The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), also known as Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, and a related text amendment to Conservation/Coastal Management Element Policy 7.3.1 adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City (which also comprises Duval County) is a local government in northeast Florida whose eastern boundary adjoins the Atlantic Ocean. The City is partially bisected by the St. Johns River (River), which begins several hundred miles to the south, flows north through the lower half of the City, and then turns east, eventually emptying into the Atlantic Ocean. The Intracoastal Waterway is connected to the River and runs parallel to the coast. The City adopted the plan amendments which are being challenged by the Department and Intervenors. Intervenor Valerie Britt and the six resident intervenors own property and/or reside within the City. They each presented oral or written comments to the City regarding both amendments before transmittal but before their adoption. As such, they are affected persons and have standing to participate in this matter. Moody (formerly known as the Moody Land Company, Inc.) owns property and operates a business within the City. Moody submitted oral or written comments in support of both amendments to the City after transmittal but before adoption of the amendments. As such, it has standing as an affected person to participate. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, including the City. Coastal High-Hazard Area Because the CHHA is relevant to both the FLUM amendment and the text amendment challenges, a brief overview of its history and development is appropriate. For local governments abutting the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico, or that include or are contiguous to waters of the state, Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes, enumerates certain requirements that must be included within the coastal management element of their comprehensive plans. See § 163.3178(2)(a)-(k), Fla. Stat. The purpose of this directive is that comprehensive plans should "protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas that are subject to destruction by natural disaster." § 163.3178(1), Fla. Stat. Because it lies adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, the City is subject to these requirements. One of the requirements is the designation of a CHHA in the element. § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. "[F]or uniformity and planning purposes," prior to 2006, the CHHA was simply defined as "category 1 evacuation zones." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2005). Presumably to eliminate inconsistencies in the application of this broad definition, in 2006 the Legislature redefined the term as ”the area below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model." § 163.3178(2)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006). The new law required that no later than July 1, 2008, local governments situated on or near Florida's coastline amend their "future land use map and coastal management element to include the new definition of [CHHA] and to depict the [CHHA] on the [FLUM]." § 163.3178(9)(c), Fla. Stat. Because Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the City's current Plan still utilizes the old definition of CHHA, Ordinance No. 2008-315-E was adopted for the purpose of complying with this requirement. The SLOSH model is a computerized model developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service to calculate hurricane storm surge heights. Storm surge is the abnormal rise of water caused by wind and the pressure forces of hurricanes. Based upon various inputs, such as the direction and speed of a hurricane, initial water elevation, topography, and bathymetry, the model produces a display with storm tide elevations per grid cell. The use of a grid cell enables the model to predict storm surge in a smaller land area. The outputs of the model are storm surge elevations averaged over grid cells, which are accurate to within twenty percent based upon post-storm observations from tide gauges behind coastal barrier islands. In July 1998, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, now known as the Northeast Florida Regional Council, published a four-volume Storm Surge Atlas (Atlas) as a public safety planning tool to assist with hurricane evacuation planning within northeast Florida. (Each regional planning council in the State is tasked with this responsibility.) Volume 2 applies to Duval County. The Atlas reflects SLOSH model storm surge data on a map with land elevations and water features, thus providing emergency planners information they can use to evacuate coastal areas at appropriate times. Areas depicted in the Atlas below the elevation of the category 1 storm surge line are subject to evacuation and are considered to be in the CHHA. In preparing the Atlas, the Council used not only SLOSH model data, but other "suggested changes" (not otherwise disclosed) by emergency manager directors. Because of the time and effort involved in preparing the original Atlas, it has not been revised since its original publication in 1998. The topographical data input for the SLOSH model and the base map for Volume 2 of the Atlas was the 7.5-Minute Series Jacksonville Beach Quadrangle Map produced by the United States Geological Survey. These maps are used to establish the ground elevations for the grids but are limited in their ability to do fine resolution, that is, provide detailed information regarding the elevation for small areas of land within the grid. Although the Atlas indicates that it used the most current quadrangle map available, which was the 1994 version, the Council actually used the 1981 version. Except for some minor items, however, the record does not disclose any material differences between the two maps. Therefore, the use of the older version does not affect the validity of the information in the Atlas. The Atlas further indicates that the base contours taken from the Quadrangle Map were five-foot contours. However, both the 1981 and the 1994 versions of the Quadrangle Map only show a ten-foot contour line just to the south and southwest of the Moody property, and no five-foot contour lines. See Moody Exhibit BRJ-3. Thus, the map was "just saying that this property [the Moody property] is 10 feet or less." Time/History points are specific points within SLOSH grid cells that are selected by the Council for the purpose of giving detailed information at the point selected. Many of the points are on or near critical roadways. The Moody property is directly underneath Time/History Point 73. In terms of size, the Moody property is a very small percentage of the total grid cell in which that point is located. According to the Atlas, Point 73 is where Atlantic Boulevard crosses the Intracoastal Waterway. The Department, City, and Moody agree, and the Atlas indicates, that the maximum category 1 storm surge elevation at that point is five feet. Therefore, any land that is in the vicinity of Time/History Point 73 and is less than or equal to five feet in elevation will be inundated by the maximum category 1 hurricane storm surge. According to the legend on the Atlas, areas depicted in dark blue can anticipate inundation in a category 1 storm. The geographic area within Time/History Point 73 is shown on Plate 6 of Volume 2 of the Atlas and depicts the entire Moody property, as well the land in the vicinity of that point, in dark blue, thus implying that all or most of Moody's property is within the storm surge for a category 1 storm. However, it is noted that a significant portion of the Moody property is obscured by the Point 73 label on the Atlas' Plate 6. Even so, given the broad brush scope of that document and the solid dark blue color extending along the Intracoastal Waterway in that area, it is fair to infer that the land area under the label is also dark blue and subject to category 1 evacuation requirements. For land use planning throughout the State, the Department uses the CHHA that is established in the Atlas published by the local regional planning council. (In both the existing and amended versions of Policy 7.3.1, the City also uses the Atlas for purposes of delineating the CHHA.) Therefore, if the Atlas depicts a geographic area as being in the CHHA, the Department relies upon that information when it reviews plan amendments proposing to increase density within that area. In doing so, the Department acknowledges that the Atlas necessarily reflects the areas subject to storm surge on a "broad-brush regional approach," but points out that it would be impractical to attempt to carve out extremely small areas along the coast or waterways, parcel by parcel or acre by acre, which might have elevations above the storm surge line and not be subject to the development requirements within a CHHA. It also points out that if exceptions to the storm surge line in the Atlas are allowed, the CHHA requirements could be circumvented by a landowner simply placing fill on the property to raise the elevation. Finally, the SLOSH model is based on average elevations for an entire grid cell, and the model cannot produce a map with land elevations for specific parcels. The Department suggests, however, that generalized data is the best data available for conducting an analysis of storm surge. Because of the "broad-brush" and "averaging" constraints inherent in the Atlas and SLOSH, and the fact that the Atlas' delineation of the CHHA is used primarily for evacuation planning purposes rather than land use planning, the City and Moody contend that site-specific data is more desirable when determining land use entitlements. They suggest that professionally prepared surveys are far more accurate and precise in determining the elevation on a parcel than the Quadrangle Map, which in this case only depicted ten-foot contours. In this vein, the amended version of Policy 7.3.1 (which is the subject of Case No. 08-4193GM) allows a property owner to submit site-specific data (such as a survey) to demonstrate that the property, or part of it, is not below the category 1 storm surge elevation and is not within the CHHA. An increase of density (or development) within a CHHA is not barred by the statute. In fact, Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that plan amendments proposing an increase in density within a CHHA may be found in compliance if the adopted level of service (LOS) for out-of-county hurricane evacuation is maintained for a category 5 storm event; or (b) a 12-hour evacuation time to shelter is maintained for a category 5 storm event and shelter reasonably expected to accommodate the residents of the contemplated development is available; or (c) appropriate mitigation is provided that will satisfy the provisions of items (a) and (b), including payment of money, contribution of land, and construction of hurricane shelters and transportation facilities. Therefore, even if the Moody parcel is found to be within a CHHA, it may still increase density within that parcel so long as the above criteria are met. By way of example, payments into a shelter mitigation fund would be one way to mitigate the effects of increasing residential density within the CHHA. FLUM Amendment The property In early 1995, Moody acquired the 77.22-acre tract of property which is the subject of the FLUM amendment, although it has been used as an industrial shipyard since 1951. The property lies on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard, a principal arterial roadway which generally extends from the coast (beginning just north of Neptune Beach) westward to the "downtown" area. The eastern boundary of the property adjoins the Intracoastal Waterway. Approximately 37 acres of the property, or a little less than one-half of the total acreage, consists of environmentally sensitive saltwater marshes. These are located on the west, north, and northeast sides of the property. Near the southwest corner of the property there is also a small wetland scrub vegetative community. The commercial activities on the current site consist of approximately 116,500 square feet of heavy industrial uses involved in the construction and repair of large ships. They are located on that part of the southern half of the property which sits closest to Atlantic Boulevard and the Intracoastal Waterway. The site also includes a small harbor for docking of ships. The area immediately surrounding the existing boat basin in the south-central part of the property has been environmentally disturbed as part of the ongoing shipyard operations. The development surrounding the Moody site is a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Single-family residences are the dominant use, occupying seventy-four percent of parcels within a one-half mile radius of the property. Britt and the resident intervenors all reside or own property in a residential development known as Pablo Point, which begins a hundred feet or so to the west of the Moody property, separated only by a marshland. Directly south of the Moody property, and on the south side of Atlantic Boulevard, is a new development known as HarborTown, which in 2002 was the subject of two land use changes, one from Agriculture IV to Conservation and one from Water-Dependent and Water Related (WD-WR) to Community/General Commercial (C/GC). A companion Planned Unit Development (PUD) provides for a mixed residential development with a maximum of 690 dwelling units, 28,000 square feet of office and commercial space, 150 wet slips, and conservation of approximately 29 acres of marshlands. According to the Atlas, it appears that at least part, if not all, of that development may be within the CHHA. The property is accessed by a service road at the Intracoastal Waterway, off Atlantic Boulevard. The eastbound exit ramp, which would be used by emergency rescue teams to access the site, exits to the right and goes under Atlantic Boulevard adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway in order to reach the Moody site. Egress from the site westbound is by way of a service road on the north side of Atlantic Boulevard. The Moody property is in two flood zones: X5 and AE. Flood zone X5 generally corresponds with the upland areas at the center of the property that have been historically disturbed by shipyard operations and are not likely to flood. Floodzone AE generally corresponds with the environmentally sensitive wetland areas of the property and will likely flood in a 100-year storm. The Application and Review Process Sometime in 2006, Moody filed an application with the City to change the land use designation on its property from WD- WR and Agriculture IV to C/GC. The WD-WR classification allows for water dependent industrial uses such as shipyards, industrial docks, and port facilities. The Agriculture IV land use allows various agriculture uses and single-family residential development at the maximum density of 2.5 units per acre. The C/GC designation permits a wide range of uses, including multi-family residential and boat storage and sales, and is the same land use classification as the HarborTown project across Atlantic Boulevard and to the south. In contrast to the Agriculture IV land use, however, the C/GC land use allows residential development up to twenty units per gross acre. Thus, the map amendment will result in a potential net increase in development by 1,146 dwelling units and 200,245 square feet of nonresidential land use. After reviewing the application, the City approved the map change in December 2006 as a part of its semi-annual land use changes to its Plan. The amendment was then transmitted to the Department for its review. On March 5, 2007, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, which noted six objections and one comment. Despite the objections contained in the ORC, on May 14, 2008, the City approved the map change by enacting Ordinance No. 2007-355-E. In conjunction with the land use change, the City also approved a PUD for the property (Ordinance No. 2007-356-E enacted the same date), which authorizes a maximum residential development of four residential buildings and 590 dwelling units on the property. This density would be achieved by the construction of four twelve-story buildings, each standing around 144 feet high. In addition, Moody intends to develop marina-related specialty retail (including a club, retail, and restaurant activities) not exceeding 6,500 square feet; a marina consisting of 650 slips, a minimum of which will be available to the public on a first come, first served basis; and a public boat ramp. However, the PUD conditions the residential approval through the restriction that no residential development shall be permitted on any portion of the property in the CHHA unless residential units are made available as a result of a program of mitigation for development in the CHHA, approved by the City and the Department under Section 163.3178(9)(a), Florida Statutes. This meant that the mitigation plan would take those impacts created by residential density in vulnerable areas and negate those impacts by minimizing the time it would take to evacuate and by providing adequate sheltering for those individuals if there was not adequate sheltering already available. On July 9, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). (This action was directed not only to Ordinance No. 2007-355-E, but also to the other sixteen FLUM amendments, as well as certain other amendments not relevant here.) On August 1, 2008, the Department filed its Petition alleging that Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. The Department and Intervenors' Objections Moody (with the City's concurrence) has acknowledged on the record that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance. Although the Department has stated a number of reasons why the amendment is not in compliance, unfortunately, there is no record stipulation by the parties as to which specific deficiencies in the Statement of Intent, if any, the City and Moody still dispute. Further, in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order, the City and Moody contend that the Department and supporting Intervenors failed to sustain their objections in several respects. Because of this, a discussion of the Department and Intervenors' objections is appropriate. This Recommended Order will focus only on the objections to the amendment as adopted by the City, and not whether proposed mitigation measures will bring the amendment into compliance. The Department asserts that the FLUM amendment is not in compliance for four reasons. First, it alleges that the City has failed to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. Second, it alleges that the amendment does not comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3), and it is internally inconsistent with Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Plan. Third, the Department alleges that the amendment will cause LOS standards on two segments of Atlantic Boulevard to fail, that the traffic analysis performed by Moody was flawed, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic impacts. Fla. Admin. Code 9J-5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). Finally, it contends that because of these deficiencies, the amendment is inconsistent with certain goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (State Plan) and Northeast Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan (Regional Plan). In resolving these contentions, it is noted that the Department's Petition adopts the allegations in the Statement of Intent, which alleges that the amendment is inconsistent with numerous provisions within Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5, and the City, State, and Regional Plans. However, in its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department relies on only some, but not all, of these grounds for urging that the amendment be found not in compliance.3 The undersigned assumes that the Department has simply conformed its allegations to the proof adduced at hearing. (In any event, because the parties agree the amendment is not in compliance, this assumption does not affect the outcome of the case.) Britt and the resident intervenors are aligned with the Department and also contend that the amendment is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1 and Policies 1.1.7, 1.1.10, and 1.1.14; Conservation/Coastal Management Element Goals 2, 3, 4, and 7, Objectives 4.1 and 7.4, and Policies 2.8.3, 7.1.6, 7.1.9, 7.3.12, 7.4.8, 7.4.12, and 11.1.1; and Transportation Element Objectives 1.1 and 1.2 and Policy 1.1.4. They further assert that archeological resources will be impacted. Development Within the CHHA The Department has alleged that the FLUM amendment constitutes a failure by the City to direct population concentrations away from a known or predicted CHHA, maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times, or present sufficient mitigation to offset these impacts. These requirements are applicable when an increase in density is proposed for property within a CHHA. