain a loan, Ms. Shepherd received a loan through Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow. The check from Town and Country Title Guaranty and Escrow was in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The check was made payable to Ms. Shepherd and to Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. At the request of the man who helped obtain the loan, Ms. Shepherd endorsed the loan check and agreed for the check to be delivered to the Respondent. The Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc., negotiated the loan check and received all of the proceeds in the amount of twelve thousand nine hundred seventy-nine dollars and fifteen cents ($12,979.15). The Respondent received the proceeds of the loan on or about September 12, 1997. The Respondent did not take any action on Ms. Shepherd's construction project until November 14, 1997. On that day, the Respondent placed an order for the material for the hurricane shutters on Ms. Shepherd's project. Nothing more was done on Ms. Shepherd's project for quite some time. Towards the end of February of 1998, the Respondent had some health problems, which caused him to be unable to work for several weeks. Eventually, the Respondent attempted to pick up the shutter materials he had ordered for Ms. Shepherd's project. As a result of the delay, those materials had been returned to stock and had been sold to someone else. The Respondent ordered the materials again. Eventually, in June of 1998, the Respondent had the shutter materials delivered to Ms. Shepherd's residence, and began the process of installing the hurricane shutters. In the meantime, from September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not contact Ms. Shepherd. During this period of time, Ms. Shepherd called the Respondent's office numerous times and left numerous messages asking the Respondent to return her calls. From September of 1997 until January of 1998, the Respondent did not return any of Ms. Shepherd's calls. In January of 1998, Ms. Shepherd was finally able to speak with the Respondent. From January of 1998 until the installation work began in June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd spoke to the Respondent on numerous occasions in an effort to find out when the Respondent was going to begin work or return the money he had been paid. During this period of time, the Respondent repeatedly made false assurances to Ms. Shepherd that the work would be performed within two weeks. On or about June 12, 1998, the Respondent obtained a building permit for Ms. Shepherd's project from the Miami-Dade Department of Planning, Development, and Regulation. Installation of the hurricane shutters began that same week. The installation process was delayed because some of the materials did not fit and had to be returned to the manufacturer for modifications. Following the modifications, the installation process resumed. After a few more days, the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd the hurricane shutter work was finished and that he was not going to do the patio construction work, because the loan Ms. Shepherd had received was not enough money to pay for both projects. After the Respondent told Ms. Shepherd that the installation of the hurricane shutters was complete, the Respondent never did any further work on Ms. Shepherd's construction project. The hurricane shutters installed at Ms. Shepherd's property by the Respondent were not installed correctly. Several of the hurricane shutters will not open and close properly. Several of the hurricane shutters are insufficiently fastened. A necessary shutter over the storage room door was never installed. The problems with the subject hurricane shutters can be corrected. The cost of the corrections necessary to make the shutters operate properly and to fasten them securely is approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000). The Respondent never called for an inspection of the installation of the hurricane shutters at Ms. Shepherd's residence. In their present condition, those hurricane shutters will not pass inspection, because they were installed improperly. If corrections are made, those hurricane shutters will pass inspection. By reason of the facts stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 above, the Respondent failed to properly and fully complete the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. The Respondent never did any work on the patio portion of the contracted work. At some point in time between September of 1997 and June of 1998, Ms. Shepherd and the Respondent agreed to a modification of their original contract due to the fact that the proceeds of the loan obtained by Ms. Shepherd were insufficient to pay for both the hurricane shutters and the enclosure of the patio. The essence of their modified agreement (which was never reduced to writing) was that the Respondent would not do the patio enclosure portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would do the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; the Respondent would be paid for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work; and any remaining balance of the loan proceeds that had been paid to the Respondent would be paid back to Ms. Shepherd. Implicit, but apparently unstated, in this modified agreement, was the notion that the Respondent would charge a fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work. A fair price for the hurricane shutter portion of the contracted work at Ms. Shepherd's residence, including all materials, labor, overhead, and profit, would be approximately four thousand dollars ($4,000).5 The price of four thousand dollars presupposes properly installed hurricane shutters that will pass inspection. As previously mentioned, it will cost approximately one thousand dollars ($1,000) to make the corrections to the subject hurricane shutters which are necessary for the shutters to function properly and pass inspection. Accordingly, the fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is three thousand dollars ($3,000). Ms. Shepherd has paid $12,979.15 to the Respondent, doing business as Gold Coast Construction Services, Inc. The fair value of the work performed by the Respondent at Ms. Shepherd's residence is $3,000. Therefore, the Respondent has been paid $9,979.15 more than he is entitled to keep. As of the date of the final hearing, the Respondent has not paid back any money to Ms. Shepherd.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations charged in each of the four counts of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following penalties: For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. For the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00, and placement of the Respondent on probation for a period of one year. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order require the Respondent to pay restitution to Ms. Shepherd in the amount of $9,979.15, and to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $266.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 9th day of September, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' rate filing numbered FCP 07-08928 should be approved.
Findings Of Fact FFB Casualty and FFB General are both stock insurance companies which are domiciled in Florida. FFB General is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FFB Casualty, which in turn is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company of Jackson, Mississippi (SFB Casualty). FFB is headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, and its insurance products are sold exclusively in Florida. FFB only insures members of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation, a non-profit organization. On June 8, 2006, FFB made a rate filing for their homeowners' line of business seeking a significant rate increase with an effective date of December 1, 2006, in OIR file number 06-07515. Due to the size of the requested rate increase a public hearing was held on August 16, 2006, in Gainesville, Florida, in accordance with the requirement of Section 627.0629, Florida Statutes (2006), which provides that "[a]ny rate filing that is based in whole or in part on data from a computer model may not exceed 15 percent unless there is a public hearing." § 627.0629(7), Fla. Stat. (2006). At the public hearing, Burt Gindy, FFB's vice president of Government Affairs and Compliance, commenced the presentation of FFB by stating: "Okay, then, simply put, this filing is all about catastrophe reinsurance cost." Later in the public hearing, Mr. Gindy stated: "The homeowners' rate filings before you, FCP 06-07515, seeks to recognize the increase in profit catastrophe reinsurance