20-001594GM Jonathan Livingston And Lakshmi Gopal vs. City Of Jacksonville, Florida Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, August 10, 2020.

Summary: Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the small scale comprehensive plan amendment application for a future land use map change was not "in compliance," as defined under section 163.3184.

A PPEARANCES

F or Petit i one r s , Jonathan Livi n gston and Lakshmi Gop a l a n d Intervenor ,

Right Size San Ma r co, I n c.:

Si d ney F. Ansba c he r, E s qui r e

Upc h u r c h, B a iley and Upchurc h , P . A.

Post O f fice Drawer 3007

St. Augustine, F lorida 3 2085 - 3007

F or R e s pondent, Ci t y of Jacksonville :

Jason R. Tea l , Esqui r e

Trisha D. Bowles, Esquire

Off i ce o f Ge n e r a l Coun s el

Ci t y of Jacksonville

117 W est Duval Street , Suite 480

Jac k s o nville, F lorida 32 2 02 - 5721

F or I n t e r v enors The S o u th Jac k sonvi l le Pre s byt e r i an Church,

I n cor p o r at e d and Harbert Realty Service s , LLC:

P a ul M. Ha r den, Esqui r e

The Law F i rm of P a ul M . Ha r den, Esq.

501 Ri v e r si d e Avenue, S uite 901

Jac k s o nville, F lorida 32 2 02

T.R. Hainline, Jr., Esquire

Emi l y Gardinier P i e r c e, Esqui r e

Rogers Towers, P.A.

1301 Ri v e r pl a ce B o ulev a r d , S uite 1500

Jac k s o nville, F lorida 32 2 07

S TATEMENT O F T HE I SSUE

The issue to be det e r m i n ed in this proce e di n g is whether a s mall s c a l e

development a me n d me n t to the future land use map of t he City of Jacksonville 's

2030 Co m pr e hensive Pl a n , a d o pt e d by Or d i n a n c e N o . - 2019 750 - E on F e br u ary

25, 2020 (the Ordinance ) , is " i n c omplianc e , " as t h at t e rm is def i ned in s e c t i o n

163. 3 184(1) ( b), F lorida Statut e s .

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On Mar c h 26, 2020, Jona t han Liv i ngst o n ( L ivingston), La k s h mi Gopal

( G o pa l ) and Right Size San Ma r c o , Inc. ( Right S i z e ) t i me l y f iled a p e ti t i o n f o r

an a d m inistrative h e a r ing chall e nging the Responde n t City of Jac k s o nville's

( C i t y) adoption of the Ordinance. I nt e rvenors , Th e S o uth Jac k s onville

Presbyter i an Church, I nc o rp o rated ( S outh Jax) a n d Ha r b e rt Realty S e r v i c e s ,

L LC ( H a t rber ) ( I nter v e n o r s ) int e r v e n e d , joini n g the C ity in defe n se of t h e

chall e nge. P e titi o ne r s Livingston and Gopal (Petitioners) s ubse q uently filed a

S e c ond A mend e d Petiti o n ( Petition ) , and Right Size was allowed to change its

status to an Intervenor on the side of Petitioners . P rior to the h e ar i ng , t h e

par t i e s filed a n Amended Joi n t Pre - Hea r i n g Sti p ulatio n , and Petiti o ne r s f iled

a Noti c e of Na r rowing of I ss u es for He a r ing.

At t he final hea r i n g, the pa r t i e s ' Joint Exhibits 1 t hr o ugh 21 a nd 23

through 50 we r e admitt e d into evidenc e . I n t e rve n ors presented t h e expert

t e stimony of W ill i am B . Killi n gswor t h, t h e C ity ' s p lanning and d eve l op m e n t

d i r e ctor, a c c e p t e d as an expe r t in land u s e planning and dev e l opme n t ,

c o m p r e hensive planning , and z o n ing; Kristen D. Ree d , c h ief of the Ci t y ' s

c o m munity p l a n n i ng d ivision, e acc pted as an e x pert in land use planning a n d

de v elopment , and c o m p r e h e n si v e pl a n n ing; and Lindsay H a g a, A I C P,

a c c e pt e d as an ex p e r t in land use planning a n d de v elopment, comp r ehe n s ive

p la n n ing , and zoning. Petiti o ne r s and Ri g ht Si z e presented the fact t e stim o ny

o f Jonat h an L ivingston and Lakshmi Gopal ; a n d the ex pe rt testimony of

Thomas Atkins, accepted as an exp e rt in la n d use pl a nning.