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.012(3)(b)6. and 7.; § 163.3178(9)(a), Fla. Stat. As noted above, the parties sharply disagree on whether, for land use entitlement purposes, the entire site is within a CHHA. Although existing and amended Policy 7.3.1 rely upon the Atlas for delineating the areas of the City within the CHHA, the proposed amendment to Policy 7.3.1 also allows property owners to provide site-specific data indicating that the property is above the category 1 storm surge elevation and therefore is not subject to the development constraints associated with the CHHA. A professionally prepared survey confirms that about 23.88 acres of the Moody property, mostly located at the south- center of the site where existing commercial activities take place, are above five feet in elevation. (The elevation on the entire parcel ranges from two or three feet along the marsh of the lower lands to nearly twelve feet in the southwest corner of the property, or an average elevation of about seven feet.) Therefore, only the approximately 53.34 acres of the property below five feet in elevation can be expected to be inundated by the maximum category 1 storm surge; the other 23.88 acres will not be affected. The areas on the property which are above the five- foot contour line are connected to Atlantic Boulevard by a service road with an elevation of eleven or twelve feet down to eight feet at its lowest point. Thus, this part of the property is unlikely to ever become completely surrounded by water or inaccessible by emergency personnel or others by car in a category 1 storm event. Even those areas that are below five feet and subject to the storm surge will only reach and maintain an elevation of five feet of water for five or ten minutes before the water begins receding. The evidence shows that slightly less than twenty-four acres of the property are above the category 1 storm surge elevation of five feet, as established by the SLOSH. The evidence further shows that the Atlas is not the most accurate or precise in terms of land elevations because it only depicts ten-foot contours taken from the Quadrangle Map. Thus, it does not identify the elevation on any property less than ten feet. Because of this, on a site-specific scale, based on the Atlas, it cannot be said with certainty that a site or portions of a site are inside or outside of the CHHA. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, for land use entitlement purposes within the City, a professionally prepared survey constitutes the best available data regarding land elevations. Therefore, as long as Moody restricts its development to the twenty-four acres that have an elevation of five feet or higher, the mitigation requirements cited by the Department for development within a CHHA do not apply. Environmental Issues The Department asserts that the amendment fails to comply with the wetlands protection and conservation requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and (b) and is internally inconsistent with Goal 4 and Objective 4.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element of the Plan. The Department also cites to Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes,4 which requires that the Plan protect wetlands and other natural resources. These requirements are relevant here since the site to be developed is bordered on the north and west by wetland areas and other environmentally sensitive lands that are characterized as primarily saltwater marshes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(3)(a) and addresses policies regarding the protection and conservation of wetlands. It reads as follows: Wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands shall be protected and conserved. The adequate and appropriate protection and conservation of wetlands shall be accomplished through a comprehensive planning process which includes consideration of the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and locations of wetlands, and which is based on supporting data and analysis. Future land uses which are incompatible with the protection and conservation of wetlands and wetland functions shall be directed away from the wetlands. The type, intensity or density, extent, distribution and location of allowable land uses and the types, values, functions, sizes, conditions and location of wetlands are land use factors which shall be considered when directing incompatible land uses away from wetlands. Land uses shall be distributed in a manner that minimizes the effect and impact on wetlands. The protection and conservation of wetlands by the direction of incompatible land uses away from wetlands shall occur in combination with other goals, objectives and policies in the comprehensive plan. Where incompatible land uses are allowed to occur, mitigation shall be considered as one means to compensate for loss of wetlands functions. Goal 4 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element provides that a City goal shall be "[t]o achieve no further net loss of the natural functions of the City's remaining wetlands, improve the quality of the City's wetlands resources over the long-term and improve the water quality and fish and wildlife values of wetlands." Objective 4.1 of the same Element implements Goal 4 and reads as follows: The City shall protect and conserve the natural functions of its existing wetlands, including estuarine marshes. In order to achieve this objective and its associated policies, the City shall continue to work with the applicable regional, state and federal agencies charged with these regulatory responsibilities. As the FLUM amendment now reads, development is limited only by the PUD. Although the PUD contains specific criteria that can be used to prevent adverse impacts to the wetland system, unless appropriate restrictions are incorporated into the Plan itself, the PUD can be amended at any time in the future to allow the property to be developed to its maximum potential. Because the data and analysis for impacts to wetlands are based on the PUD, and not the maximum development potential, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to ensure that there will be no net loss in existing wetlands, or that existing wetlands will be preserved and protected, as required by Goal 4 and Objective 4.1. Further, the amendment is not supported by adequate data and analysis to show that the City is protecting and preserving natural resources by directing incompatible uses away from the wetlands, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.013(a) and (b). Therefore, the amendment is internally inconsistent with a goal and objective and is inconsistent with a Department rule. It is also inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which requires that there be internal consistency within a Plan. Finally, the amendment is inconsistent with Section 163.3177(6)(d), Florida Statutes, which requires that the Plan protect all natural resources, including wetlands. Transportation Impacts The Department contends that the amendment will cause the LOS on two roadway links to fail, that the traffic analysis submitted inappropriately assumed densities and intensities that were less than allowed by the amendment, and that the amendment did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate traffic. Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.019(3)(a), (c), and (h). To address potential traffic impacts from the project, Moody's engineering consultant prepared a transportation analysis and hurricane evacuation study dated April 2007. This analysis was based on the amount of development approved under the PUD rezoning, and not the maximum development allowed under the Plan. The study showed that the amendment will cause the adopted LOS standards for two links on Atlantic Boulevard to fail. Those links include the segment from the Intracoastal Waterway to San Pablo Road and the segment from San Pablo Road to Girvin Road. The study does not show how the City will maintain its LOS standards on those links, assuming that the maximum development is allowed. In this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). Also, the package did not include a financially feasible transportation improvement plan to mitigate the traffic impacts. Although one roadway improvement project is under construction and a second is included in the Capital Improvements Element, both of which should assist in alleviating the traffic impacts caused by the development, these mitigation measures assume that the project will be based upon the development restrictions contained in the PUD and not on the densities and intensities that are potentially allowed under the FLUM amendment. Therefore, in this respect, the amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). After this proceeding began, the City engaged the services of Prosser Hallock Planners and Engineers to perform a Transportation Analysis Update (Update). The results of that study are dated September 2008. See Moody Exhibit AFK-4. Like the original study, the Update was "based on the site plan [described in the PUD] and not on the maximum densities allowed in the land uses requested." Therefore, because the current FLUM amendment does not restrict development to the maximum densities allowed under the land uses requested, the study fails to properly assess the traffic impacts of the changes, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(c) and (h). To test transportation impacts from the project, both the original traffic analysis and the Update used a methodology taken from a September 2006 memorandum prepared by the DOT's District II office. See Moody Exhibit AFK-3. However, this methodology uses a "significant and adverse" test to determine road impacts for Development of Regional Impacts (DRIs) under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-2. In using the so- called DRI methodology, the City and Moody assumed that the Department had approved this methodology when it entered into settlement agreements with the applicants for the other sixteen FLUM amendments in Case No. 07-3539GM. However, this assumption was incorrect. While the DRI methodology is not specifically prohibited for use in a plan amendment review, a better methodology to assess traffic impacts for plan amendments is the LOS standard referred to in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J- 5.019(3)(a) and (h). Therefore, the amendment is not consistent with this rule. Archaeological Resources The Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State has reviewed the amendment and expressed no concerns regarding potential impacts on historical or archaeological resources. The contention by Britt and the resident intervenors that such resources will be impacted has been rejected. Consistency with the State and Regional Plans The Department argues that when the State Plan is construed as a whole, the amendment is inconsistent with that Plan, in contravention of Section 187.101(3), Florida Statutes. It also contends that the amendment is inconsistent with certain policies within State Plan Goals (9)(a), (15)(a), (17)(a), and (19)(a),5 which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Those goals relate generally to natural systems and recreational lands, land use, public facilities, and transportation, respectively. Specifically, the Department contends the amendment is inconsistent with Policies (9)(b)1.,5., and 7., (15)(b)5. and 6., (17)(b)6., and (19)(b)15., which implement the Goals. The Department further contends that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Regional Goal 3.2 and Regional Policy 3.2.2. The Regional Goal requires that future development be directed away from areas most vulnerable to storm surge and flooding, while Regional Policy 3.2.2 provides that "[d]evelopment within hurricane evacuation areas should be responsible and permitted only when evacuation route capacity and shelter space capacity is available. Responsible development includes but is not limited to: structures elevated in storm surge and flooding areas, adequate drainage in flooding areas, and sufficient access for emergency response vehicles to all development." Because the FLUM amendment is now limited only by the PUD, and not by other development restrictions in the Plan, the amendment is inconsistent with the cited policies within the State Plan until appropriate remedial measures are adopted. For the same reason, the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the Regional Goal and Policy. Other Objections Because the City and Moody concede that the amendment is not in compliance, it is unnecessary to address the remaining objections lodged by Britt and the resident intervenors. Ordinance No. 2008-315-E Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 2008-315-E, Policy 7.3.1 of the Conservation/Coastal Management Element read as follows: The City shall designate the Coastal High Hazard Areas (CHHA) as those areas designated as the evacuation zone for a category 1 hurricane as established by the 1998 Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study or the most current study. In order to comply with the mandate that before July 1, 2008, it amend the definition of a CHHA to be consistent with state law, the City originally proposed to amend its current policy by redefining the CHHA as follows: The Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) is the area below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as defined by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model as established by the most current Northeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study. It is shown on Map C-18. In February 2008, the foregoing amendment, along with an amendment to another policy not relevant here, was transmitted to the Department for its preliminary review. On March 21, 2008, the Department issued an ORC in which it lodged only one technical objection to new Policy 7.3.1. -- that the amendment was inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2), which requires that when a local government adopts by reference a document that may be revised subsequent to plan adoption, the local government "will need to have [its] reference updated within the plan through the amendment process." For reasons not of record, this specific objection was not included in the Statement of Intent or in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation. Even though the Department's Proposed Recommended Order now relies upon that objection, the issue has been waived. Heartland Environmental Council, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 163 at *63 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996)("[challenger] is bound by the allegations in its Petition for Hearing as to the alleged deficiencies in the Plan, as further limited by the Prehearing Stipulation filed in [the] case"). Notwithstanding the technical objection, an adoption hearing was scheduled on June 10, 2008, at which time the City proposed to amend Policy 7.3.1 by adopting the provision as submitted to the Department. During the meeting, but prior to a vote on the matter being taken, a Moody representative submitted for consideration revised language, which added the following sentence at the end of the Policy: "A property shall be deemed to be within the CHHA unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." See City Exhibit 1. The City then adopted the proposed amendment, including the language suggested by Moody. On August 7, 2008, the Department issued a Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance (Statement of Intent). A Notice was also published on August 8, 2008. The Statement of Intent indicated that the text amendment is not in compliance because it is