costs that have escalated due to increasing hurricane activity." Mr. Gindy talked about the typical amount of reinsurance sought by FFB, stating: "We typically insure to a 250 year event, this year we've only been able to insure capacity and cost wise to about 160 year capacity. We know AM Best looks at that and we want to keep our AM Best ratings." Insurers, including FFB, generally measure and evaluate their potential losses from hurricanes and other extreme events in terms of probable maximum loss (PML), an estimate of the dollar amount of losses that an insurer will experience at a given probability. For example, a one-percent probability of experiencing a loss greater than a certain amount equals a 100 year or one-in-100 year PML. This does not mean that the insurer is expected to incur the 100 year PML only once every 100 years; it means that in any given year there is a one-percent chance of the insurer incurring a loss of that magnitude. When Mr. Gindy indicated that FFB had typically insured to a 250 year event, he meant that FFB insured for a 0.25 percent chance of loss of a certain magnitude occurring in any given year. On September 25, 2006, the Office approved a rate increase for FFB of +43.8 percent with an effective date of December 1, 2006. Because rate filings are prospective, the rate increase, with an effective date of December 1, 2006, appeared calculated to pay for FFB's 2007 reinsurance program. Since the mid-1990's, FFB has purchased a portion of its reinsurance coverage from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (CAT Fund), as required by law.1/ The CAT Fund is a public entity which provides a statutorily specified layer of reinsurance at a substantially lower cost than the private market because of the CAT Fund's non-profit structure and tax exempt status. The effective date of CAT Fund coverage is June 1. FFB normally purchased the remainder of its reinsurance from private reinsurers for one-year terms, which are generally effective on January 1. Through 2006, FFB purchased a significant portion of its reinsurance from its parent company, SFB Casualty, and purchased other layers of coverage from American Ag. Starting in 2007, SFB Casualty no longer provided reinsurance for FFB, and FFB purchased coverage in the global market with the assistance of AON with whom FFB had worked for many years as SFB Casualty's broker. FFB generally begins planning in the summer for its purchase of reinsurance to be effective for the next January 1 by gathering FFB's exposure date (i.e., how many houses FFB insured, where they are located and how much they cost, etc.), which data FFB runs through its own and Alliance Insurance Research (AIR) computer models to estimate FFB's anticipated hurricane losses and PML's. FFB then determines its desired reinsurance structure, including its retention (i.e., amount of losses that could be absorbed by FFB), and sends this information to reinsurance markets in the Fall. After receiving and vetting quotes seeking the most advantageous terms, FFB negotiates its reinsurance program, and most of its reinsurance agreements are bound by December for a January 1 effective date. FFB sometimes makes adjustments to its reinsurance program after January 1 to obtain additional coverage at more favorable prices, subject to market conditions, or to make adjustments due to changes in the CAT Fund. However, the general goal of the company is to always place the lion's share of the reinsurance program by the beginning of the year. By January 1, 2007, FFB had placed the majority of its reinsurance program for 2007. The cost for FFB private reinsurance in January 2007 was $65,984,426. Recognizing a crisis in homeowners' insurance premiums, on January 9, 2007, the Florida Legislature issued a Joint Proclamation to convene a special session pursuant to Article III, Section (3)(c), Florida Constitution, and Section 11.011, Florida Statutes (2006), to commence on January 16, 2007, for the "sole and exclusive purpose" to consider the following: Legislation to reduce current property insurance premiums in Florida; Legislation to reduce the future growth of property insurance premiums in Florida; Legislation to improve availability and stability of property insurance in Florida; Legislation relating to building codes in Florida. The special session convened on January 16, 2007, and on January 22, 2007, the Legislature enacted Chapter 2007, Laws of Florida (Chapter 2007-1), which was signed into law by the Governor on January 25, 2007. One of the primary features of the legislation was a massive expansion of the CAT Fund. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 2007-1, the CAT Fund had an industry-wide capacity of approximately $16 billion for those carriers writing property insurance in the State of Florida. As a result of the enactment of Chapter 2007-1 and the expansion of the CAT Fund, industry-wide coverage went from approximately $16 billion to approximately $28 billion. It was the intent of the Legislature that the expansion of the CAT Fund would result in a rate filing that reflected "savings or reduction in loss exposure to the insurer." Chapter 2007-1 required the Office to issue an order specifying the date or dates on which the required rate filings were to be made and be effective "in order to provide rate relief to policyholders as soon as practicable." By March 15, 2007, the Office was required to calculate a presumed factor or factors to be used in the rate filings required by Chapter 2007-1 to reflect the impact to rates based on the changes to the CAT Fund. The Office issued Informational Memorandum OIR-07-06M, which describes the procedure for the rate filings required by Chapter 2007-1 and provides in relevant part: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance regarding filing procedures for the "Presumed Factors" filing and the subsequent "True-Up" filing. During the 2007 Special Session, the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 1A (HB 1A) requiring every residential property insurer to make a filing with the Office of Insurance Regulation (Office) to reflect the savings or reduction in loss exposure to the insurer. On February 19, the Office issued an order advising residential insurers to make rate filings to include the new discount factors mandated by HB 1A. The new discount factors required in HB 1A have been calculated by the Office and all residential property insurers must make a rate filing incorporating the new savings on or before March 15, 2007. Information related to the presumed factors can be found at http://www.floir.com/HotTopics.htm. The procedure for submitting the "Presumed Factors" filing as prescribed in Section 3 of HB 1A and the True-Up" filing as prescribed in the Office's "Presumed Factors" order can be found in the applicable attachments and are summarized below. A filing adopting the Office's "Presumed Factors" (Short Form). This filing shall reflect the effects of the "Presumed Factors" on the rates currently in effect and shall be made on a "file and use" basis. The filing shall be limited to the effects of the "Presumed Factors" on rates currently in effect, and the elimination of the 25% rapid cash buildup portion of the insurer's Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund premium.[2/] The procedures for submitting this type of "Presumed Factors" filing can be found in Attachment A. A filing that uses, but does not strictly adopt the "Presumed Factors" (Long Form). A "Presumed Factors" filing that uses the factors to reflect a rate decrease to take into account the "Presumed Factors" shall be made on a "use and file" basis and shall provide all the information used in preparing the filing including copies of all reinsurance treaties. Such a filing is subject to credits and refunds if the rate reductions are determined inadequate. This type of filing shall also be limited to the effects of the "Presumed Factors" on the rates currently in effect and the elimination of the 25% rapid cash buildup portion of the insurer's Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund premium and must be accompanied by a sworn statement from the chief executive officer or chief financial officer and actuary responsible for preparing the filing. The procedures for submitting this type of "Presumed Factors" filing can be found in Attachment B. A "True-Up" Filing as required by the Office's "Presumed Factors" order. After making the "Presumed Factors" filing, insurers shall make a "True-Up" filing pursuant to the "file and use" provisions of s. 627.062(2)(a)1, Florida Statutes, that is a complete rate filing to reflect the savings or reductions in loss exposure to the insurer due to all the