The two - volume Tran s cript was filed with DOAH on June 18, 2020. The

parties timely filed their proposed recommended orders , which were

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version, unless

otherwise indicated.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties

and the evidence adduced at the final hearing.

The Parties and S tanding

1. Petit i oner L ivingston is a Florida reside n t, who lives at 1507

Alexandr i a Place North, Jac k sonvi l le, Flo r ida 32207. Livings t on a p pea r ed at

the a d o ption hea r i n gs for th e Ordinance a n d submitt e d c o m me n t s a n d

o b j e c ti o ns on the re c ord. Liv i n gst o n is an a ff e c t ed p er s o n und e r s e ction

1 63.3184(1) ( a ) .

2. P etit i oner G opal is a F lorida re s i d e n t, who lives at 1535 Alexand r i a

P l a c e North, Jac k s o nville, F lori d a 3 2 207. Gopal appea r e d at t h e adoption

hea r i n gs f o r t h e Ordinance , an d submitt e d c o m ments and o bje c t ions on the

re c o rd . Gopal is an a ff e c t ed p er s o n und e r s e ction 163.3184(1) ( a ).

3. Ri g ht S ize is a F lorida n ot - f o r - profit c o rpora t i o n that c onduc t s

bus i ne s s in the C ity , and its c o r a por te a d dr e s s is 1 507 A l e x andria Place

N o rth, Jac k s o nville, F lorida 32 2 07. The s p eci f ic purpose of R i ght Si z e, as

stated in its A r t ic l e s of I n cor p o r ati o n f i l e d F e brua r y 11, 2020, is to su p port,

protect and pre s e rve the historic cha r act e r and b e a u t y of San M a r c o , a

historic residential neighborhood south of downtown Jacksonville and the St.

Johns River . O ff i cers of Right S i ze a p p ear e d at t h e a doption hea r i n gs f o r t h e

Ordinance a n d sub m itted co m ments and o e bj ctions on the r ec o rd. Ri g ht Si z e

is an aff e c t ed pe r s o n under s e c t i o n 163.3184( 1 ) (a) .

4. Respondent Ci t y is a municipal cor p oration of the st a te of Florida and

is re s pons i ble for ena c ti n g and a me n d ing its c ompre h ensive plan in

ac c a ord nce with F lorida law. The C ity pro v ided timely noti c e to the pa r t i es

and the pro c ess f o llowed the p r o v isions of the City ' s O rdinan c e Code a n d part

II of c ha p t er 163. The Ordinance relates to 2.87 acres of property located at

2137 Hendricks Avenue and 2139 Thacker Avenue (Property). T he Property

is l o c a t e d within the C ity ' s jurisdi c t i on.

5. Intervenor Ha r be rt i s an A l abama l imit e d l iability c ompa n y ,

registered to do business in Florida. H a r bert is an app l i c a nt o f rec o rd for the

small scale development a me n d me n t a n r d cur ently has t h e P r o pe r ty under a

purchase c o nt r a c t pend i n g the e f f e c t ive adoption of the Ordinance. H a r b ert is

a n affected person and intervenor under section 163.318 7(5) (a).

6. Intervenor South Jax is a F lorida n o t - f or - profit c o rp o ra t i on a nd is the

ow n er of re c o r d of t h e Proper t y that is the subj e ct of the Ordinance. South Jax

is a l so an applicant of r e cord for t he small scale development amendment .

South Jax is an af f e cted per s o n u nder section 163.3184(1)(a).