inconsistent with the statutory definition found in Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and it creates an internal inconsistency with Conservation/Coastal Element Map C-18 attached to the text amendment. That Map defines and depicts the CHHA as the Category 1 surge zone based on the SLOSH model in the Atlas. The Statement of Intent further asserts that the foregoing deficiencies render the amendment inconsistent with State Plan Goals (7)(a), (8)(a), (15)(a), and (25)(a) and Policies (7)(b)23., (15)(b)6., and (25)(b)7. and Regional Goal 3.2. All of these objections are based upon the City's inclusion at the end of the amendment the words "unless site specific, reliable data and analysis demonstrates otherwise." Intervenor Britt has adopted the objections lodged by the Department. The statutory definition of CHHA does not reference an Atlas or a Hurricane Evacuation Study, but instead only references the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c) requires that "[d]ata are to be taken from professionally accepted existing sources, such as . . . regional planning councils . . . or existing technical studies." No matter which the City uses, "[t]he data used shall be the best available data, unless the local government desires original data or special studies." Id. In this case, the City has chosen to utilize the Atlas as the best available data regarding delineation of the CHHA unless rebutted by better data and analysis in the form of "site specific, reliable data and analysis." So long as the SLOSH storm surge elevation for a category 1 storm event is used, the greater weight of evidence supports a finding that use of either the Atlas or a land survey identifying the category 1 storm surge contour line on a given property is consistent with the statutory definition. Therefore, the Department's contention that the text amendment conflicts with the statutory definition has not been accepted. The Department also contends that the text amendment creates an internal inconsistency with Map C-18 of the Plan. However, the evidence shows that Map C-18 is used for illustrative purposes only and is intended to be a depiction of the information contained in the Atlas. For the reasons cited in the previous Finding of Fact, the Department and Intervenors have failed to show beyond fair debate that the use of site specific data is inconsistent with other provisions in the Plan. The Department further contends that if the amendment is approved, the requirements of the CHHA can be circumvented by a property owner simply filling his property above the elevation of a category 1 storm surge line. Provided all applicable permitting requirements have been met, however, there is nothing of record to indicate that this would be inappropriate or unlawful. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the text amendment is inconsistent with the State or Regional plans. The evidence shows that the City's determination that Policy 7.3.1 is in compliance is fairly debatable. Proposed Remedial Measures for Ordinance 2007-355-E The City and Moody have proposed the following remedial measures to bring the FLUM amendment into compliance, which would be incorporated into a new text amendment or by using an asterisk on the FLUM: Limit residential development to 590 dwellings; Limit marina-related specialty retail (including club, retail, and restaurant activities) to 6,500 square feet; Make available to the general public a minimum of 100 wet and dry slips; Make available to the 590 dwelling units a maximum of 550 wet and dry slips; Comply with the current Florida Clean Marina Program as designated by state law; Confine all residential and non- residential uses (other than boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps) to the mean high water line; Confine all residential uses to areas above the elevation of the Category One storm surge line as established by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, which on the Moody property is 5.0 feet (NGVD-29); Obtain, prior to final site plan approval, a final wetlands jurisdictional line from the appropriate regulatory agencies; and Provide a conservation easement (except for boat channels, basins, docks, slips, and ramps), which will provide the highest level of protection, to the appropriate state agency or agencies for all wetlands that it or they require to be preserved. The City and Moody have also agreed to "correct certain inaccurate traffic-roadway improvement descriptions contained in its Traffic Circulation and Mass Transit 5-Year Plan" by: Revising the Hodges Boulevard roadway project to describe the construction of a 4- lane urban section from Atlantic Boulevard to Beach Boulevard; and Revising the Atlantic Intracoastal West Area Intersection Improvements roadway project (Atlantic Boulevard at Girvin Road, Hodges Boulevard, and San Pablo Road) to describe additional through lanes (from 6 to 8 lanes) to Atlantic Boulevard between each of the three intersections. No findings are made as to whether the above-proposed remedial measures will bring the FLUM amendment into compliance. See endnote 2, infra.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-355-E is not in compliance. It is further recommended that the final order make a determination that the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-315-E is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether the City of Boca Raton's (City's) amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 on December 11, 2007, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in eastern Palm Beach County located approximately half way between West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale. It adopted the Ordinances which approve the land use amendments being challenged. The Department is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility for reviewing plan amendments of local governments, such as the City. MCZ is a joint venture real estate company (and an Illinois limited liability company) that acquired ownership of the Club in December 2004. MCZ applied to the City for the plan amendments being challenged and plans to redevelop the property which is the subject of the land use change. Through its agent and consultants, MCZ timely submitted comments to the City during the adoption of the plan amendments. Robert Dukate owns and resides on property facing one of the Club's golf courses, on which are the 29.58 acres that MCZ wishes to develop. He acknowledged that he drafted the Petition (without the assistance of counsel) which was filed in this case. Mr. Dukate timely submitted comments to the City during the adoption of the amendment. The parties agree that he is an affected person. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Save Boca is a Florida-for-profit limited liability corporation formed on June 14, 2007, or approximately two months after MCZ filed its application for approval of the plan amendments. According to Petitioners' Exhibit 5, it has around eighty members, although Mr. Dukate stated at hearing that it has "[a]pproximately 70," of which around thirty-five own property at the Club, and twenty-eight live directly adjacent to the proposed development. The corporation's Operating Agreement approved on June 24, 2007, indicates that Save Boca is a "member managed organization." Petitioners' Exhibit 12. However, it has only one manager, Lillian Dukate (Mr. Dukate's wife), who also serves as its Treasurer. Even though Ms. Dukate is the sole manager of the corporation and signed the Petition, she had no role in the drafting of the document. She added that she only reviewed "a little" of the Petition before it was filed in February 2008 and "just kind of skimmed through it just to see what it was." There is one other officer, Ann Pinkocze, who serves as Secretary but has no involvement with the corporation except for signing checks. The Petition alleges that the organization "submitted oral and/or written comments and objections to the amendment during the adoption process." This was confirmed at hearing by Mr. Dukate who indicated that the organization hired an attorney (Jane West, Esquire) to submit oral or written comments to the City Commission during the adoption process. There is some confusion regarding the nature and purpose of the organization. Neither the Articles of Incorporation nor the Operating Agreement (the only two documents pertaining to the operation of the corporation) provides that information. At hearing, Mr. Dukate, who was responsible for its formation, stated that the corporation was formed "for the purposes of saving green space within the City of Boca Raton at the request of many residents in this particular community." He added that it is not necessarily limited to activities within the City and denied that it was formed specifically to oppose these plan amendments or "reap the benefits of any negotiations [it] might have with the developer." Although Section III.6 of the Operating Agreement requires that the organization conduct "an annual membership meeting," and it provides that "any member may call a special membership meeting at any time by communicating to all other members the plan to schedule a special meeting," there is no evidence that the organization has ever held a meeting or passed a resolution. This fact was partially acknowledged by Mr. Dukate when he confirmed that no meetings have been held since the City adopted the amendments in December 2007. Minimal activities conducted by the organization include the filing of a Petition and participating in this matter, sending emails and correspondence to members of the Boca Teeca community, and the hiring of one expert and counsel shortly before the hearing. According to a letter he wrote to his neighbors on June 22, 2007, or around a week after Save Boca was formed, Mr. Dukate urged them to join Save Boca "to coordinate the process" of negotiating with MCZ on behalf of the community in order to reduce the impact of the project as much as possible. Intervenor's Exhibit 21. In an earlier email authored by Mr. Dukate on June 10, 2007, concerning the possibility of hiring an attorney to oppose the project, he stated that "[c]onsidering the amount of money that the city was extracting from this developer -- $3myn [$3 million] + $185K for the median beautification + more money for work-force housing -- we should have no trouble getting in excess of $300k for our community, or almost $10k/house." Intervenor's Exhibit 22. Through cross-examination at hearing, Intervenor sought to establish that there was no action ever taken by the corporation to approve the filing of a petition in this case. However, that issue was not pursued in the Joint Proposed Recommended Order and it is assumed that claim has been abandoned. The Operating Agreement indicates that all management decisions will require "the approval of a majority of managers" and that "[a]ction by written consent may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice, and without a vote." Petitioners' Exhibit 12, page 1. Ms. Dukate is the only manager and she alone could presumably make a decision to initiate a legal proceeding on behalf of Save Boca. Except for the Petition itself, there is no evidence of any other "written consent." Background As noted above, MCZ purchased the Club in December 2004. The Club consists of approximately 212 acres on which are located a residential community known as Boca Teeca, three nine- hole golf courses (known as the north, west, and south courses), a clubhouse, an inn, and maintenance facilities. The Club is bounded on the west by Interstate 95 (I-95), on its southern border by Yamato Road, by a railroad track which lies just west of North Dixie Highway (State Road 811) on its eastern side, and by a canal on its northern boundary. Northwest Second Avenue (a part of which is also known as Boca Raton Boulevard), a City- maintained road, runs in a north-south direction through the eastern half of the property, while Jeffrey Street intersects with Northwest Second Avenue and runs from there through the center of the property in a northwest direction and eventually crosses over I-95 where it becomes Clint Moore Road. MCZ plans to redesign the Club by significantly upgrading the eighteen-hole championship golf course, creating a new nine-hole executive golf course from an existing nine-hole championship course, creating new enhanced social facilities, and constructing 211 new townhome units. The townhomes will be constructed on approximately 29.58 acres in the southwest portion of the property just east of I-95 and south of Jeffrey Street. Nine holes of the existing golf course are currently located on that site and will be eliminated, to be replaced by a nine-hole executive course in another area of the Club. It is fair to infer that one of the driving forces behind this challenge is Petitioners' opposition to the construction of 211 townhomes on what is now open space (currently a nine-hole golf course) lying to the west-southwest of the homes of Mr. Dukate and presumably some other Save Boca members. By application filed with the City on April 10, 2007, MCZ sought approval of the two plan amendments in question, including a change in the 29.58 acres from Recreation and Open Space to Residential Medium (Ordinance No. 4987) and a text amendment (consisting of a new goal, policy, and four objectives and an amendment to an existing policy) to the City's Transportation Element (Ordinance No. 4991). The FLUM amendment allows a density on the property not to exceed 9.5 units per acre, although MCZ has agreed to not exceed 7.1 units per acre. See Policy LU.1.1.2. The text amendments specifically provide for the adoption of an Alternate Traffic Concurrency Standard (ATCS). The effect of the text amendments is to allow a new interim level of service (LOS) standard (1,960 two-way peak hour trips) for that portion of Northwest Second Avenue extending from Yamato Road to Jeffrey Street to account for the anticipated impacts of the proposed development. This was necessary since the traffic volume on the roadway has been, and is currently, exceeding the upper limit of its established LOS E (1,550 vehicles at peak hour). Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS must also employ certain mitigation measures, such as improved turn lanes. The amendments were considered at a meeting of the City's Planning and Zoning Board on June 7, 2007. With one dissenting vote, the Board recommended approval to the City. The amendments were then considered and approved by the City Council at a public hearing conducted on September 11, 2007. On September 25, 2007, the amendment package was transmitted to the Department for its review. (The amendment package included four Ordinances; however, only two are in issue.) On November 30, 2007, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comment Report (ORC), which cited objections relating to ensuring adequate potable water and transportation capacity to support the proposed map amendments and establishing a level of service (LOS) standard "consistent with Rule 9J-5, F.A.C." More specifically, in terms of traffic impacts, the Department was concerned that the City had only evaluated the impacts of the proposed development rather than the maximum development potential that would be allowed under the new land use category. On December 11, 2007, the City Council voted to adopt Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991, which approved the change in the FLUM and amended the Transportation Element. The amendment package was transmitted to the Department for its final review on December 17, 2007. That package included revised data and analysis in response to the ORC. See Finding of Fact 44, infra. On January 25, 2008, a Department staff report was issued recommending that the two Ordinances be found in compliance. This was approved by the Office of Comprehensive Planning on January 28, 2008. On February 4, 2008, the Department published its Notice of Intent in the Boca Raton News. On February 25, 2008, Petitioners filed their Petition contending that Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 were not in compliance. As grounds, they asserted that Ordinance No. 4987 (the FLUM amendment) is inconsistent with Objective REC. 3.1.0 of the Plan, while they generally contended that Ordinance No. 4991 (the text amendment) is inconsistent with the EAR and various provisions within the Transportation Element of the Plan, is not supported by adequate data and analysis, and violates the concurrency statute. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners first contend that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with Objective REC 3.1.0, which requires the City to "[d]esignate, acquire, or otherwise preserve a system of open space" that, among other things, "provides visual relief from urban development." The Petition alleges that the amendment "reduces the availability of open space, as well as, the availability of land designated for recreational use within the city and does not provide visual relief from urban development." Petition, paragraph 15. Mr. Dukate's residence is approximately 150 feet from the location of the proposed townhome development and overlooks a golf course, some trees, and I-95 in the distance. The proposed townhomes are designed to resemble villas in a Key West architectural style and are clustered in groups of six connected by pedestrian walkways. The height restriction for all units is thirty-five feet. However, the townhomes closest to the single-family homes have been designed as two- story units. There will be significant landscaping and a buffer between the townhomes and I-95 and the existing single-family homes to the east. The evidence shows that if the property is developed, it will provide visual relief from urban development. In addition, the proposed development provides substantial open space on site, over sixty percent more than is required by the City's Land Development Code. The FLUM amendment also furthers the cited Objective by providing pedestrian and bicycle linkages between parks, schools, residential, and commercial areas. Although the issue of compatibility was not raised in the Petition except in the context of proving standing, the City's Principal Planner, Jennifer Hofmeister, established that her review of the FLUM amendment was a "lot more detailed and specific than a lot of other local governments would do [for] their compatibility analysis." Ms. Hofmeister concluded that the two uses are compatible under the current Plan. In making her analysis, she reviewed the adjacent land uses on the FLUM, the proposed site plan submitted by MCZ, including the maximum height of the townhomes, and the densities allowed by single- family neighborhoods and the new land use. Ms. Hofmeister further noted that higher density housing has existed adjacent to single-family homes in the area just north of Yamato Road since the Club was developed in 1973 or 1974. She also pointed out that in the field of planning, medium density (such as townhomes) is considered a transitional land use in the residential land use category and is compatible with a single- family neighborhood. Petitioners' planning expert, Deborah Golden-Gestner, acknowledged that while she had reviewed parts of the application file, such as the Department of Transportation's (DOT) traffic comments, she had never seen or reviewed the challenged plan amendments before she presented testimony at the final hearing. Ms. Golden-Gestner contended that the City's review process was flawed because it failed to consider the 1973 master plan for the Boca Teeca community, which limited development to 1,774 units, of which 1,682 have been built to date. Therefore, she concluded that the FLUM amendment violates the terms of that plan since it allows 211 more units to be built. However, consistency with a master plan is not a compliance consideration. Further, the 1973 master plan was not raised as an issue in the Petition. Assuming arguendo that the master plan is data that could have been considered by the City (although this argument was not made by Petitioners), Ms. Hofmeister established that the property subject to the FLUM amendment (a golf course) has been purchased by a separate entity (MCZ) and is subject to a different master plan. Petitioners have not shown beyond fair debate that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the cited Objective or is otherwise not in compliance. Ordinance No. 4991 amends the Transportation Element of the Plan in several respects. First, it revises Policy TRAN. 1.3.1., which prescribes the LOS standards to be maintained on roadways during peak hour and daily conditions, by providing that an exception to those LOS standards is permitted if it is "approved pursuant to Goal 5 of the Transportation Element." At the same time, the Ordinance creates a new Goal 5 which reads as follows: GOAL TRAN. 5.0.0: IT IS THE GOAL OF THE CITY OF BOCA RATON TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM CONCURRENCY MEASURES FOR CONSTRAINED ROADWAYS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PENDING THE ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ("MMTD") FOR THE CITY. The City also created the following rather lengthy objective and policies to implement the above goal: OBJECTIVE TRAN. 5.1.0: The City Council shall adopt interim traffic concurrency measures that are compatible with, and supportive of, MMTD concepts and principles, including the provision of alternative modes of transportation, funding mechanisms to support transit, applicable roadway improvements and transportation mode connectivity. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.1: The Boca Raton City Council established as its "Major Issue" pursuant to the 2005 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the adoption of an MMTD for the City. As an interim measure, pending adoption of MMTD Goal, Objective and Policy amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council desires to implement a procedure for the approval of an alternative traffic concurrency standard ("ATCS") over roadways that are constrained and exceed the adopted level-of-service as provided in Policy TRAN 1.3.1. Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS shall employ mitigation measures as provided below and must be consistent with all other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Any development approved pursuant to the ATCS shall implement mitigation measures including, but not limited to, the following: All development shall include on-site and off-site non-vehicular transportation improvements including sidewalks, shared use pathways, transit facilities and/or bike lanes. These improvements shall be constructed to either tie into or expand existing public facilities as a means to provide connectivity to existing regional transit facilities. All development shall continue to test for concurrency pursuant to the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. Any required roadway network improvements otherwise consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, such as turn lanes and signalization improvements shall be constructed by, and at the expense of, the petitioner [developer]. All development shall include a Transportation Demand Management program, traffic calming techniques, a complementary mix of land uses, appropriate densities and intensities of land, access to transit facilities, access management plans and pedestrian friendly site design. Any development approved pursuant to this Comprehensive Plan goal shall enter into an agreement documenting any and all mitigation measures, including any funding necessary to implement MMTD improvements (i.e. mitigation measures) proposed to mitigate roadway level-of-service impacts. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.2: The City shall adopt appropriate Land Development Regulations prior to the approval of any development pursuant to the Code. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.3: Any request for development approval pursuant to the ATCS shall be authorized by the City Council through an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and shall be processed in accordance with the Conditional Land Use Amendments and Rezoning provisions found at Chapter 23, Article VI, of the Land Development Code. POLICY TRAN. 5.1.10: Policy TRAN. 1.4.8. establishes NW 2nd Avenue from Yamato Road to the northern City Limit as a 2-lane, undivided, constrained roadway, in order to, among other reasons, maintain the residential character of the adjacent neighborhoods. The following establishes the ATCS for the proposed Ocean Breeze development ("Development") (Universal Conditional Approval Request (UC-06-04)) to satisfy traffic concurrency under Goal 5 of the Transportation Element, pursuant to the purposes stated in this Goal and Objective, subject to the following mitigation measures and conditions: The level-of-service for NW 2nd Avenue between Yamato Road and Jeffrey Street is hereby established as 1,960 two-way peak hour trips. The Ocean Breeze developer shall enter into a written mitigation agreement to implement the below described mitigation measures, including but not limited to those measures provided in POLICY TRAN. 5.1.1., as more specifically defined below. The developer shall contribute $6,000,000 to the City to offset roadway capacity constraints. These dollars shall be used by the City to improve NW 2nd Avenue as a 4-lane divided highway or to fund MMTD improvements that will impact the Development. The Mitigation Agreement shall specify the disposition of funds in the event the Development Order expires. The developer shall construct the following off-site MMTD improvements: sidewalks along NW 2nd Avenue and Jeffrey Street to tie the proposed development into the City's pedestrian and bikeway system. The Mitigation Agreement shall not be transferred or assignable without the written consent of the City and it shall be entered into prior to the issuance of a Development Order. * * * (Although the terms of a mitigation agreement between a local government and a developer are not normally included in the comprehensive plan, the testimony was that local governments are now incorporating this type of language in their plans.) Petitioners have alleged that the amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 4991 are not in compliance for a number of reasons, some of which are quite general in nature and do not identify the specific parts of the lengthy text amendments that are actually being challenged. First, they argue that the amendments are inconsistent with a statement found at page 37 of the City's 2005 EAR, which reads as follows: For any significant future development to occur in this area, Boca Raton Blvd. would need to be widened to a four (4)-lane divided roadway. Developers would be required to fund this improvement. The estimated cost to widen Boca Raton Blvd. to a four (4)-lane divided road is approximately 14.3 million dollars based upon the FDOT Transportation Cost Manual. Petitioners generally assert that because the Mitigation Agreement entered into by the developer and the City only provides for $6 million for the widening of Northwest 2nd Avenue (Boca Raton Boulevard) and not the $14.3 million referred to in the EAR, the amendment and the EAR are inconsistent. An EAR is the first step in updating a local government's comprehensive plan and is prepared every seven years to determine if the plan's goals, objectives, and policies are being met, or if new goals, objectives, and policies need to be implemented. See § 163.3191, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.003(44). Once an EAR is found to be sufficient by the Department, the next step is for the local government to adopt EAR-based amendments which incorporate the recommended revisions in the EAR. However, there is no requirement in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 9J-5 that plan amendments be consistent with EAR provisions. See § 163.3184(1)(b), Fla. Stat. In fact, the City may deviate from changes recommended in the EAR, so long as the action taken is supported by adequate data and analysis. In this case, the proposed amendments are not EAR-based amendments, and the Department did not review, and was not required to review, the City's EAR to determine whether the proposed amendments were consistent with that document.6 Petitioners further allege that the City is basing the amendments on the adoption and implementation of the MMTD, which "may, or may not be adopted." Petition, paragraph 18. They go on to allege that this in turn violates GOAL TRAN. 1.0.0, which provides that a goal of the City shall be to provide a safe transportation system. The purpose of a MMTD is to promote alternative forms of transportation, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes, in order to reduce automobile trips. The 2005 EAR identified the adoption of a MMTD as a major issue for the City. Intervenor's Exhibit 7, Chapter 3. While the City is currently in the planning stages for the establishment of a MMTD, it must first have money in the budget to implement the changes and then prepare amendments to the Plan and Code of Ordinances. The precise date when this will occur, if at all, is unknown. The evidence established that the plan amendments are neither contingent nor dependent on the implementation of the MMTD. Indeed, the traffic analysis supporting the amendments has not assumed that any trips would be removed from the roadway by the implementation of the MMTD. Further, the Department did not consider the implementation of the MMTD in its review of the amendments nor deem it necessary. If the City does in fact implement the MMTD at some future date, it will need to amend its Plan by a separate amendment. Therefore, the MMTD is not relevant to determining whether the amendments are in compliance.7 Petitioners further allege that the plan amendment, which specifically modifies the LOS to allow for 1,960 two-way trips on a segment of Northwest Second Avenue, violates Policy TRAN. 1.4.8 by allowing "congestion which will jeopardize the safety of not only the motorists but especially the pedestrians and the reduction of the quality of life and lead to degradation of the residential character of the community." Petition, paragraph 19. The policy allegedly contravened provides that "NW 2nd Avenue from Yamato Road to the northern city limits shall remain a 2-lane undivided constrained facility in order to maintain the residential character and provide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly culture to adjacent neighborhoods." The segment of roadway at issue is Northwest Second Avenue between Jeffrey Street and Yamato Road, which cuts through the eastern half of the Club and is a local road. Although classified as a "2-lane undivided constrained facility" in the Plan, this roadway is actually considered an undivided three-lane roadway because it has a number of dedicated left turn lanes. Like all City (or local) roads, this segment is designated LOS E, which allows for 1,550 two-way peak trips. This LOS has been consistently exceeded since 1994. (Local governments have the discretion to establish LOS standards on local roads that are not consistent with any LOS standards established by the DOT. See § 163.3180(10), Fla. Stat.) The LOS as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual and accepted by the City and Palm Beach County (County) is ultimately defined in terms of driver delay. The City Traffic Engineer, Douglass Hess, established that various improvements which are required by the City as conditions of approval for these amendments will help improve the LOS along this segment. Specifically, the developer will be required to install sidewalks along Northwest Second Avenue and turn lane improvements at the intersection of Northwest Second Avenue and Jeffrey Street. The turn lane improvements include a redesign of the north-bound turn lane (by expanding the lane from 120 feet to 300 feet long), which will allow for more storage of cars, and the addition of a new south-bound turn lane which will direct traffic to West Jeffrey Street. Mr. Hess also analyzed the intersection of Northwest Second Avenue and Jeffrey Street on a chart demonstrating the average motorist's delay during the morning and afternoon peak hours under three different scenarios. See Intervenor's Exhibit The first scenario was as the intersection currently exists in 2007 peak season; the second is 2010 conditions without the development; and the third demonstrated 2010 conditions with the development, including the lane improvements. The Exhibit reflects that the average delay in seconds during morning and afternoon peak hours under existing traffic conditions in 2007 is now 74.8 and 73.1 seconds, respectively, or LOS E. Under 2010 traffic conditions with development, including the required improvements, the average delay in seconds will be reduced to 30.5 and 47.3 seconds during morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, or within the standards for LOS C and D. Therefore, any congestion will greatly improve with this development and the improvements required by the City. Petitioners further allege that Policy TRAN. 1.3.7 is violated "due to a lack of accurate [traffic] data being provided to the city" (Petition, paragraph 17), and "[i]ncreasing the peak-hour traffic level of service standards for a development results in having no standards at all and should not be allowed under the policies of responsible growth planning and therefore violates the concurrency requirements required by the State of Florida" Petition, paragraph 20. Policy TRAN. 1.3.7 provides that "[p]roposed land use changes shall only be approved when traffic impact studies or mitigation measures ensure that adopted roadway level-of-service standards will be upheld." The new LOS for the segment in question is 1,960 two-way peak trip hours, of which only seventy-eight are attributable to the proposed development at the Club during the peak hour. In determining the impact of the development, the City Traffic Engineer considered a number of factors. First, he noted that the traffic volumes on this segment of roadway had actually been declining over the past several years. Even so, he elected to increase the existing traffic by a compounded growth rate of 1.15 percent per year. Second, based upon data provided by the County and City, he also included committed traffic that has not yet materialized on the roadway network. This is traffic that is associated with the approved projects within the area that have not yet reached full build-out of the development. Finally, he added to the roadway network the traffic associated with the Club development. The foregoing analysis resulted in the volume on the relevant segment of roadway to be 1,908 in the peak hour. Because of concerns noted by the Department in its ORC, which asked that the City assume a total build-out of the proposed new zoning category rather than the reduced number of units proposed by MCZ, the City made a second analysis of the traffic impacts. In its second analysis, the City evaluated the impacts using a horizon year of 2012, rather than 2010. Even though the developer proposed to construct only 211 townhomes, the City assumed that there would be 281 dwelling units on the property. With these new assumptions, the traffic volume increased to 1,958, which was still within the proposed LOS standard of 1,960 vehicles during the peak hour. The City reacted appropriately to this data and analysis when it adopted the challenged amendments. In challenging Ordinance No. 4991, Petitioners relied primarily upon the testimony of Larry Hymowitz, a Transportation Planner with the DOT who submitted comments to the Department on November 21, 2007, as part of the Department's review process. See Petitioners' Exhibit 10. The DOT is one of the agencies that is required by law to be provided with copies of proposed amendments for review and to then forward its comments to the Department. In criticizing the same amendment, Ms. Golden- Gestner also relied heavily upon the DOT's comments. Although Mr. Hymowitz concluded that there was a lack of information submitted by the City to demonstrate that adequate mitigation had been proposed to offset the increased traffic from the project, he did not review the adoption package or any other documentation dated after September 2007. Therefore, he was unaware of the additional data and analysis submitted by the City. In this respect, his analysis was flawed. Mr. Hymowitz also incorrectly assumed that the LOS for the Boca Raton Boulevard segment was LOS D, or 1,250 trips per peak hour. In doing so, he overlooked a footnote in the City's transmittal package to the Department which explained that links within the jurisdiction of the City are assigned LOS E. Moreover, the only objection noted by the DOT in its written comments was related to potential traffic impacts on I-95 and U.S. Highway 1. The evidence establishes, however, that the impact of the proposed development on I-95 between Glades Road and Yamato Road (which are the roadways having the two closest ramps onto I-95) was only six trips during peak hour, which is considered to be insignificant and requires no mitigation. Similarly, the impacts on U.S. Highway 1 were small, and the impacted sections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D throughout the building of the project and into the horizon year of 2012. Petitioners' traffic consultant, Mr. Wyman, concluded that because Northwest Second Avenue is already a constrained roadway, and the project will generate new traffic, the City should require "proper" mitigation, such as four-laning the roadway or scaling back the development. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Wyman questioned the accuracy of the City consultant's traffic report. He stated that if he had prepared the traffic report, he would have used more conservative estimates for pass-by trips and different directional components in the traffic count calculation. He agreed, however, that the traffic counts were done "professionally and correctly," he stated that he "respected" the methodology used by the City's consultant, and he agreed that a traffic study includes some subjective analysis by the person performing the study. Finally, in a similar vein, Petitioners have raised a broad contention that "concurrency" requirements under Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, have been violated. Petition, paragraph 20. (Although the statute runs for eight pages, a more specific citation to a particular part of the statute was not given.) In responding to this broad contention, the Department's Regional Planning Administrator pointed out that the Department is not required to make a concurrency determination in its review of a plan amendment. Rather, its review is limited to determining whether the local government is properly planning for its public facilities. In doing so, the Department determines whether the City (a) has the facilities available at the present time to meet the needs of the proposed development, or (b) the City has plans for facilities to be in place when the impacts of the development occur. Thus, the actual concurrency determination is made by the local government at the time a development order or permit is issued. In this case, the Department determined that the new LOS standard of 1,960 trips on the impacted roadway segment was sufficient to accommodate the development of the project at the maximum development potential. Finally, contrary to Petitioners' assertion, in establishing the new LOS, the City was not required to include any capital improvements in its schedule of capital improvements since none are necessary to maintain that standard. Petitioners have failed to show beyond fair debate that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 4991 are not supported by adequate data and analysis, are inconsistent with other Plan provisions, violate the concurrency statute, or are otherwise not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the City's plan amendments adopted by Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 are in compliance. Jurisdiction is retained for the purpose of considering Intervenor's Motions for Sanctions, Fees, and Costs, if renewed within thirty days after a final order is entered in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendments adopted by the City of St. Pete Beach (City) by Ordinance No. 2008-15 on August 26, 2008, are in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties The City is a municipality in southwestern Pinellas County. Following an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, the City adopted its current Plan in 1998 (also known as the 2010 Plan), which has been found to be in compliance. Since 2007, municipalities within Pinellas County have participated in the Pilot Program for adoption of comprehensive plan amendments. The statutory process is described in Section 163.32465, Florida Statutes. Under the Pilot Program, municipalities have "reduced state oversight of local comprehensive planning," and plan amendments may be enacted in "an alternative, expedited plan amendment adoption and review process." Id. Although the City must send a transmittal package to the Department (and other designated agencies and entities) for its preliminary review, the Department does not issue an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report or a notice of intent. Instead, the Department "may provide comments regarding the amendment or amendments to the local government." Id. It may also initiate an administrative proceeding to challenge whether such amendments are in compliance, but it chose not to do so here. The amendments in dispute were adopted under the Pilot Program. Petitioner is a resident of, and owns property in, the City, and he submitted oral and written comments and objections concerning the proposed amendments. As such, he is an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that Lorraine Huhn and Deborah Nicklaus reside and own property within the City, and that both individuals submitted comments to the City during the transmittal public hearing on June 16, 2008, and/or the adoption public hearing on August 26, 2008. Therefore, they are affected persons and have standing to participate. According to the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, SOLV is a Florida non-profit corporation with a principal address of 6370 Gulf Boulevard, St. Pete Beach, Florida. The parties have also stipulated that SOLV operates a business within the City. Whether it submitted comments to the City between the transmittal hearing on June 24, 2008, and the adoption hearing on August 26, 2008, is in dispute. SOLV's President, Lorraine Huhn, presented comments at the City's adoption hearing on August 26, 2008. See Petitioner's Exhibit 15, pages 63-64. During her brief oral presentation to the City Commission in support of the amendments, she did not state that she was speaking on behalf of SOLV, and at no time did she refer to that organization. However, on August 2, 2008, Ms. Huhn sent an email on behalf of SOLV to the City Clerk, which arguably can be interpreted as written support for the Ordinance being challenged. See Intervenors' Exhibit 9. Also, an email authored by the City Manager on August 1, 2008, indicates that SOLV representatives met with City representatives on July 31, 2008, to discuss the proposed amendments. See Intervenors' Exhibit 10. Since these written and oral comments were submitted between the transmittal and adoption hearings, SOLV meets the definition of an affected person and has standing to participate in this proceeding. Background By way of background, the City was initially incorporated in 1957 as St. Petersburg Beach by consolidating the towns of Pass-a-Grille, Don CeSar, Belle Vista, St. Petersburg Beach, and certain unincorporated areas of Pinellas County. It occupies a six-mile long barrier island (known as Long Key), which lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Boca Ciega Bay, with a maximum width of three-quarters of a mile and an area of approximately 2.25 square miles or 1,286.14 acres. The name was shortened to St. Pete Beach in 1994 to lessen the confusion with the City of St. Petersburg, which lies to the east. The City has about 4.5 miles of beaches and is very densely populated. Most of the City has been developed with only 13.40 acres, or around one percent of the land, vacant and undeveloped. The entire City is within the flood plain, and much of the City is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The current population is around 10,000. To place the current dispute in proper perspective, a history of events that began in 2002 is necessary. With the assistance of a consulting firm, beginning in April 2002 the City initiated redevelopment planning efforts for various areas within the City including Corey Avenue/Blind Pass Road, Pass-a- Grille, Gulf Boulevard, and residential neighborhoods. The intention of this effort was to define the starting point for subsequent master planning efforts by the City. A Final Report (also known as the Visioning Statement or Plan) was issued by the consulting firm in July 2002. See Respondent's Exhibit 1. This was followed by a master planning process by another consulting firm, which was intended, among other things, to develop a strategy for dealing with the redevelopment of older and outdated properties within the resort area of the City (along the Gulf of Mexico), rather than having them converted into residential condominiums because of existing regulatory restrictions. The final Master Plan was presented to the City Commission in August 2003. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. In response to the Master Plan, on June 28, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2004-24, known as the City's Community Redevelopment Plan (Redevelopment Plan), which implemented many of the recommendations in the Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibit 8. Among other things, the Redevelopment Plan created a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which included two sub-districts, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 10 of Exhibit 8, and the Downtown Redevelopment District, depicted on Map 11 of the same exhibit. The amendment was intended to establish standards for redevelopment in the so-called "resort" area of the City, which runs north-south along Gulf Boulevard adjacent to the beach on the western side of Long Key, while the same thing was intended for the core downtown area. Although Petitioner is correct that Ordinance No. 2008-15 differs from Ordinance No. 2004-24 in some respects, there are many similarities between the two, including the creation of the two Redevelopment Districts, additional character districts within the two main Districts, and the maps of the Districts. Also, both Ordinances have many of the same Goals, Objectives, and Policies, and both include unnumbered narrative text setting out allowable uses as density and intensity standards. On August 19, 2005, Petitioner and a non-profit association filed a challenge to Ordinance No. 2004-24 under Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. See Citizens for Responsible Growth and William C. Pyle v. Department of Community Affairs and City of St. Pete Beach, DOAH Case No. 05- 3159GM. The challengers later voluntarily dismissed their petition, the case was closed on October 17, 2005, and the Department found the amendments to be in compliance. Under the City's Charter, however, citizens may petition to require reconsideration by the City Commission of any adopted ordinance and, if the City Commission fails to repeal an ordinance so reconsidered, to approve or reject it at a City election. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26; § 7.02, City Charter. (Ten percent of the qualified registered voters in the City must sign a petition in order to have an ordinance placed on the ballot for approval or disapproval.) Petitioners in DOAH Case No. 05-3159GM were instrumental, at least in part, in securing the necessary number of voters to sign a petition, and a majority of the registered voters in the City later voted to repeal the Ordinance in 2006. Pursuant to that vote, the City Commission repealed Ordinance No. 2004-24 and it never took effect. In 2008, six ordinances (Ordinance Nos. 2008-09 through 2008-14) were proposed as citizen initiatives. After the City refused to act on the six initiatives, SOLV and others filed suit against City officials seeking a vote on the six ordinances. See Save Our Little Village, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner Linda Chaney, et al., Case No. 08-2408-CI-8 (6th Circuit, Pinellas County). On March 31, 2008, the City adopted Resolution 2008-09 approving a Settlement Agreement in the law suit. See Joint Exhibit 1, Appendix C. The Settlement Agreement required the City to transmit and adopt the Ordinance being challenged here subject to various conditions and limitations, if the voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10, which was a Petition by SOVL proposing an ordinance to amend the Countywide Future Land Use Plan. (The City is required by the Countywide Plan Rules to transmit the countywide plan map amendment to the Pinellas County Planning Council for its review in order to adopt the City plan amendment. This process is described in Petitioner's Exhibit 33.) Notably, the City's staff did not prepare the text or the accompanying supporting data for Ordinance No. 2008-15; rather, the text and all supporting data were prepared by SOLV. The voters approved Ordinance No. 2008-10 on June 3, 2008, which provided for the review and approval of the amendments being challenged here. Pursuant to the results of the referendum, on June 16, 2008, the City approved Ordinance Nos. 2008-15, 2008-24, and 2008-25. Only the first Ordinance is in issue here; the other two are not contested. As required by Section 163.32465(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the amendments were then transmitted to the Department, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Transportation District Seven, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Pinellas County Planning Department for their review and comment, if any. Comments on the amendments were offered by the Department on August 1, 2008, and by the Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. On August 26, 2008, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2008-15. Petitioner's challenge was then timely filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 24, 2008. See § 163.32465(6)(a), Fla. Stat. ("[a]ny 'affected person' as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(a) may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings . . . within 30 days after the local government adopts the amendment"). The Ordinance Ordinance No. 2008-15 establishes a new land use category, the Community Redevelopment District, which includes the Downtown and Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Districts comprised of eleven character districts, and implements that change by amending the FLUM and certain text provisions within the FLUE and HE. The two new Districts comprise approximately twenty percent of the total land area of the City, or around 248.25 acres. The amendments are found in Attachment A, consisting of 115 pages, which is attached to the Ordinance. Attachment A includes six maps found on page 40 (Map 1 - Community Redevelopment Districts Location); page 41 (Map 2 - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment Character Districts); page 42 (Map 3 - Downtown Community Redevelopment District 1); page 110 (Map 10 - Future Land Use Map - Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); page 111 (Map 11 - Future Land Use Map - Downtown Redevelopment District, Proposed Future Land Use); and page 112 (Map 12 - Coastal High Hazard Area - Storm Surge for Category 1 (2007), St. Pete Beach, FL). Pages 1 through 6 are introductory material outlining the need for redevelopment. Pages 7 through 112 pertain to the Future Land Use Element, while pages 113 through 115 relate to the Housing Element. Because SOLV (rather than the City) prepared Attachment A, this is probably the reason why some parts of the lengthy Attachment A have been drafted in narrative style. Besides Attachment A, support documentation for the amendments is attached to the Ordinance and includes the legal notices published in a local newspaper; Citizen Courtesy Information Lists; Commission and Planning Board Agendas; excerpts from Division 31 of the City's Land Development Code; copies of various Ordinances; and a 127-page Special Area Plan submitted to the Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority in support of the amendment that was necessary in order for the City to adopt the Ordinance. In addition, the data and analyses used for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2004-24 were relied upon to support the amendments, including the Visioning Plan and the Master Plan. Petitioner's Objections In paragraphs 9 through 25 of his Petition, which are in the section entitled "Disputed Issues of Material Fact And/or Mixed Disputes [sic] Issues of Fact and Law," Dr. Pyle contends that the amendments adopted by the Ordinance are not in compliance for numerous reasons. The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation also states that "the Disputed Issues of Material Fact and/or Mixed Questions of Fact or Law set forth in the Petition for Administrative Hearing in this matter remain disputed issues for the purposes of the final hearing." In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, Petitioner states in a more concise fashion that the amendments are not in compliance because they: are not clearly based upon appropriate data, including data required for the FLUE; [are not] based upon and supported by an appropriate analysis of the best available data; did not demonstrate "need"; [are] inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan; [are] not "financially feasible"; [do] not meet format requirements; [do] not contain two planning periods; establish a mixed-use FLUM designation of CRD [Community Redevelopment District] that [does] not meet the statutory and rule requirements; [are] internally inconsistent; and [do] not meet the minimum procedural and notice requirements. These objections will be considered below, although not in the order listed above. Procedural Irregularities Petitioner contends that the City failed to follow certain notice requirements and therefore he was unduly prejudiced by these irregularities. Specifically, he claims that the notices published by the City in the St. Petersburg Times on June 8 and August 20, 2008, did not advise the public of all amendments, particularly one relating to the Resort Facilities Overlay District; did not include a map showing areas subject to the FLUM amendments in relation to major streets; did not advise that the City was amending the coastal construction control line (CCCL) definition in the Preservation land use category; and the actual changes being made "did not comport with the title of the adopted Ordinance." Copies of the published notices, albeit in very small and sometimes illegible print, are found in Joint Exhibit 2. Assuming all of these notice deficiencies are true, Petitioner did not establish that he was prejudiced by any irregularities. Besides being intimately involved in this controversy since its inception in 2002, the evidence shows that he attended both the transmittal and adoption hearings of Ordinance No. 2008-15; that he addressed the City Commission at both meetings; that he was provided copies of all pertinent documents; that through counsel he filed a Petition requesting a formal evidentiary hearing, which raises a litany of compliance issues; that he was allowed to conduct discovery; and that he was given an opportunity to fully litigate each issue in his Petition. The contention that he was prejudiced by procedural irregularities is hereby rejected. Planning Time Frames Petitioner alleges that the Plan, as amended, does not set forth either a short-term planning time frame for the five- year period following adoption, or a long-term planning timeframe for at least a ten-year period following adoption. He contends that this is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(4), which requires that "[e]ach local government comprehensive plan shall include at least two planning periods: one for at least the first five year period subsequent to the plan's adoption and one for at least an overall 10-year period." See also § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. The existing Plan includes at least two planning periods, a Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) covering the first five years after the adoption of the Plan in 1998, and the School Board's Five-Year Work Program for fiscal year 2007-08 through 2011-2012. Although the CIP was first adopted in 1998, the statutory deadline for all local governments to transmit an updated CIP was December 1, 2008, or after the amendment was adopted. Also, the existing Plan utilized a population estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) to project population for the City for the upcoming ten-year period. Besides the above time frames, the new amendment contains two other planning time frames for implementation of the redevelopment incentives in the Plan. First, it contains a Residential Unit Reserve section for the new District, holding specific numbers of residential units in reserve in three of the character districts (Downtown Core Residential District, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road District, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard District) for the first five years after adoption of the plan amendments. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 106-107. This allows the City to evaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment without releasing all residential density otherwise authorized. Second, the amendment contains a General Residential Unit Density Pool Reserve of 195 residential units in the Large Resort District which cannot be released in the first ten years after adoption of the amendment. See Joint Exhibit 2, page 108. Like the other provision, this planning tool allows the City to reevaluate the effectiveness of the redevelopment incentives in the amendment prior to authorizing additional density. Petitioner's own planner agreed that these time frames were part of the planning period for the proposed amendment. While Petitioner contends that the time periods are "minimum waiting periods not tied to any fixed time frame," it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that they will become operative once the Ordinance is implemented. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Plan, as amended, complies with the requirement for two planning time frames and is not inconsistent with either the rule or statute. Mixed-Use Categories Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) encourages mixed use categories of land and provides that if they are used, "policies for the implementation of such mixed uses shall be included in the comprehensive plan, including the types of land uses allowed, the percentage distribution among the mix of uses, or other objective measurement, and the density and intensity of each use." Petitioner contends that FLUE Policy 2.1.1 establishes a new mixed use district (the Community Redevelopment District) but the Plan, as amended, does not contain the requirements set forth in the rule. The Community Redevelopment District is a mixed use land use category, as is each of the character districts included within the two sub-districts. The Plan identifies four character districts within the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District (Large Resort, Boutique Hotel/Condo, Activity Center, and Bayou Residential) and seven character districts within the Downtown Redevelopment District (Town Center Core, Town Center Corey Circle, Town Center Coquina West, Downtown Core Residential, Upham Beach Village, Commercial Corridor Blind Pass Road, and Commercial Corridor Gulf Boulevard). FLUE Policy 2.1.1 incorporates the development standards found in the "Community Redevelopment District" section of the FLUE for the two larger sub-districts and eleven smaller character districts. Therefore, it provides the policies required for the implementation of the new land use category. These policies govern the distribution, location, and extent of uses and densities and intensities of uses within the sub-districts. They also establish the boundaries, uses, densities, and intensities of use for the eleven character districts. The types of land uses allowed in each character district are clearly listed in a section of the text amendment corresponding to each character district titled "Permitted Uses and Standards." See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 75, 79, 82, 84, 91, 93, 98, 100, 102, and 105. For example, in the Large Resort District, primary uses are hotel, motel, resort condominium, and medium density multi-family residential. Id. at page 75. The density and intensity standards for each type of use allowed within each character district are also listed in the same sections of the Attachment. For example, the maximum density of residential development in the Boutique Hotel/Condo District is eighteen units per acre. Id. at page 75. Finally, the policies for each character district provide objective criteria governing the actual mix of uses permitted on any redevelopment site within the Community Redevelopment District. The location of each allowable use will be distributed throughout each district. For example, the Downtown Redevelopment District creates a traditional downtown core area with traditional downtown core services surrounded by residential neighborhoods buffered from commercial intrusion. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, page 36. On the other hand, the Gulf Boulevard Redevelopment District is a core resort and shopping destination for residents and visitors. Id. The Community Redevelopment District does not use a percentage distribution among the mix of uses since the City is essentially built out and already has a mix of uses within the newly-created districts. Therefore, the plan amendment accomplishes a distribution of mix of land through location of uses in multi- story buildings, rather than a percentage distribution of mix. By doing so, it satisfies the requirement of the rule. See, e.g., The University Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Department of Community Affairs, et al., DOAH Case No. 92- 0691GM, 1993 Fla. ENV LEXIS 19 (DOAH Nov. 2, 1992, DCA Feb. 24, 2003). Therefore, it is found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is inconsistent with the rule. Preservation District The plan amendment is based upon the City's Visioning Plan and Master Plan. See Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 3. Neither document contains any recommendation that the City's Preservation Land Use District be revised in any way. In the existing 2010 Plan, the Preservation District is defined in FLUE Policy 1.1.1 as those beaches seaward of the CCCL, Fuller Island, and other environmentally significant natural resource areas. No development is allowed in the Preservation District except dune walkovers. Ordinance No. 2008-15 renumbers Policy 1.1.1 as 2.1.1 and makes a one-word change (underscored below) in the definition of the Preservation District so that it now reads as follows: Preservation (P), applied to the beaches seaward of the Florida Coastal Construction Control Line, Fuller Island and other environmentally significant natural resource areas; such designated areas shall not be developed except to provide beach access dune walkovers from adjacent developed properties under the provisions of the City's Beach Management Regulations. Petitioner argues that the effect of this change is to establish a new boundary line for the Preservation District (further seaward in some instances) and to no longer use the setback line previously used by the City, which was known as the Coastal Construction and Excavation Setback Line. He further contends that the City's setback line and the Florida (State) CCCL encompass different areas along the beach. In some cases, the City's setback line is more seaward than the State, and vice versa. Petitioner contends that the data and analysis for the 2010 Plan "implies" that the location of the Preservation land use category should be based upon the more restrictive of the City setback line or State CCCL, that is, whichever is less seaward. It is fair to infer from the evidence that the underlying reason for raising this claim is that an old Travelodge motel sits just south and east of Petitioner's condominium building and is scheduled to be redeveloped as a new high-rise condominium. Petitioner is concerned that if the State CCCL (rather than the City setback line) is used, it will allow the new building to be constructed closer to the Gulf of Mexico, presumably reducing his view and beach access. The City's witness Holly established that the City does not have a CCCL. Rather, it has an excavation and setback line. He further established that the City has consistently enforced the Preservation District geographically as the area seaward of the State CCCL. Also, the City's land development regulations implementing the existing Plan define the Preservation District as the property seaward of the State CCCL. The Countywide Plan also uses the State CCCL. The amendment is clarifying in nature and is intended to make the text in the City's Plan consistent with the Countywide Plan and existing enforcement practices. As explained by Mr. Holly, the City's setback line predates the establishment of the State CCCL, and functions much in the same manner as the State CCCL "in that it precludes structural development seaward of that line without specific application for approval of variance for those standards." See Transcript, page 415. Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that this clarifying change in the definition of the Preservation District in FLUE Policy 2.1.1 is not supported by adequate data and analysis. Format of Plan Amendment Petitioner next contends that the plan amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1), which contains general format requirements for comprehensive plans. For example, he points out that there are lengthy unnumbered narrative sections in Attachment A that apparently supplement the numbered sections, that the references to the land development regulations do not identify the specific land development regulation adopted by reference, that the series of maps are not labeled properly, and that the maps do not include north-south arrows or a scale. The amendment contains specific goals, objectives, and policies for the Community Redevelopment District. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 43-48. It also contains goals, objectives, and policies for the two redevelopment districts, numbered policies for each character district, as well as unnumbered text setting forth permitted uses and standards for each character district. See Joint Exhibit 2, pages 67-70, 71-77, 78-80, 83-85, 86-90, 90-92, 92-94, 94-97, 97-98, 99-101, 101-103, and 104-106. The deposition testimony of Michael McDaniel, Chief of the Department's Office of Comprehensive Planning, established that while they are not typically used, the narrative sections of Attachment A are permissible to explain the goals, policies, and objectives. He further stated that nothing in the governing statutes or rules requires that all material adopted as part of a plan be labeled as, or be in the form of, a goal, policy, or objective, that many variations of format are found in plans adopted by local governments throughout the State, and that the Plan, as amended, is not inconsistent with any requirement. As to the makeup of the maps, Mr. McDaniel stated that while the Department prefers that maps be labeled as future land use maps, and that they contain the detail suggested by Petitioner, a failure to do so does not render the plan amendment not in compliance. Finally, he stated that the Department staff had no difficulty in understanding the maps or map series when they were reviewed by the Department in July 2008. Notably, the Department did not address any of these format issues when it prepared comments to the proposed amendment on August 1, 2008. Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plan amendment is inconsistent with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(1). Data and Analyses Petitioner alleges that the City failed to rely upon the best available data sources to support the amendment, that a proper analysis of the data was not made, and that the City did not react to the data in an appropriate way, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). Petitioner presented no expert testimony or other evidence supporting the claim that the plan amendment lacked supporting data and analysis. Although he introduced into evidence various documents on the theory that this information constituted better data than that used by the City, the evidence does not support this allegation. For example, various documents concerning hurricane evacuation times were submitted, including the Tampa Bay Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study Update 2006, the Pinellas County Local Mitigation Strategy (LMS), and the 2008 Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan. See Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 16, and Since the plan amendment does not increase density, however, it does not conflict with established hurricane evacuation times. Also, the City is not increasing population to be evacuated to other zones; therefore, the Statewide Emergency Shelter Plan is irrelevant. Finally, the amendment is not contrary to any mitigation strategies in the LMS. Population estimates for the year 2006 prepared by the BEBR were introduced by Petitioner, presumably for the purpose of showing that more current population data should have been used, rather than the 2000 Census data relied upon by the City. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. However, there is no requirement that the City update its population estimates and projections each time it adopts an amendment. According to Mr. McDaniel, this is normally done every seven years at the time of the EAR. In any event, the BEBR estimates an increase in population in the City of only 48 persons during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006 (from 10,002 to 10,050). Petitioner also introduced a list of claims for flood losses within the last ten years in the City for the purpose of demonstrating that the City failed to consider the location of these properties in adopting the amendment. However, the evidence shows that redevelopment policies in the amendment would bring existing older structures up to National Flood Insurance Protection standards. A list of Licensed Dwelling Units was also introduced to show that the list relied upon by the City was incomplete and failed to include a motel in close proximity to Petitioner's condominium. Assuming that this is true, the error was minor and did not affect the overall validity of the City's data. The plan amendment is supported by the City's visioning project, economic analysis, master planning project, and evaluation of infrastructure capacity and availability of services. It is also supported by data submitted by SOLV to the County in support of the amendment to the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, which includes the Special Area Plan. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that there is relevant and appropriate data supporting the amendment, that the data was properly analyzed, and that the City reacted in an appropriate manner. Internal Inconsistency Petitioner further alleges that the plan amendment is internally inconsistent with Intergovernmental Element Policy 1.5.3, which requires that the City coordinate with the Pinellas County Emergency Management Department when adopting map amendments resulting in an increase in population within the CHHA. Under the existing definition of the CHHA in the 2010 Plan, the entire City is within the CHHA. The amendment implements a new definition, as required by Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, which removes some parts of the City from the CHHA. Because the new amendment does not relate to either hurricane shelters or evacuation routes, and does not increase the residential density in the CHHA, compliance with the cited policy was not required. Petitioner further alleged that FLUE Policy 4.1.1 is internally inconsistent with Goals 2 and 3 of the Conservation and Coastal Element as well as the implementing objectives for those Goals. However, no testimony or other credible evidence was offered on this issue and the claim must fail. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Plan, as amended, in not internally inconsistent with other Plan provisions. Need Petitioner contends that the City did not prepare an analysis of need for future land uses authorized by the Ordinance, that it did not prepare an updated existing land use map series, that no tabular form of the approximate acreage and general range of density and intensity of each existing land use was prepared, and no population projections were presented, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(1)(a), (b), (c), and (g). Therefore, he argues that the plan amendment is not supported by a demonstration of need for the new land use category to accommodate the anticipated growth. The supporting documentation for the plan amendment demonstrates the need for redevelopment of the City's lodging establishments, the need for additional height for tourist lodging uses in order to prevent conversion of those uses to condominium uses, and the need for aesthetic and other design changes to the City's building facades, streetscapes, and public areas with the redevelopment area. See Joint Exhibit 2, Attachment A, pages 1-3. The plan amendment does not propose new density to accommodate new populations. In fact, it reduces the overall residential density in the City, and the total amount of dwelling units, temporary lodging units, and non-residential (commercial) floor area ratio will also be reduced. Because the plan amendment does not increase the total amount of development, but is simply a plan for redevelopment of existing uses, there is no requirement that a need analysis be prepared. Financial Feasibility Petitioner also contends that the Plan, as amended, has not been shown to be financially feasible and does not include an updated five-year CIP. See § 163.3177(3)(a)5., Fla. Stat. ("the comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element [which] set[s] forth: . . . [a] schedule of capital improvements . . . "). The statutory requirement for a CIP applies to projects necessary to ensure that adopted levels of service (LOS) standards are achieved and maintained. It applies to all public facilities and services for which an LOS standard is adopted pursuant to Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes. This was confirmed by the testimony of Mr. McDaniel. The evidence shows that all relevant City infrastructure facilities are operating at or above the adopted LOS. Therefore, there are no deficiencies which need correction in order to implement the redevelopment plan. As further confirmed by Mr. McDaniel, if a plan has been found to be in compliance, and the local government proposes changes that do not create a need for capital improvements, the plan amendment does not need to include an amendment to its CIP. In this case, the amendment does not increase the total permissible amount of residential density or non-residential use within the Community Redevelopment District, and no additional infrastructure capacity is needed. Petitioner's expert identified certain infrastructure projects for which he contended an updated CIP is needed, such as sidewalks, street lighting, and bike lanes. While these types of projects are all integral to the proposed redevelopment plan, they are not subject to concurrency or the financial feasibility standard. Even if they were, Petitioner's expert agreed such improvements could be accomplished through private investment when permits for projects are issued. Because Petitioner failed to show that the plan amendment would require the construction of any new or expanded public facilities to provide additional capacity to serve the development, his contention that the plan is not financially feasible must necessarily fail. Other Contentions All other contentions not discussed herein have been considered and rejected because no evidence on the issues was presented or the more credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the contentions are without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-15 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2009.
Conclusions On July 27, 2011, an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Division of Administrative Hearings entered an Order Closing File And Relinquishing Jurisdiction to the Department.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA11-GM-168 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this é day of August 2011. Paula Ford, Agency Clerk a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 By U.S. Mail: K. Richard Blount, RN, AICP David C. Schwartz, Esq. Post Office Box 14642 Alachua County Attorney’s Office Gainesville, FL 32604 Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, FL 32602-2877 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Amendment 15-1ACSC to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinances 003-2016 and 004-2016 on February 10, 2016, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with the duty and responsibility to adopt and maintain a comprehensive growth management plan pursuant to section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. Petitioners reside in, and own property within, the County. Petitioners submitted oral or written comments concerning the Plan Amendment to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. Rockland owns the property subject to the Plan Amendment and is the applicant for the Plan Amendment.4/ The Navy owns the Station in the County and submitted oral or written comments concerning the Plan Amendment to the County during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing for the Plan Amendment and ending with the adoption of the Plan Amendment. The Subject Property The Plan Amendment affects five different parcels of property in the Lower Keys. The parcels are owned by Rockland and are all either current or former mining sites with developed ancillary uses. Most of the property is vacant scarified land and the remainder supports warehousing and distribution facilities and related uses. Four of the parcels are located on Rockland Key (the Rockland parcels): two along U.S. Highway 1 and two on the north side of the Key along the Gulf of Mexico. Together, the four parcels total 29.59 acres. The existing FLUM designation of the parcels is Industrial, the primary purpose of which is to “provide for the development of industrial, manufacturing, and warehouse and distribution uses.” FLUE Policy 101.4.7. (2015).5/ The non-residential development potential of the property is between 322,235 and 773,364 square feet. The Industrial category also allows residential development at a density of one dwelling unit per acre (1du/acre) and a maximum of 2du/buildable acre.6/ Under the existing FLUM category, the Rockland parcels could be developed for a maximum of 47.3 residential units.7/ The parcel on Big Coppitt Key (the Big Coppitt parcel) is a narrow L-shaped 14.8-acre property bordering a former mining pit. The parcel runs north along the western boundary of Petitioners’ residential subdivision, then west along the Gulf of Mexico. Petitioners’ homes are located directly adjacent to the Big Coppitt parcel. The majority of the parcel (12.33 acres) is designated Industrial and the remainder (2.5 acres) as Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF). The non-residential development potential of the Big Coppitt parcel is between 161,498 and 365,816 square feet. Under the existing FLUM categories, the Big Coppitt parcel could be developed for a maximum of 43.7 dwelling units. Together, the subject property could be developed for a maximum of 91 dwelling units or 1.1 million square feet of non- residential uses, or some proportional mix thereof. The Plan Amendment The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the Rockland parcels from Industrial to Commercial. The Commercial FLUM category does not allow residential development, thus limiting future development of the property to between 193,341 and 644,470 square feet of non-residential uses. The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation on the Big Coppitt parcel to Mixed Use/Commercial (M/C), which allows residential development at a maximum density of 2-8du/acre. Under the M/C designation, the Big Coppitt parcel could be developed for a maximum of 213.6 dwelling units. Under the M/C designation, the Big Coppitt parcel has a non-residential development potential of between 64,599 and 290,697 square feet. However, the Plan Amendment also creates FLUE Policy 107.1.6, a sub-area policy applicable to the Big Coppitt parcel. The policy restricts development to deed- restricted affordable housing units (minimum mix of 10 percent median-income and at least 20 percent combination of low- and very low-income categories) and employee housing. The policy prohibits all non-residential development of the property, including dredging, and prohibits development of market-rate and transient-dwelling units. As adopted, the Plan Amendment authorizes development of up to 213 affordable housing units, no market rate units, no transient units, approximately 644,000 square feet of non- residential uses, and no dredging of the existing mining pit on the Big Coppitt parcel. Compared to the existing FLUM designations of the subject property, that is a potential increase of 114 units and a decrease of approximately 456,000 square feet of non-residential development. Naval Air Station Key West Rockland Key is located directly across U.S. Highway 1 from the Station. The Big Coppitt parcel is in close proximity to the Station. The Station’s Boca Chica airfield has been in operation since 1943. The primary mission at Boca Chica is to train pilots for air-to-air combat and to meet aircraft carrier qualifications. Fighter pilots from all over the country are trained for air-to-air combat primarily at the Station. The Station is uniquely situated to accomplish its training mission because there is little commercial air traffic and a large unencumbered airspace in close proximity to the airfield. Pilots who take off from Boca Chica quickly arrive in vast airspaces west and south of the Station for air-to-air combat training. This allows for very efficient use of fuel for training. Pilots train for aircraft carrier qualifications through field carrier landing practice at Boca Chica. Field carrier landing practice requires flying the same touch-and-go pattern at the field that the pilot would fly at an aircraft carrier. Each pilot in a squadron must fly the pattern accurately to a certain “readiness level” before the squadron can be certified to deploy. The readiness level is based on the number of sorties completed. One sortie includes at least one takeoff and one landing. Boca Chica typically operates Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, the airfield operates outside of those hours, and on Sundays, when training missions dictate. The airfield averages 36,000 sorties per year. The Station is extremely valuable to the Department of Defense due to the size of the airspace, weather, lack of commercial traffic interference, and capacity for training missions. As the commanding officer of the Station, one of Captain Steven P. McAlearney’s primary duties is to protect the military value of the Station by protecting the airspace and existing operation capacity. As such, Captain McAlearney is concerned with encroachment by development incompatible with Station operations. Navy AICUZ The Navy has established a Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) surrounding the Station. In its most recent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the Navy has designated Air Installation Compatible Use Zones, or AICUZ, within the MIAI. The AICUZ are mapped as noise contours extending outward from the Station. Each contour indicates a range of day- night average noise levels (DNL) which are expected to impact properties within the specific contour. The AICUZ map is accompanied by a Land Use Compatibility Table (the table) containing recommendations for compatibility of various land uses within the specific noise contours. According to the table, residential land uses are “generally incompatible” in both the 65-69 and 70-74 DNL zones, also referred to as “noise zones.” The Navy discourages residential use in DNL 65-69 zones, and strongly discourages residential use in DNL 70-74 zones. The table deems residential use in the 75-79 DNL zone as “not compatible” and recommends local government prohibit residential use in those zones, also referred to as “incompatibility zones.” FLUE Policy 108.2.5 On May 22, 2012, the County adopted FLUE Policy 108.2.5, which took effect on July 25, 2012. The Policy, which is lengthy and is not set forth in full herein, generally prohibits applications to change FLUM designations within the MIAI after the Policy’s effective date. However, the Policy sets forth a procedure by which FLUM amendment applications “received after the effective date of this [p]olicy,” which increase density or intensity within the MIAI, may be approved. The procedure requires the County to transmit the application to the Navy for a determination of whether the property subject to the application is within a noise zone or an incompatibility zone, and whether the proposed density or intensity is incompatible with Station operations. If the Navy determines an application is within an incompatibility zone, the Policy requires the County to determine whether appropriate data and analysis supports that determination, and, if so, maintain the existing designation. Additionally, the Policy states that “Monroe County shall encourage the Navy to acquire these lands . . . for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys.” If the Navy determines an application is within a noise zone, the Policy requires the applicant to submit a supplemental noise study, based on “professionally acceptable methodology,” to establish whether the property is within a 65 DNL or higher zone. The Navy has nine months from receipt of the supplemental noise study to provide comments to the County concerning whether the noise study is based on professionally accepted methodology. After receipt of the Navy’s comments, the County may allow the application to proceed through the public hearing process, but must also adopt a resolution determining whether the property subject to the application is subject to the density and intensity restrictions within the MIAI. Affordable Housing The parties stipulated that the County has a demonstrated community need for affordable housing. A 2014 study projected a deficit of 6,500 affordable units in the City of Key West alone. In 2013, 51 percent of all County households were “cost-burdened,” meaning they paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing. That figure compares to 43 percent of cost-burdened households statewide. In the County, more than half of renters are cost- burdened and about 45 percent of home owners are cost-burdened. The lack of affordable housing in the County is exacerbated by four factors: high land values; geographic and environmental limitations on development; artificially- controlled growth of housing supply8/; and a tourist-based economy which drives lower paying service-sector jobs. The lack of affordable housing impacts not only the tourism industry, but also public-sector agencies, including the school system, emergency management, and even the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department. Lack of affordable housing makes it harder to recruit and retain school teachers, police, and firefighters, among other public-sector employees. High turnover rates in these areas present budget and personnel challenges for the County. The County has 460 existing affordable housing units for the very-low, low-, and median-income households, and 354 units for moderate-income households (a combination of rental and owner-occupied units). The greatest percentage of existing affordable housing units is deed-restricted for the moderate-income range. The yearly income limit for a three-person household (a couple with a child) in the very-low income category is $52,400; the low-income category is $83,800; and the median- income limit is $104,800. The moderate-income level maximum is $125,760 for rental, and $167,680 for owner-occupied. The County has approximately 700 affordable housing units to be allocated through the year 2023. The Plan Amendment Application On May 18, 2012, Rockland applied for a FLUM amendment which included the Rockland parcels, but did not include the Big Coppitt parcel. The application affected 141 acres (approximately 77 upland acres). As proposed, the application would have allowed development of a maximum of 385 dwelling units, 1,155 transient rooms (or spaces), and 500,940 square feet of non-residential uses, or some proportional mix thereof. The application was reviewed by the County’s development review committee (DRC) on November 27, 2012, which recommended denial due to the density and intensity impacts. Largely in response to the DRC’s concerns, and after lengthy discussions with County staff, Rockland submitted revisions to its application on April 1, 2014. The revisions greatly reduced the overall size, as well as the density and intensity impacts of, the proposed amendment. The revised application included the Big Coppitt parcel for the first time. Rockland revised the application again on June 17, 2014, to reflect the same proposed acreages and designations as the approved Plan Amendment. The application, as amended on June 17, 2014, was approved by both the DRC and the County Planning Commission. On December 10, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners voted to transmit the application to the state land planning agency, the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), pursuant to section 163.3184(4).9/ On March 20, 2015, DEO issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report objecting to the Plan Amendment, particularly the increased residential development potential on the Big Coppitt parcel. The ORC report included the following relevant objections: The Plan Amendment is inconsistent with policy 108.2.6, which adopts the MIAI Land Use Table, designating residential uses as “generally incompatible” in the 65-69 DNL zone. The Big Coppitt parcel lies within the 65-69 DNL zone where residential use is discouraged. The Land Use Table notes that “[a]lthough local conditions regarding the need for affordable housing may require residential uses in these [z]ones . . . . The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these [z]ones.” While the applicant supports the application by arguing that it will support a multi- family affordable housing development, nothing in the amendment provides assurance that any future residential development on this property will be for affordable housing. While there is a shortage of affordable housing in the County, especially in the lower keys, there is no shortage of vacant lots with