provisions of HB 1A and the anticipated 2007 reinsurance program. The procedure for submitting the "True Up" filing is identical to the annual rate filing procedures in I-file, except the appropriate selections now read as "Rates Only Including 'True Up' Filings Pursuant to the 'Presumed Factors' Order" or "Rate & Rule Including 'True Up' Filings Pursuant to the 'Presumed Factors' Order." On March 1, 2007, the Office issued its "Presumed Rating Factors" report, which estimated an overall statewide savings of 24.3 percent attributed to the changes to the CAT Fund made in Section 2 of Chapter 2007-1. The Presumed Factors included the savings from the new reinsurance made available to insurers under Chapter 2007-1 and the savings due to the elimination of the 25 percent rapid cash buildup provision of prior law. On March 15, 2007, FFB made their Presumed Factors filing using the "short form" process described in Informational Memorandum OIR-07-06M. FFB requested and received approval of an overall homeowners' insurance rate decrease of -24.5 percent. The effective date of the filings was to be June 1, 2007. On May 9, 2007, FFB made their "True Up" filing, which is at issue in this case. The first filing sought a rate increase of +26.8 percent, which when combined with the Presumed Factor filing would have resulted in a rate decrease for their policyholders of -3.6 percent. The effective date selected by FFB for their "True-Up" filing was October 1, 2007. On May 14, 2007, the Office acknowledged receipt of FFB's rate filing. In return, the Office asked 51 questions seeking catastrophe model support information in accordance with Section 627.0628, Florida Statutes (2006). The Office also requested that FFB update its statewide rate indications. On May 21, 2007, FFB responded to the Office's May 14, 2007, request by providing a document prepared by Applied Insurance Research (AIR) concerning the AIR model, which FFB had used in its calculations supporting its rate filing. On May 25, 2007, FFB updated the statewide indications and further amended their filing to divide the HO forms and the HXL Form 9. On June 22, 2007, FFB revised the May 9, 2007, filing, claiming that the revision had resulted from the "delay of Florida Farm Bureau Filing 07-15 (OIR Filing FCP 07-03807), the renegotiation of [their] 2007 reinsurance program, a systems restraint not previously accounted for, and to follow up after the March 15, 2004, effective rate filing." The effect of the amendment was that FFB was now seeking a +30.3 percent rate increase, which when combined with their Presumed Factor filing would have resulted in a rate decrease for their policyholders of -1.6 percent. Following its review of the amended filing, the Office asked a number of questions on July 2, 2007. FFB provided additional information in response to the questions on July 8, 2007. On July 10, 2007, a public hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, in accordance with Section 627.0629, Florida Statutes (2007),3/ to discuss the rate increase requested by FFB. By letter dated July 17, 2007, and forwarded to FFB on July 19, 2007, the Office issued its Notice of Intent to Disapprove the filing of FFB. The Office listed 12 deficiencies as its grounds for denying the rate filing. The parties have stipulated that items 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the NOI are no longer in issue. The remaining reasons for denial are listed below: The rate filing and requested rate fail to reflect a reduction in policyholder premiums consistent with the expansion of the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund coverage contrary to the intent and requirements of HB1A. Company has not provided sufficient support that the reinsurance cost in the filing reflecting coverage levels, reinsurance premium amounts and expected recoveries does not result in excessive reinsurance cost related to services rendered not permitted per Section 627.062, F.S. Company has not provided sufficient support that Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund cost filing is consistent with tax exempt status of the fund. Company failed to completely respond to the Office questions for required disclosure of all assumptions and factors used by the Hurricane model as required by Section 627.0628, F.S. Company has failed to support use of model for Catastrophe losses other than hurricane. Company has failed to support that loss trend is not excessive. * * * Company has failed to support the trend procedure used to adjust hurricane model losses is appropriate and consistent with premium trending in the indications. Company has failed to support the allocation of reinsurance cost to territory in their territorial indications. DEFICIENCY 1: FAILURE TO REFLECT A REDUCTION IN POLICYHOLDER PREMIUMS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE CAT FUND FFB received a healthy rate increase in December 2006, ostensibly to alleviate the industry-wide increase in the reinsurance premiums. FFB had the majority of its reinsurance coverage in place by January 2007, and the reinsurance placed FFB at a one-in-190 year PML. FFB had intended to purchase additional reinsurance during 2007 in order to get the PML level closer to the one-in-250 year PML, which had been its goal in previous years. In January 2007, FFB had reinsurance with the CAT Fund, American Ag, and other private reinsurance providers brokered through AON. Chapter 2007-1 provided that the rate change had to consider the available coverage options provided by the expansion of the CAT Fund and provided that any additional cost for private reinsurance that duplicates the coverages offered by the CAT Fund could not be factored in determining the change in the rate. FFB estimates that $25,127,526 of its January 1, 2007, reinsurance premium duplicated the less expensive coverage available from the newly expanded CAT Fund. The estimated premiums for the CAT Fund coverage available after the enactment of Chapter 2007-1 were $7,555,058. The reinsurance treaty between FFB and American Ag contained a provision which allowed FFB to essentially cancel coverage which was duplicative of coverage provided by the CAT Fund as a result of legislative changes. FFB did not have such a provision in its treaties with its other private reinsurers. FFB's Third Master layer of reinsurance was placed with American Ag who, in turn, reinsured that coverage in the private reinsurance market. FFB was able to renegotiate the Third Master layer to remove the CAT Fund overlap because the contract required American Ag's reinsurers to amend the contract if the CAT Fund was amended. The First High reinsurance layer was placed through FFB's broker, AON, with a number of other private reinsurers. Since the treaties with these private reinsurers did not contain a provision similar to the American Ag treaty, these private insurers were unwilling to reduce the coverage with FFB to eliminate duplication from the CAT Fund. FFB had contracted to pay $15,750,000 for it First High coverage. The CAT Fund coverage would have eliminated all but $1.75 million of that premium. FFB had already paid a portion of the $15.75-million premium to it private insurers, and the reinsurers were resisting refunding the premium. FFB offered to purchase a third event coverage for the First High and to add a new top layer of $50 million coverage in return for a reduction of First High premium of several million dollars. The effective date of the renegotiated First High and the new Third High reinsurance contracts were made retroactive to January 1, 2007. FFB purchased a $30 million aggregate following the enactment of Chapter 2007-1 and the renegotiation of their reinsurance program. The increased reinsurance coverage resulting from the renegotiations with the private reinsurers brought FFB's PML more in line with its one-in-250 year goal. In order to determine the amount of reinsurance to purchase to bring it to its one-in-250 year goal, FFB used a near term sensitivity analyses on the AIR model "as a benchmark for its PML determinations and reinsurance program purchases." The near term sensitivity analysis was used in "response to requirements from rating agencies, such as A.M. Best." According to FFB, the use of the near sensitivity analyses "exceeds that of the normal '10K standard' event set and is used in preparation for A.M. Best's annual rating agency review, as required." FFB "believe[d] the version 8.2 representation of near term sensitivity to be overstated, but use[d] this analysis as required by A.M. Best." The use of the near term sensitivity model would result in an increase of the amount of reinsurance needed to reach the one-in-250 year PML. The increase