The Property and Surrounding Parcels

7. The Prope r ty o c c u pies the m a j ority of o n e block in the San M a rco

n e i ghbo r hood o f the City. I t is bounded on the nor t h by Alford P l a c e, on t h e

e a st by Ma n g o Pl a ce, on the south by M itche l l Ave n ue , and on the w e s t by

He n d ricks A v enue ( State Road 13). H n e d r i cks A v enue is classified as an

art e r i al r o ad. The Prope r ty is r cur ently home t o T he S outh Jac k sonvi l le

P r e sbyt e r i a n Chur c h.

8. T he southern por t i o n of the Prope r ty , comprising 1.89 acres, is

c u rr e nt l y de s i gna t ed Res i dential Profe s s ional I nstitut i onal (RPI) on the

C ity ' s F ut u re L and U s e Map s e r i e s ( F L U M ) of the Futu r e L a n d U s e Eleme n t

( F LUE) in the 2030 Comprehe n s i v e P l an ( Comp P l a n ) . T he nor t hern por t i o n

of the P r ope r t y , comprising 0.98 acres, is cur r en t ly designated

Community/Gene r al Com m e r c i al ( C G C) on t h e F L UM.

9. The southern porti o n of t h e P r o perty is cu r re n t l y zoned C o mmer c i a l

Residential Off i ce ( C R O ) on the Cit y ' s z oning m ap . T h e northern por t i o n of

the P r o perty is zoned Commerc i al C o mmunit y /Ge n era l - 1 ( C CG - 1 ) on the

Cit y ' s z oni n g m a p .

10. The FLUM shows that the Prope r ty is c u rrently in the City ' s Urban

D e v elopment A r e a (UDA) , and abuts the boundary l i ne o f the Ci t y ' s Urban

P r i ority Development Area (UPDA) to the n o rth .

11. The parcel to the north of the Pro p er t y was the s u bje c t of a small scale

F L UM a m endment in 2014 (Or d i n a n c e 201 4 - 130 - E) . It is known as East San

Marco , currently has a C omp Plan F LUM designation of CGC , and i s in t h e

U PDA that per m i ts deve l opment of u p to 60 residential units p er a cre

(ru/acre) .

12. Ordina n ce 2014 - 1 30 - E f or East S a n Ma r co i n c l uded a F L UE te x t

cha n ge , i.e., a site sp e c i f ic p oli c y/t e xt cha n ge under s ec t i o n 163.3187(1) ( b ).

F L UE P o licy 3.1.26 exempts East San M a rco f r om spec i fied U PDA

c h a ra c t e r i st i c s .

13. The Ea s t S an M a r c o pr o p e r ty was r e ce n t l y r e z o ned from Pl a n n ed U nit

De v e lopment ( PUD) to P U D ( O r di n ance 201 9 - 799 - E) for a mixe d - use pr o ject

known as t h e E a s t San Marco d evelopmen t . The PUD provides that the

maximum he i ght f or commerc i al buil d ings is 5 0 f e et not inc l u ding n o n -

ha b i t a b le space , a n d 48 fe e t f o r m ultifamily uni t s.

14. Loca t ed south of the Pr o t per y a c r oss M itche l l Avenue are parcels

de v e l oped for single f a m ily re s i de n t i al use and c u r r ently designated as L ow

D e n si t y Re s idential (LD R ) on the F LUM. T he s e prope r ti e s a r e zoned

R e s i dential Low De n s ity - 60 ( RLD - 60) on t h e C i ty ' s z oning m ap.

15. Loca t ed ea s t o f t h e P r o p er t y acr o ss Ma n go P l a c e a r e parcels

de v elop e d with a mix of s i ngle f a m i l y r e s ide n t i al a nd of f i c e u s e s a n d

de s i g na t ed as a m ix of CGC and RPI on t h e F LUM. These p r ope r t ies have a

mix of zoning including C C G - 1 , Residential Medium Density - A (RMD - A ) ,

a n d C o mmerc i al Off i c e (CO).

16. Loca t ed we s t of the P r operty at H e n dr i cks A v enue / S a n M a rco

B oule v a r d a re parcels de v eloped w i t h multi f a m i l y, r e s ta u rant and r e t a i l

c ommer c i a l u s es a n d de s i gn a t ed as a mix of M e d i u m De n si t y Residential

(MDR) a nd CGC on the F LUM. These o pr perties are zo n ed RMD - D and

CC G - 1.