density for housing. The County failed to establish that, “in the absence of viable alternative development . . . a demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development were prohibited” on the parcel. The [Big Coppitt] parcel is entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) and therefore, inconsistent with Monroe County comprehensive plan policy 101.14.1, which states, “Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed within the [CHHA].” The [Big Coppitt] parcel is very narrow and development of the area adjacent to the mine pools could have negative water quality impacts on the tidally influenced mining pool and is inconsistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys. After consideration of the ORC report, Rockland submitted a text amendment application creating FLUE Policy 107.1.6 to restrict development on the Big Coppitt parcel to affordable housing. In addition, the sub-area policy requires noise attenuation of all habitable buildings in the 65-69 DNL to an indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels (25dB). Similarly, the Policy requires noise attenuation of habitable buildings within the 70-74 DNL zone to achieve an indoor noise level reduction of at least 30dB. The amendment to the FLUM remained the same. The County adopted both the FLUM amendment, and the text amendment creating Policy 107.1.6, on February 16, 2016, and forwarded the Plan Amendment to DEO for review, pursuant to 163.3184(4)(e)2. On April 25, 2016, DEO issued a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendment “in compliance.” The instant Plan Amendment challenge followed. Petitioners’ Challenge Petitioners allege two bases on which the Plan Amendment should be found not “in compliance.” First, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Plan Policies 108.2.5 and 101.14.1, in violation of section 163.3177(2), which states that “[c]oordination of the several elements of the [Plan] shall be a major objective of the planning process. The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent.” Second, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Principles, in violation of section 163.3184(1)(b). That statute requires all plan amendments in the Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) be consistent with the applicable principles. Policy 108.2.5 Petitioners allege that Policy 108.2.5 applies to the Plan Amendment because the application was filed after Policy 108.2.5 took effect on July 25, 2012. If proven, Policy 108.2.5 would require the applicant to follow the procedure for approval of residential density in the noise zones, including submission of a supplemental noise study and a legislative finding as to whether the Plan Amendment is subject to the density and intensity restrictions in the MIAI. Rockland’s original application for the Plan Amendment was made on May 18, 2012, prior to the effective date of Policy 108.2.5. Petitioners argue that the revised application on April 1, 2014, should be considered a new application subject to Policy 108.2.5 because it was made two years after adoption of the Policy and contained significant substantive changes to the original application. In essence, Petitioners argue that the 2014 revised application (and subsequent changes thereto) constitute a new and different application than the May 2012 application. Petitioners introduced no evidence that any administrative provision of the Plan, or any other County ordinance or regulation, provides for expiration of an application for plan amendment after a specified time period. The April 2014 changes were filed with the County in strike-through/underline (legislative format) as “revisions to its FLUM amendment application.” The June 17, 2014, changes were likewise filed in legislative format as “additional revisions to its FLUM amendment application.” One of the main reasons for delay between the May 2012 application and the April 2014 revisions was County staff’s recommendation that the Rockland parcels be rezoned to the Commercial-2 (C-2) zoning category, a category which was being created and would be consistent with the Commercial FLUM category. Staff recommended the category because it would prohibit residential uses but allow Rockland to proceed with plans for commercial and retail development of the formerly industrial property. The C-2 zoning category was not finalized and adopted by the County until early 2014. The application, as revised in June 2014, was not reviewed again by the DRC, but was set for hearing by the Planning Commission on August 27, 2014, and considered by the County Commission on December 10, 2014, which approved the application for transmittal. Rockland was not required to pay a second application fee for the revised application in 2014; however, the County charged Rockland an additional fee to cover a second hearing before both the Planning Commission and the County Commission. The County’s director of planning and environmental resources, Mayte Santamaria, testified that it is not unusual for delays to occur between initial applications for, and final adoption of, plan amendments. Some applicants request an application be put on hold while they address issues with surrounding property owners. Other times, significant changes are made in the interim, especially in response to concerns raised by the state land planning agency, which take time to draft and refine. In neither case does the County consider the passage of time to require a new application. Likewise, the revisions do not require a new application, even revisions which remove property from, or add property to, a FLUM amendment application. Clearly, Petitioners believe it was unfair to allow the application, which was “on hold” for almost two years and revised in 2014 to exclude some of the original property, and include additional property adjacent to their subdivision, to proceed without applying newly-adopted plan policies. Despite their belief, Petitioners did not prove that the application, as revised in April and June 2014, was a new application subject to Policy 108.2.5. Policy 101.14.1 Next, Petitioners allege the Plan Amendment is internally inconsistent with Policy 101.14.1, which provides that the “County shall discourage developments within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA).” The subject property is located entirely within the CHHA. In fact, Ms. Santamaria testified that “almost the entire Keys is in the [CHHA],” with exception of some areas just along U.S. Highway 1 in the Upper Keys. The Plan Amendment reduces total potential non- residential intensity on the subject property, while increasing potential residential density. The Plan Amendment also eliminates future transient (hotel and motel) density, as well as future dredging and other industrial uses. “Development” is defined broadly in section 380.04 as “the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or the dividing of land into three or more parcels.” § 380.04(1), Fla. Stat. The definition specifically includes “a change in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units . . . on land or a material increase in the number of businesses, manufacturing establishments, offices, or dwelling units . . . on land.” § 380.04(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Notably, the definition also includes “mining or excavation on a parcel” and “deposit . . . of fill on a parcel of land.” § 380.04(2)(c) and (d), Fla. Stat. Two expert witnesses testified regarding whether the Plan Amendment violates the County’s policy to discourage development within the CHHA. In Ms. Santamaria’s opinion, the Plan Amendment, on balance, is consistent with the policy to discourage development because it prohibits residential development of the Rockland parcels, and prohibits all but affordable housing units on the Big Coppitt parcel. In addition, the amendment prohibits future uses which are within the statutory definition of “development,” such as industrial, marinas, market-rate housing, and residential subdivisions. Max Forgey, expert witness for Petitioners, opined that the increase in density from 91 to 213 units is “as far from discouraging as I could imagine.” Overall, the Plan Amendment reduces non-residential intensity while increasing residential density. Given the totality of the evidence, it is reasonable to find that the Plan Amendment complies with Policy 101.14.1 by discouraging many types of development allowed on the property under the existing FLUM designations. Principles for Guiding Development Petitioners’ final argument is that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Principles in the Keys ACSC. The property subject to the Plan Amendment is located in the Keys ACSC, thus, subject to the Principles in section 380.0552(7), which reads as follows: (7) PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.— State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as specified in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing the consistency of the adopted plan, or any amendments to that plan, with the principles for guiding development, and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and specific provisions may not be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, any plan amendments must be consistent with the following principles: Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. Protecting the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems; and other water quality and water supply projects, including direct and indirect potable reuse. Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(l) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. (emphasis added). Petitioners’ challenge, as set forth in the Amended Petition, focuses on subsections (7)(a), (b), (e), and (h)4. Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with either subsection (7)(a), (b), or (e) regarding the local government’s capability to manage land use and development, protect shoreline and marine resources, and protect water quality, respectively. 1. section 380.0552(7)(h)4. Petitioners argue that the Plan Amendment will adversely impact the “value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life” of the Station, in violation of subsection (7)(h)4. A portion of the Rockland parcels lie within the 75-79 DNL zone, in which the Navy deems residential development incompatible and recommends that the local government prohibit it. The Plan Amendment changes the FLUM designation of the Rockland parcels from Industrial, which allows residential development at 47.3du/acre, to Commercial, which does not allow any residential development. Thus, the Plan Amendment prohibits future residential development in the 75-79 DNL zone as recommended by the Navy. A portion of the Rockland parcels and the southern end of the Big Coppitt parcel lie within the 70-74 DNL zone. The remainder of the Big Coppitt parcel lies within the 65-69 DNL zone. The Navy deems residential development in the 70-74 and 65-69 DNL zones as “generally incompatible,” but not prohibited. The AICUZ table strongly discourages residential use in the 70-74 DNL zone, and discourages residential use in the 65-69 DNL zone. With respect to the 65-69 and 70-74 DNL zones, the AICUZ contains the following recommendations: The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a demonstrated community need would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones. * * * Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, measures to achieve an outdoor to indoor [noise level ratio or] NLR of at least 25 decibels (dB) in DNL 65 to 69 and NLR of 30 dB in DNL 70 to 74 should be incorporated into building codes and be in individual approvals . . . . Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction . . . . The Plan Amendment, through the sub-area policy, prohibits residential dwellings on that portion of the Big Coppitt parcel within the 70-74 DNL zone. As such, the Plan Amendment prohibits residential use where the Navy strongly discourages said use. The majority of the Big Coppitt parcel lies within the 65-69 DNL zone. The Plan Amendment increases allowable residential density from 91 units to 213 units. Through the sub-area policy, the Plan Amendment requires sound attenuation of at least 25 dB for residences in the 65-69 DNL zone. Further, the Plan Amendment requires sound attenuation of at least 30 dB for any habitable buildings within the 70-74 DNL zone.10/ One purpose of recommending sound attenuation for dwelling units within noise zones of 65 DNL and higher, is to limit the number of community noise complaints to the Station. Community complaints regarding noise from Station exercises are directed to the Station’s Air Operations Department. The Station receives an average of 10 complaints per month, but that number fluctuates with the number of squadrons in town for training at the Station. Sometime in the past, the Station altered a training flight arrival pattern known as the Dolphin One Arrival. The arrival pattern is now called the King One, and it avoids directly flying over Stock Island. The evidence did not clearly establish whether the pattern was changed due to community noise complaints or due to the fact that Stock Island was in residential use. Captain McAlearney testified that because of the population on Stock Island, we set up a little to the south of what would be optimum for practicing, or most safe, frankly, for practicing a carrier landing or bringing a formation of airplanes into the field. On cross-examination, Captain McAlearney admitted that the change occurred well before his time as station commander and that he had no direct knowledge of the reason the change was made. Petitioners argue that the County must do more than just establish a community need in order to approve new housing in the 65-69 DNL zone consistent with the Navy recommendations. They argue that, pursuant to the AICUZ table, the County must establish that no viable alternative development options exist and that the demonstrated community need would not be met if development were prohibited in that zone. The County conceded that other parcels are available for construction of affordable housing within the Keys, however, there are very limited locations of Tier III,11/ scarified properties, outside of the 65-69 DNL zone in the Lower Keys with potential for affordable housing development. The parcels are scattered and none would support a large-scale affordable housing development such as is proposed pursuant to the Plan Amendment. While the County’s demonstrated need for affordable housing may be met, eventually, by incremental development of smaller scattered parcels and occupancy in renovated mobile home parks, the Plan Amendment addresses a significant amount of the affordable housing deficit in the immediate future. Based on the totality of the evidence, Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with section 380.0552(7)(h)4. In reviewing and recommending adoption of the Plan Amendment, County staff carefully considered the recommendations of the Navy AICUZ table and revised the amendment to prohibit residential use in the 75-79 DNL zone, where the Navy deems those uses incompatible and recommends prohibition of said uses; and to prohibit residential use in the 70-74 DNL zone, where the Navy deems those uses generally incompatible and strongly discourages them. The Plan Amendment was crafted to limit residential use to those areas within the 65-69 DNL zone, where Navy discourages, but does not recommend prohibition of, residential uses. Further, County staff determined a local community need for affordable housing, determined that the need could not be addressed through viable alternatives, and required sound attenuation as recommended by the Navy. While the Navy introduced some evidence regarding potential impacts to the Station from increased residential density on Big Coppitt Key, the evidence was speculative. Captain McAlearney’s testimony did not establish that additional noise complaints (assuming the new development would generate new noise complaints) would negatively impact the “value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life” of the Station. 2. section 380.0552(7)(g) Although not included in their Amended Petition, Petitioners argued at hearing that the Plan Amendment was inconsistent with section 380.0552(7)(g), the Principle to “protect[] the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.” Petitioners’ expert based his opinion of inconsistency with this principle on the long-standing presence of the Station in the Keys and its important role in naval air training. No evidence was introduced to establish that the Station itself has a historic resource designation or contains any historic structures or archeological resources. The site is not designated as an historic resource by either the County or the State. Petitioners did not prove the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with this Principle. Other Principles A. section 380.0552(7)(l) Section 380.0552(7)(l) sets forth the Principle to “[make] available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population in the Florida Keys.” The Plan Amendment limits development of the Big Coppitt parcel to deed-restricted affordable housing and requires, at a minimum, a mix of at least 10 percent median- income category and at least 20 percent mix of very-low and low- income categories. The Plan Amendment would allow development of 213 of the 700 affordable housing units the County has to allocate through 2023. The Plan Amendment addresses affordable workforce housing needs in the County for income levels in both the service industry and the public sector. The Plan Amendment furthers section 380.0552(7)(l) by making available affordable housing for residents in a range of income levels from very low- and low-income to moderate-income. B. Remaining Principles The majority of the remaining Principles either do not apply to the Plan Amendment, or have only limited application. Very little evidence was introduced regarding these Principles. No evidence supports a finding that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the remaining Principles. The evidence did not establish that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the Principles as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinances 003- 2016 and 004-2016 on February 10, 2016, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2016.