in reinsurance coverage is being borne by the policyholders. As stated by Mark Crawshaw, FFB's expert witness: Generally, the more reinsurance FFB buys, the greater financial security FFB offers its policyholders. However, this greater security comes at a cost of greater reinsurance premiums which are passed on to the policyholders. In other words, there is a trade-off between the level of financial security and the cost of that security to policyholders. The Best's Financial Strength Ratings provide an objective basis for quantifying and evaluating this trade- off. FFB has failed to comply with the intent of the Legislature in Chapter 2007-1. It has failed to reflect in its rate filing the savings in the form of reduction in premiums to the policyholders that would be realized from the expansion of the CAT Fund and the reduction in CAT Fund premiums. DEFICIENCY 2: FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT THAT REINSURANCE COSTS DOES NOT RESULT IN EXCESSIVE REINSURANCE COST Item 2 addresses the Office's assertion that FFB has not provided sufficient support that the reinsurance cost in the rate filing reflecting coverage levels, premium amounts and expected recoveries does not result in excessive reinsurance cost related to services rendered. In reviewing the rate filing of FFB, the Office determined that FFB's reinsurance costs were significantly higher than the rest of the market. More significantly, the amount of catastrophe recoveries was both unsupported and understated. FFB's support for recoveries in the filing was reliance upon the AIR model, with the only information based on FFB's data for one month. Although believing that a recovery percentage of less than ten percent was an inadequate return given the cost of the reinsurance, the actuary for the Office was unable to independently verify the recoveries. FFB has failed to demonstrate that its reinsurance costs are not excessive related to the services rendered by the reinsurers. DEFICIENCY 3: FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT THAT THE CAT FUND COST IN THE FILING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF THE CAT FUND Item 3 addresses the Office's assertion that FFB has not provided sufficient support to show that the CAT Fund cost is consistent with the tax exempt status of the CAT Fund. The CAT Fund makes no profit and as a tax exempt entity, has a very large investment income credit. The result is that the CAT Fund will basically pay more for losses to the insurance companies than they will collect in reinsurance premiums. In its rate filing, FFB did not consider the larger recoveries from the CAT Fund that would result from the CAT Fund's tax exempt status and did not provide sufficient support why the tax exempt status of the CAT Fund was not considered. DEFICIENCY 4: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ALL ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS RELATING TO THE USE OF THE AIR MODEL Item 4 addresses the Office's assertion that FFB failed to provide access to all assumptions and factors in the AIR model which FFB used in its rate filing. Section 627.0628, Florida Statutes, provides that an insurer may use a model in a rating filing to determine hurricane loss factors when the model has been determined by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (Commission) to be accurate and reliable to determine hurricane loss factors, and the Office and the Consumer Advocate appointed, pursuant to Section 627.0613, Florida Statutes, have "access to all the assumptions and factors that were used in developing the . . . model . . . and are not precluded from disclosing such information in a rate proceeding." The AIR model 8.0 used by FFB has been determined acceptable by the Commission for projecting hurricane loss costs in rate filings. Thus, the issue remaining is whether the Office and the Consumer Advocate had access to the assumptions and factors used in developing the model. On May 14, 2007, after the Office received FFB's initial rate filing, the Office sent FFB a standard questionnaire consisting of 51 questions concerning the AIR model which FFB utilized. The same questionnaire is sent to all insurers who use models in their rate filings. As of the final hearing, no insurer has ever answered all the questions to the satisfaction of the Office. In other words, no insurer has physically given the Office all the assumptions and factors that were used in developing the model. This information is proprietary and is not given to the insurer by the company providing the model. The information is available only from the company providing the model. FFB asked AIR to respond to the questions. FFB provided the response prepared by AIR to the Office on May 24, 2007. Some of the responses provided that AIR would make the information available to the Office for review and would work with the Office to provide the information in an acceptable format. Because much of the information is proprietary and confidential, AIR was not willing to relinquish possession of the information to the Office. AIR has an office in Tallahassee, and staff of the Office could review the materials at the Tallahassee Office. By letter dated July 3, 2007, the Office advised FFB that the responses to the catastrophe model questionnaire were incomplete. On July 9, 2007, FFB provided the following response concerning the catastrophe model information requested: Florida Farm Bureau has provided the Office with all the formulas and functions available to us by AIR Worldwide, Inc. The catastrophe models are proprietary by their very nature and require extreme care in disclosure. The AIR model used in this filing was reviewed and accepted by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (Commission). Additionally, the AIR models are widely used and accepted in the insurance, reinsurance, and capital markets. Reasonability measures are taken and maintained by AIR and Florida Farm Bureau as explained in the IFILE Catastrophe Model Questionnaire. AIR Worldwide, Inc. has worked with and will continue to work with and will continue to be available to the Office regarding their catastrophe models. In complete cooperation with the Office, AIR has extended the availability of their personnel and models to the Office for review, including all formulas and functions, at their Tallahassee office. It is not the intent of AIR or Florida Farm Bureau to conceal any relevant or necessary information from the Office; the proprietary nature of the information simply demands that all protections are in place to keep trade secret information inside the AIR office and out of the public domain. Florida Farm Bureau has submitted its exposure data as requested by the Office to run in the public hurricane model. Although we do not have access to the inner workings of this model and cannot validate its results or methodologies, the Office seems comfortable with its results and has used its results as a reasonability check versus our results in past filings. The Office takes the position that making the information available at the Tallahassee office of AIR is not sufficient and does not provide access to the assumptions and factors requested by the Office. Thus, the Office did not avail itself of the opportunity to go to the AIR office in Tallahassee and review the information. The Office takes the position that FFB did not provide to the Consumer Advocate access to the assumptions and factors used in developing the AIR model. There was no evidence presented that the Consumer Advocate requested such information. In past filings, where no insurer has supplied the requested proprietary information concerning the catastrophe models used, the Office has used the Public Model to test the reasonability of the losses projected by the insurer using a vendor model such as AIR. In the instant case, the Office did submit the data provided by FFB to be inputted in the Public Model. The results of the Public Model showed approximately $5 million more in potential losses than FFB indicated in its rate filing based on the AIR Model. DEFICIENCY 5: FAILURE TO SUPPORT USE OF MODEL FOR CATASTROPHE LOSSES OTHER THAN HURRICANE The Office objected to the modeled figures used by FFB as support for its non-hurricane losses. The expert for FFB provided an analysis for non-hurricane catastrophe losses using FFB's actual historical losses without relying on the results of the model. The actuary for the Office conceded that FFB's expert used a reasonable analysis and the more common method of supporting the non-hurricane catastrophe losses. FFB has provided support through its expert at final hearing for the non-hurricane catastrophe losses. Therefore, the fifth