17. I nt e rvenors intend to deve l op t h e P r ope r t y w i t h a m ixe d - use

project that will include 133 multi f a m i l y r e s i de n t i al units a n d a p a rking

garage. The e x i s ting ch u rch s a nc t uary w i l l re m ain in use a t the north e ast

c o rner o f He n d r i cks A v enue and Mitchell Avenue.

The Ordinance

18. On August 27, 2019, I nt e r v e nors applied for a small scale development

a m en dme n t pr o p osing to change the P r o p er t y from RPI and CGC to CGC , and

to extend the U PDA to inc l u de t h e P r op e r t y .

19. On the same date, Intervenors also filed a co mpan i o n r e z oning

app l i c a t i on see k i n g to c h ange the z oning on t h e P r oper t y f r om C R O a n d

C CG - 1 t o PUD. The r z e oni n g a p p c li ation was pr o cessed c o ncu r re n t wi t h the

small scale development amendment a p pl i c a t i o n.

20. The City's profe s si o nal pl a nning staff collected an d re v iewed d a t a and

info r ma t i o n re l ated to the small scale development amendment application, the

P r o perty , and the s u r r o undi n g a r e a s. T h e sta f f a l so co nduc t ed a s ite visit. The

s t a f f fur t h er s ought r e v iew by, and r e c e i ved i n put fr o m , a n u m ber of

diffe r ent C i ty and state agenc i es and orga n i za t i o ns re g arding the p ropo s ed

Ordinance.

21. On Oc t ober 28, 2019, t h e City he l d a c i t ize n s ' i nf o r ma t i o n m ee t ing to

discuss the propose d Ordinance. The meeting was a tt e nded by appr o x imate l y

nine re sidents.

22. After re view i ng and analyzing t h e data a n d informati o n ga t here d , C i ty

pro fe ssional planning staff d e t ermin e d that t h e Ordinance was consist e nt

with the Co m p Plan and f u rthers the goals, policies , and obje c tives of the

C omp Pl a n. The deter m i n a t i o n was m e moria l i z ed i n a s t a f f r eport

r e c o m mend i n g a p p r o val of t he Ordinance. The staff report w a s p r e p ar ed for

consider a t i on by t h e City's Pl a nni n g Comm i ssion prior to its re g ul a r

mee t ing on Janua r y 23, 2020.

23. At its Janua r y 23, 2020, meeting, t h e P la n n ing Com m is sion held an

a p proxim a t e ly two and one - ha l f hour he a r i n g on both the Ordinance and the

P U D . At the c o nclusion o f t h e h e aring, the Pl a n n ing Com m ission

rec o mme n d ed appr o v al of the Ordinance by a unanimous vote.

24. The s taff r eport and the P lann i n g Commi s sion 's re c o m me n d a t i o n

w e r e f o rw a r ded to t h e C i ty Council ' s La n d Use and Zoning (LUZ) Co mm ittee .

25. The LUZ Commi t tee held public he a r ings addr e ss i ng the Ordinance on

De c e m b er 3, 2019; Ja n u a ry 22, 2020; F ebr u a r y 4, 2020; and F ebruary 19,

2 020.

26. Certain c o nc e r n s were raised b y c i t i z e n s a t public hear i ngs b oth before

a n d d ur i ng the F ebruary 19, 2020 , LUZ C ommitt e e meeting. In response, t he

LUZ Commi t tee requ e s ted that Mr. Killi n gswor t h dra f t a s ite s pec i fic

p ol i c y / t x e t a me n d m e n t to adopt l i m i ta t i ons on the number of re s identi a l units,

t h e non - re s i de n ti a l floor ar e a pe r m itted on the Proper t y, and the maximum

height of structu r es on the Prope r t y , with m e a s ura b l e criter i a f o r

d e t e r mini n g the he i ght of structures wit h in the proposed use on the Prope r t y.

27. During the F e b r u a ry 1 9, , 2020 public he a r ing , the LUZ C ommitt e e

rec o m me n d ed addi tion of FLUE Policy 4.4.16, a s i t e s p ec i fic p o licy/t ext

a me n d me n t, which states:

(i) Mult i - f amily r e s ide n t ial u ses shall b e li m ited to

133 unit s .