deficiency is not viable and cannot serve as a basis for disapproving the rate filing. DEFICIENCY 6: FAILURE TO SUPPORT THAT LOSS TREND IS NOT EXCESSIVE In its Proposed Recommended Order the Office conceded that the methodology used by FFB's expert at the final hearing with respect to the loss trend was appropriate. Therefore, FFB has provided support that its loss trend is not excessive. DEFICIENCY 9: FAILURE TO SUPPORT THAT THE TREND PROCEDURE USED TO ADJUST HURRICANE MODEL LOSSES IS APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH PREMIUM TRENDING IN INDICATIONS In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Office conceded that the methodology used by FFB's expert at the final hearing with respect to premium trending was appropriate. Therefore, FFB has provided support for a zero-percent loss ratio trend by assuming that the hurricane loss trend and the reinsurance premium trend were equal. DEFICIENCY 10: FAILURE TO SUPPORT THE ALLOCATION OF REINSURANCE COST TO TERRITORY IN TERRITORIAL INDICATIONS The tenth deficiency deals with FFB's allocation of the cost of reinsurance on a county-by-county basis. FFB allocated their cost of reinsurance by using the largest 200 storms in their model, rather than the entire 10,000 storm set. The 200 largest storms would invariably be in the more coastal counties and could lead to the coastal counties subsidizing the inland counties, which would be unfair discrimination. The use of the 200 largest storms as opposed to the 10,000 storm set does not support FFB's allocation of reinsurance cost to territory in their indications. In its Amended Petition, FFB alleges that the Office relied on an unadopted rule as a basis to support the NOI. Specifically, FFB alleges that the Office is interpreting Chapter 2007-1 [T]o essentially freeze insurers' reinsurance coverage levels and costs at whatever was already filed and approved for such insurers at the time HB 1A became effective (essentially the reinsurance coverage levels and costs for 2006), unless the change in 2007 reinsurance coverage levels or costs would result in a rate decrease. The Office does not interpret Chapter 2007-1 in the manner asserted by FFB. Chapter 2007-1 does not prohibit an insurer from having a greater amount of reinsurance in 2007 than it did in 2006, but Chapter 2007-1 does require that any savings that resulted from the expansion of the CAT Fund and reduced premiums of the CAT Fund be passed along to the policyholders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered disapproving FFB's rate filing. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 1st day of April, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Hurricane Andrew and its Aftermath Hurricane Andrew struck Dade County on August 24, 1992. It was a Category 4 hurricane, packing sustained winds of between 131 and 155 miles per hour with higher gusts particularly in vertical swirls along the eye wall and microbursts, which are downbursts associated with thunderstorms imbedded within the hurricane. Andrew's eye crossed Elliott Key and made landfall on the Florida peninsula near the Homestead Air Force Base. Andrew tracked in an approximately westerly direction across Dade County, its eye passing north of Homestead. Property damage from Andrew caused approximately $18 billion of insurance claims. Several personal lines residential property and casualty insurance companies went bankrupt. The Legislature authorized the Florida Insurance Guaranty Association (FIGA) to float almost $500 million of bonds to finance payment of claims to insureds whose insurers could not pay. In addition to the companies that were forced out of business, several others took steps to reduce their exposure in Florida. In order to secure coverage for Floridians, the Legislature created the Florida Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Assocation (the JUA). Eight insurers service the JUA, and the JUA's losses are underwritten by all of the approximately 185 insurance companies writing personal lines residential property and casualty insurance in Florida. Each company underwrites a share of the losses in proportion to their share of the business written in the voluntary market in Florida. In the aggregate, these companies have between $30 billion and $40 billion of policyholder surplus for the payment of claims against the JUA. Insurers continued to notify the Department of their intention to reduce their risks in Florida. By May 19, 1993, the Department had in its possession notifications from insurers of intent to cancel or nonrenew approximately 800,000 policies. The Department was concerned that, since each company writing business in the voluntary market underwrites a share of JUA losses in proportion to the company's share of the voluntary market, a vicious cycle was in operation: as more policies in the voluntary market were cancelled or nonrenewed, and assigned to the the JUA, the share of a company's exposure to JUA risk increased to the extent that the company did not also cancel or nonrenew, creating an incentive to cancel or nonrenew policies on the voluntary market that was difficult to control. On May 19, 1993, the Department of Insurance promulgated emergency rule 4 ER93-18 (ER 18). ER 18 recited as some of the Department's specific reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare: 4. No change has occurred in the risk characteristics of Florida policyholders. Although Hurricane Andrew was devastating to all parties involved, major hurricanes are random events and the risk of another major hurricane making landfall in a heavily populated area of Florida is no greater now than all of the years in which premiums were charged and no hurricanse occurred. According to insurance industry data, there have been 10 hurricanes in Florida with maximum wind speeds over 135 miles per hour [Andrew intensity or greater] from 1871 to 1992, with an additional 13 hurricanes making land fall in Florida during this period with maximum wind speeds of 116 to 135 miles per hour [approximately Category 3]. Thus, it is clear that the claims arising from Hurricane Andrew are in reality the impetus for proposed action by insurers. * * * 7. . . .. Furthermore, the FRPCJUA was designedto insure people whose insurer became insolvent or who are new homeowners seeking coverage. It was not designed to additionally process and insure hundreds of thousands of people arbitrarily abandoned by their insurers purely due to fear of hurricane exposure. In other words, the FRPCJUA was not designed as a "dumping ground" for insurers. * * * 9. Until empirical and scientifically verifiable hurricane projections are demonstrated which proves an insurer's solvency is jeopardized, the burden should be borne by insurers through cancellation or nonrenewal. Hurricane season begins June 1. There is immediate need to maintain the status quo to assure consumer protection from unlawful behavior. ER 18(3) imposed a 90-day moratorium on cancellations and non-renewals of personal lines residential property insurance on the basis of risk of hurricane claims. ER 18(4) provided: "This rule shall not apply if the insurer can affirmatively demonstrate to the Department that the proposed cancellation or nonrenewal is necessary for the insurer to avoid an unreasonable risk of insolvency." The PRUPAC Application The Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Indiana (PRUPAC) was one of the companies that had notified the Department that it wanted to initiate a plan to reduce its risks in Florida. It had a relatively high concentration of risk in Dade County at the time Andrew struck and was hard hit financially. It incurred approximately $1.3 billion of gross covered losses as a result of Andrew. Even after PRUPAC utilized all of its available reinsurance benefits, the losses far exceeded PRUPAC's entire policyholder surplus of approximately $578 million. In order to pay the remaining claims and restore the company's surplus to approximately $671 million at the end of 1992, PRUPAC's parent companies infused $900 million of capital into PRUPAC. The day after ER 18 went into effect, PRUPAC applied for an exemption from the moratorium under ER 18(4). PRUPAC's application asserted that, if another storm of approximately Andrew's intensity made landfall just north of Andrew's landfall and followed a slightly more northerly track, the company's gross losses would be approximately $1.5 billion. It called this its "probable maximum loss" from such an occurrence. The application requested an exemption from the moratorium in order to proceed with a plan to reduce its losses from such a storm event to approximately $400 million by nonrenewing policies, primarily in Dade and Broward counties but also to a lesser extent in some other parts of the state. PRUPAC proposed to initiate its plan immediately so that, by the end of 1993, it would have nonrenewed approximately 25,000 policies in Dade and Broward counties and approximately 5,000 policies elsewhere in the state. Essentially these nonrenewals would effect a reduction in the company's alleged PML in Dade and Broward counties from $1.3 billion to $400 million. (Other features of PRUPAC's plan are not relevant to this case.) Under the plan proposed its application, PRUPAC would nonrenew approximately $3 million of exposure per day. PRUPAC based its application on a policyholder surplus of $700 million, rounded up from the 1992 year end figure of $671 million. As of June 30, 1993, PRUPAC's surplus stood at approximately $657 million. The Denial Letter The Department's August 10, 1993, denial letter concluded that "the proposed cancellations and nonrenewals are not necessary to avoid an unreasonable risk of insolvency." It also invited PRUPAC to resubmit a proposal in which the planned cancellations and nonrenewals are designed to reduce your exposure to that amount which, after calculating the effects of reinsurance, would reduce Prupac's probable maximum loss to an amount not in excess of its total surplus. In making any such subsequent proposal the following shall be considered: A plan for cancellation and nonrenewal that minimizes the market disruption and difficulty for Prupac's insureds; Availability of capital from the Prudential Insurance Company of America (the Prudential). If your proposal limits Prupac's ability to pay claims to its own resources, with no contribution from the Prudential, then Prupac shall provide verification that all sales, solicitation and advertising for Prupac in this state distinguish, in clear and unambiguous terms, between Prupac and the Prudential, and that none of the foregoing contains any suggestion that the Prudential's capital backs up Prupac's policies. The denial letter did not specifically mention that PRUPAC did not prove the likelihood of occurrence of the storm event on which its "probable maximum loss" was predicated. The Department contends that this concern was "inherent" in its consideration of PRUPAC's and all applications for exemptions from the moratorium. See Finding 25. Its ER 20(2)(b) certainly is strong evidence that the Department's position in this regard is not of recent vintage. Indeed, at least from the promulgation ER 20 on June 4, 1993, the Department consistently has contended that this issue should be considered in all exemption applications. The Department persuasively explained that it did not specifically mention PRUPAC's failure to prove the likelihood of occurrence of the storm event on which PRUPAC's application was based because the Department considered the general denial, coupled with the specifically-mentioned grounds for denial, to be sufficient. It denied having any intention to waive consideration of the likelihood of occurrence of the storm event on which PRUPAC's application was based. Similarly, the denial letter did not mention anything about the tax consequences of hurricane losses. However, the tax consequences of hurricane losses was discussed during the June 3, 1993, public hearing. (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 103). Again, the Department explained that the general denial, coupled with the specifically-mentioned grounds for denial, was considered to be sufficient. The Department denied having any intention to waive consideration of the the tax consequences of hurricane losses. "Probable Maximum Loss" and Related Concepts The concept of "probable maximum loss" is widely, though not universally, known in the property and casualty insurance business nationwide. It is a concept utilized to evaluate an insurer's concentration of risk. Generally, concentration of risk is evaluated by reference to the "probable maximum loss" a company should expect to incur if a natural catastrophe--such as a hurricane, earthquake or flood--of a given magnitude occurs in the area under consideration. In such an evaluation, the industry commonly assumes an event that approximates the most costly catastrophe that has occurred in the area. When it comes to evaluating concentration of risk, the industry has a general understanding of what is usually considered to be an "unreasonable risk of insolvency." It is when the "probable maximum loss" is more than 10-15 percent of the insurance company's surplus. This concept takes into account (1) that the risk being assessed is only one of many catastrophic risks to which an insurer is exposed and (2) that the company's surplus will be called to respond to all of its losses, no matter where in the nation they arise or how. PRUPAC's share of the personal lines residential property and casualty market in Dade and Broward counties is higher than its share anywhere else in Florida or anywhere in the country. It has approximately 8 percent of the market in those counties. Its overall share of the market in Florida is only 3 percent, and its share of the market nationwide is less. Given PRUPAC's current concentration of risk, if another storm of approximately Andrew's intensity made landfall just north of Andrew's landfall and followed a slightly more northerly track, PRUPAC's losses would be approximately $1.4 billion. Using computer modeling, the Natural Hazards Research Service projected that PRUPAC's losses from such an occurrence would total approximately $1.28 billion. (This is not surprising since the actual losses from Andrew were approximately $1.3 billion.) PRUPAC reasonably added a factor of ten percent for escalation of building costs, bringing the figure to approximately $1.4 billion. But the eight percent factor it added for an increased number of policies, bringing the figure to approximately $1.5 billion, was unreasonable since PRUPAC had no intention of increasing its policies in Florida. In utilizing the concept "probable maximum loss" in the context of evaluating concentration of risk, the likelihood of occurrence of the assumed catastrophic event clearly is not considered. In certain insurance contexts other than evaluation of concentration of risk, the concept "probable maximum loss" equates to "maximum probable loss" or "the worst loss that is likely to occur." These concepts come into play in rate-making and usually are not applied to catastrophic risks. Another related concept is "probability of ruin." This concept is similar to the rate-making concept of "maximum probable loss" in that the likelihood of the actual occurrence of the risk is considered. The related concepts of "maximum probable loss" and "probability of ruin" also are used by risk managers in evaluating how to fund retained risk or how much insurance to purchase. The Department takes the position "probable maximum loss," as used in the moratorium statute, means "maximum probable loss" and that it contemplates an evaluation of the likelihood of the actual occurrence of the risk being considered. The Department also contends that, like its concept of "probable maximum loss," in the context of the moratorium statute, "unreasonable risk of insolvency" means that insolvency is not just a possible outcome, but is in fact the probable outcome, of a denial of exemption. As the Department would apply the term to the moratorium statute, loss scenarios that depend for their fulfillment upon the occurrence of statistically unlikely events would not constitute an "unreasonable risk of insolvency." It is clear that "insolvency" generally is known to mean an excess of liabilities over assets. Accordingly, the Department's position is that, to prove an "unreasonable risk of insolvency," an insurer not only would have to prove the likelihood of the occurrence of the event that would result in the "probable maximum loss," but also would have to prove that the losses would approximate the company's total surplus. The Department granted five of the 30 applications for exemption that it considered. Only one of the five included evidence on the probability of the occurrence of the storm event that allegedly would result in an unreasonable risk of insolvency, and that company alleged that there probably would not be another "Andrew" in another thousand years. But all five applications were filed by financially weak applicants. The Department concluded that, in the case of those five, "virtually any hurricane loss would have rendered the company unable to pay claims." Four of the five are now in receivership or are being seriously evaluated for a possible receivership action. Storm Probabilities The southeast Florida coast is the Florida (and United