(ii) Non - r e si d e n t i al floor area sha l l be li m ited to

96, 0 00 square f e et (garage, a l l floors) a nd 25,000 / -

s qua r e f eet ( existi n g c h urc h , a l l f l o or s ).

(iii) T o ensure c o m p a t i b ility w i th ad j a c e nt uses

and to protect ne i g hbor h ood sca l e and cha r ac t er

thro u gh transition zones, bulk, massing, and h eight

res t r i cti o ns, new b uilding height shall be lim i t ed to

the c a l culated w e i ght e d a ve r age, not to exceed 35

f e et, a c ross the le n g th of the de v elopment from

Alford P lace to M i tche l l A ve n ue as fo l l ow s : A s u m

of the he i ght to the pre d o minant roof line ( r i dge or

p a r a p e t w all) of that portion of a b uilding

m ul t iplied by the length of that portion of a

b uilding di v ided by the o ve r all l e ngth of that

portion of a bui l ding divided by the over a ll length of

p ermiss i ble bui l ding wit h in the m inimum se t back.

28 . A fter a ppr o xi m a t ely six h o urs of t e stim o ny a n d di s c u s s ion , the L UZ

C o mmit t ee unanimous l y r e c om m e n ded appr o v al o f the Ordinance with the s ite

s pec i fic p oli c y/ t x e t a m e ndme n t .

29. The City Council h eld public hea r i n gs to address the Ordinance on

November 26, 2019; De c em b er 1 0, 2019; Janua r y 28, 2020; F e b ru a ry 11,

2020; and F e b ru a r y 25, 2 020. A f t er a p proxim a te l y f i ve and a h a l f hours of

te s t i mony and discussion, t h e C ity C o unc i l a d opt e d t h e Ordinance on

F ebruary 25, 2020 , by a vote of 1 7 to one.

30. There w as si g nifica n t c i ti z en i nput re g arding the Ordinance

throughout the hea r i n g o pr c e s s . This included emails and letters to C i ty

staff, to P l a n n ing C o m m issioners a n d C i t y Council m e mber s , and submit t al

of ver b a l and w r i t t en comm e nts at the he a rings.

Petitioners' and Right Size's Objections

31. F oll o w i n g their f iling o f the P e titi o n a n d other st i pula t i ons mentioned

a b o ve, Petit i one r s a n d R i ght Si z e jointly pr e s e nted the i r ca s e dur i ng t h e

final he a ring. They a r g ued that the Ordinance was not " in compli a nc e "

b e c a u s e : (i) it c r e ated internal i n c o ns is te n c ies s ba ed upon Comp Plan Po l i c ies

1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 and 1.1.22; (ii) it was n ot based on relevant and

appropriate data and an analysis by the City; (iii) it d id not rea c t t o d a t a i n

an ap p r o priate way a n d to t h e extent n ec e ss a r y indi c a t ed by the da t a

avail a ble at t h e ti m e o f t h e a d option of the Ordinance ; a n d (iv) s ubs e c t i o n ( c )

of FLUE P o licy 4.4.16 r e l ated f to height a i l e d to establish meanin g f u l and

p r edic t able st a n d ar d s fo r t h e use a n d deve l opm e nt of land a n d provide

mea n i ngf u l guidelines f o r the c ontent of m o re d e t ailed land deve l opm e nt and

l a n d u s e re g ul a tions.

32. Each argument is generally addre s sed below. H owe v er, the pr i m a ry

u n de r l y ing pre m i se of Petit i one r s ' a nd R i ght Si z ' e s challen g e was that the

Ordinance w o uld allow a de nsity in excess of 40 ru/acre and per m i t a h e i ght

in exc e ss o f 35 feet .

Internal Consistency

3 3 . I n t h e A m ended Joint P r e - he a ring St i pulation, as modified by the

N oti c e of Na r r ow i ng I ssues f o r H e ar i ng, P e tit i one r s and R i ght Size identified

s pec i fic polic i es in t h e Comp Plan , which they ass e rt re n d ered t h e Ordinance

inconsistent with t he Comp P l a n .