States) coastline most vulnerable to hurricanes. Yet the evidence was that, during the 122 years of recorded history, from 1871 through 1992, only seven hurricanes of Category 4 intensity (Andrew-like intensity) or greater have made "direct hits" on or "near misses" of Dade or Broward counties. (There were six Category 4 storms to do so, and one Category 5 storm to do so. There were 14 storms of unknown intensity to do so, but it is unlikely that they were Category 4 or Category 5 storms.) It is very unlikely that a Category 4 or 5 storm will make a direct hit on, or a near miss of, Dade or Broward county during any two consecutive hurricane seasons. Although there have been very few hurricanes of Andrew-like intensity to hit or nearly miss Dade and Broward counties, there were a total of 46 hurricanes, of all intensity levels, to do so from 1871 through 1992. It can be said that, given those odds, it is likely that one will do so during any two consecutive hurricane seasons. (In addition, there have been 35 tropical storms to hit or nearly miss Dade and Broward counties during the past 122 years.) PRUPAC's Reinsurance PRUPAC has reinsurance that would be payable in the event of another hurricane like Andrew. Since Andrew, reinsurance has become more difficult to obtain. PRUPAC has been able to obtain approximately $155 million of reinsurance coverage. None of the reinsurance coverage is payable until after PRUPAC pays approximately $35 million of retained risk. Then, only approximately 88 percent of the $155 million, or $136.4 million, is payable as reinsurance benefits to PRUPAC; the rest of the risk retained by PRUPAC. It is reasonable to round the reinsurance benefit to $140 million for purposes of comparing it to PRUPAC's losses in the event of another hurricane. In addition, PRUPAC is obligated to reinstate the coverage for the rest of the coverage year by repayment of a premium. The reinstatement premium would cost PRUPAC approximately $10 million. PRUPAC also has approximately $200 million of what is known as "funded reinsurance" or "funded cover." Under such a contract, PRUPAC pays a premium of approximately 20 percent of the face amount of the "cover." Approximately 20 percent of the premium represents the margin retained by the "reinsurer." The rest goes into an "experience fund." If a claim is made, PRUPAC would have to pay another premium to reinstate the coverage. The "reinsurer" would then be obligated to pay the claim. But, under the terms of the "funded cover," PRUPAC would have to contract to repay the "reinsurer" over the next four years. "Funded reinsurance" or "funded cover" does not shift any risk away from PRUPAC; it just extends PRUPAC a line of credit to pay claims. The Financial Accounting Standards Board recently ruled that "funded cover" does not qualify as reinsurance for purposes of evaluating an insurer's financial condition and solvency. A "Piece of the Rock"--The Prudential PRUPAC is owned by Pruco, a "downstream" holding company of The Prudential Life Insurance Company (the Prudential). The Prudential is a mutual life insurance company that is owned by its policyholders. It has approximately $10 billion of policyholder surplus, making it one of the largest insurance companies in the world. It makes investments on behalf of its policyholders, including its investment in PRUPAC, through Pruco. At PRUPAC's inception approximately 20 years ago, the Prudential capitalized PRUPAC with an initial investment of approximately $450 million. Until the aftermath of Andrew, relatively little in the way of money has been exchanged between the companies. The Prudential is a New Jersey company. The laws of New Jersey control the amount of money The Prudential can invest in a subsidiary such as PRUPAC. PRUPAC is domiciled in Indiana, and capital infusions from The Prudential to PRUPAC also would be subject to the Indiana insurance code and to the regulation of the Indiana insurance commissioner. Assuming The Prudential chose to do so, the evidence did not establish how much additional capital it could infuse into PRUPAC within the bounds of those constraints. Tax Consequences of Losses PRUPAC apparently got a federal income tax credit of approximately $300 million as a result of its $1.3 billion of losses to Andrew. (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 103). However, there also was evidence that PRUPAC was entitled to a credit in the amount of one-third of its $1.3 billion of hurricane losses. (Pet. Ex. 8, p. 102.) It is not clear why PRUPAC's actual credit was less than one-third of PRUPAC's actual losses from Andrew, and there was no further evidence on how the tax credit is calculated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance enter a final order granting PRUPAC's application, subject to the impact of the new legislation on the subject. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5262 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. "1.5" is rejected; it was 1.4. and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. "Much" is rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted but not necessary. "260" is rejected as not proven. (It does not account for tax credits.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 6.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the Department's General Counsel "instructed" PRUPAC as to what its application should be or contain. Accepted that the Department's General Counsel offered procedural guidance on how to apply and accepted as to the contents of the application; those items are incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (All five were in dire financial straits. Virtually any hurricane losses would lead to financial ruin.) 13.-14. Accepted and incorporated. First three sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as to (2) and (3); accepted as to the rest. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third sentence, rejected as to (2) and (3); accepted as to the rest. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven and as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to the findings of fact and the greater weight of the evidence. There are probabilities based on historical fact. 20.-22. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven as to "III"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. "More than double" is rejected as not proven. (Accepted that the Department has stated that it would be more, but subordinate and unnecessary.) "Mere brush" is rejected as not proven. (Reference was being made to a storm that tracked north to south just off the Atlantic coast, thereby ravaging the entire coastline.) 26.-27. Accepted and incorporated. (This is done for purposes of evaluating concentration of catastrophic risk.) 28. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 29.-30. Rejected as irrelevant. Regardless of how "extraordinary" they actually were, the "extraordinary circumstances" are the same ones that led the Legislature to enact the moratorium statute. PRUPAC's argument actually is that the facts were different than the Legislature thought. This may have been an argument to make in lobbying against the enactment of legislation, but it is not a good argument for PRUPAC's interpretation of the statute that has been enacted. Rejected. As to the first sentence, such evidence was offered. Besides, the burden of proof was on PRUPAC. The rest is rejected as being conclusion of law. Rejected. As to the first two sentences, such inquiries were made and such evidence was offered. Besides, the burden of proof was on PRUPAC. As for "considering" those matters, this is a de novo proceeding. See Conclusion of Law 48. The Department will not complete its "consideration" of them until it reviews this Recommended Order and enters and Final Order. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated. Penultimate sentence, rejected as being conclusion of law. The rest is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Also, the burden of proof was on PRUPAC. 34.-35. Accepted and incorporated. 36. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. 3. "Compelled by a virtual tide" is rejected as argument. Also rejected that the legislative intent was "that such policies not be terminated." 4.-10. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Except for the amount, accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 15.-17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected that the reinsurance actually was $300 million. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted as accurately reciting his testimony. Rejected as to being the legislative intent. 22.-24. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. However, subject to applicable laws. 28.-30. Accepted. Subordinate to some of the facts found. Otherwise, unnecessary. 31.-32. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 35.-38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 39.-41. Accepted to the extent subordinate to facts found. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as contrary to facts found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Rejected as generally subordinate to facts contrary to those found and as being argument. Accepted and incorporated that Bernstein's testimony did not "take into account" the Legislature's perceptions. It was from the standpoint of evaluation concentration of catastrophic risk. But it was concluded that the Legislature meant for the words it chose to have the same meaning. Accepted to the extent facts and not conclusions of law. Rejected as to the truth of those matters. They were not proven in this proceeding. However, accepted and incorporated that both the Department and the Legislature had the perceptions that the JUA was not designed to handle all of the cancellations and nonrenewals that seemed to be coming and that a vicious cycle was in operation. First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, accepted. Both irrelevant to this proceeding, subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Mitchell B. Haigler, Esquire Brian M. Nugent, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Davis, Marks & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Nancy J. Aliff, Esquire Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Tom Gallagher Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's two applications for continuing education course approval should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Florida Real Estate Commission's Notices of Intent to Deny, which were issued on February 19, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jon D. Tremper is a licensed real estate sales associate. In 1988, Petitioner established a home inspection company and has since performed several thousand inspections of properties in Florida. In 1999, Petitioner established The Home Inspection Academy, which he describes as a "private school providing training to the home inspection industry." Petitioner has developed and taught home inspection and construction-related courses to individuals and to groups including the Florida Association of Building Inspectors. Petitioner applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division) for continuing education credit for two courses that he developed and wished to present for credit to licensed real estate professionals: "Homeowner's Guide to Hurricane Protection & Insurance Discounts," and "Protecting Homes from Termites, Water Damage and Mold." The courses were placed on the FREC agenda for consideration at its January 20, 2009, meeting. The FREC denied both courses by way of Notices of Intent to Deny issued on February 19, 2009. The FREC's intent to deny was based on Subsection 475.182(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),1 the relevant portion of which provides: Approval or denial of a specialty course must be based on the extent to which the course content focuses on real estate issues relevant to the modern practice of real estate by a real estate licensee, including technology used in the real estate industry. Each Notice contained the following finding of fact: The Director of the Division of Real Estate suggested that the course could be denied due to the subject matter of the course not being related to the profession of real estate and not related to the nuts and bolts of real estate. "Homeowner's Guide to Hurricane Protection & Insurance Discounts" is a three-hour course. The learning objectives of the first hour are to understand the impact of recent hurricanes in Florida, which structures survived the storms and why they survived, and the wind resistance upgrades that are available to homeowners. The learning objectives of the second hour are to understand what insurance companies are looking for and how a homeowner can lower his premium, where to get help in determining cost-effective wind resistance upgrades, and the necessity of taking the initiative in dealing with insurance companies. The learning objectives of the third hour are to understand the "My Safe Florida Home" program offered by the State of Florida, the importance of and procedures for documentation of home improvements, and the best resources available for protecting a home from hurricanes. "Protecting Homes from Termites, Water Damage and Mold" is a three-hour course. The learning objectives of the first hour are to know the threats of termites, water damage and mold to Florida homes, where to get help when a problem is found, and the seven ways to ensure that a home stays termite free. The learning objectives of the second hour are to know and understand the unique elements of Florida climate, the importance of keeping water out of Florida homes, and the seven ways to prevent water damage. The learning objectives of the third hour are to know and understand the conditions for mold growth in Florida homes, why mold remediation is necessary, and the seven ways to keep mold out of Florida homes. Ralph McCoig, the chairman of the FREC, has been a real estate agent and broker for nearly 30 years. Since 1994, Mr. McCoig has been the owner and broker of Edita Realty in Rockledge. Mr. McCoig testified that Petitioner’s courses were of great interest to homeowners, but were not really relevant to a real estate licensee's practice. Mr. McCoig stated that a licensee's duties to a seller are to establish a price for the house based on the current market, to market the house, and to negotiate the contract of sale. A licensee's duties to a buyer are to find houses, show the properties, and assist the buyer in obtaining financing. Licensees do not give opinions on hurricane insurance requirements or on termite, water or mold damage. Mr. McCoig stated that home inspection companies, insurance agents, and licensed pest control companies are the professionals qualified to deal with the matters discussed in Petitioner's courses. A real estate licensee would be better served to retain these professionals on his client's behalf, because they are the best sources of relevant information and because the real estate professional does not want to incur liability for practicing beyond his area of expertise. Mr. McCoig testified that the FREC determined that Petitioner’s courses were not applicable to a real estate professional's job and not appropriate for continuing education credit. Petitioner testified that his courses were not designed to make a realtor an expert in hurricane protection or termite, water and mold damage, but to give the realtor the ability to offer common sense advice to his clients. Petitioner pointed out that the standard contract for sale and purchase of real property in Florida contains provisions regarding disclosure of wood-destroying organisms and mold, and that Section 627.711, Florida Statutes, requires insurers to take certain actions regarding discounts for hurricane reinforcements. Petitioner opined that realtors should be familiar with these matters in order to properly serve their clients. Petitioner also testified that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Education and Testing's web site discloses "thousands" of approved courses, including some whose titles appear equivalent to Petitioner’s proposed courses and some of which appear frivolous, such as "Feng Shui for Realtors." In rebuttal, Mr. McCoig testified that the FREC has recently denied applications for courses related to Feng Shui concepts. Mr. McCoig stated more generally that the current FREC board has taken a more hands-on and restrictive approach to the approval of continuing education courses than had been the practice in previous years, when the Division had apparently been delegated authority to approve courses at the staff level. The FREC board intends to whittle the list of approved courses down to a manageable number directly related to the "nuts and bolts" of real estate practice in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's applications for continuing education course credit for courses titled "Homeowner's Guide to Hurricane Protection & Insurance Discounts" and "Protecting Homes from Termites, Water Damage and Mold." DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 19th day of June, 2009.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arthur Hastings 708 Lincoln Avenue Leesburg, Florida John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Granada Properties, Ltd. 341 North Mills Orlando, Florida