34 . F LUE Policy 1.1.20A states that "[e] x t e ns i ons of the D e velopment

Are a s will b e noted in each la n d use ame n dm e nt wh e re an e x t e nsion is

nee d ed or reque s t e d c o n c u r rent with a F uture L a n d Use Map A m e ndme n t . I n

a d d i t ion, plan ame n dm e nts shall meet the re q u ire m ents as s et f o r th in P o licy

1.1.21 a n d 1.1.22."

35 . The de f i n itional sec t i on of t h e F LUE explains that the City i s divided

i n to f i ve ti e rs of De v elopment Ar e as w h i ch i n c l ude the UPDA and the UDA.

These areas a re dep i cted on the C ity ' s F LUM ser i es and c o n trol " t h e

density, development c h a r ac t e r is t ic s , a n d o th e r va r i a bles w i t h in plan

ca t egories . "

36 . T he first sentence of P o licy 1.1.20A af f ords appli c ants t h e abili t y to

re q uest an exte n s ion of a deve l o pment area c o ncur r e n t w i th a l a nd use

a m e ndme n t a p pl i c a t i o n. C o nsi s tent with the policy, the small scale

development amendment a pplica t i o n included a re quest for an e xt e nsion

of t h e UP D A . The r equest w as submi t ted c o ncurr e nt w i t h the reque s t to

designa t e the Prope r ty as C GC o n the F LU M . The adopted Ordinance ma k e s

note o f t he extension of the UP D A as re q uired by P o licy 1.1.20A.

37 . T he sec o nd sentence of P o licy 1 .1.20A re q u ires that when an

a m endment a p pl i c a t i on includes a re q uest to e x t e nd a development a r e a , t h e

Ci t y must ensure consistency w i th Poli c ies 1.1.21 a n d 1.1.22 . The City's

analysis is reflected in t he staff report, which finds that the amendment

appli c a t i o n mee t s P olicies 1.1.20, 1.1.20A , a n d 1.1.20B.

38 . Petit i one r s a n d R i ght Size did not offer any testimony rega r di n g

c o nsi s tency with Poli c y 1.1.20A. The i r x e p e rt , M r. Atki n s , testified that he

w as famili a r w ith P o licy 1.1.20A , b ut did not expla i n how o r why the

Ordinance was inter n ally inconsist e nt w ith Pol i cy 1.1.20A. I nst e a d , Mr.

Atkins testified about da t a and analysi s regarding Poli c y 1.1.21.

39 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fa i r de b a t e that the

Ordinance was inconsistent with Poli c y 1.1.20A.

40 . F LUE Policy 1.1.20 B st a tes:

Expansion of the D evelopment Are a s s ha ll re s ult in

deve l opment t h at wou l d be compa t i ble w ith its

sur r oundi n gs. W hen c o nsi d r e i ng l a nd a r ea s to add

t o the De v e lopment A r e a s, a f t e r de m onst r a t i n g that

a n e ed exists in acc o r d an c e w ith Pol i cy 1.1.21,

i n c l usi o n o f the foll o w i n g a r e as is di s c o urage d ;

1. Prese r v a t i o n Project L ands

2. Conserva t i o n La n ds

3.Agric u l t ur a l La n ds, e x ce p t w h e n

d e v elopment proposals include Ma s t e r Pl a nned

C ommuniti e s or de v elopments wit h in the Multi - Use

F uture L and Use Category, as d e fined in this

e l ement .

The f o l l ow i n g a r as e a r e de e m ed ge n r e ally

ap p ropri a te f o r inclusi o n in De v e lopment A r e a s

sub j e c t to conf o r m ance w ith P o licy 1.1.21:

1. Land c o nt i guous w i th the D e v e l opm e nt

A r ea a nd w hich w o uld be a logi c al

extension of an ex isting urban sc a le a n d / o r

has a fu n c t i o nal rela t i o n ship to deve l opm e nt

within t h e Deve l opm e nt A r e a .

2. Loca t i o ns w i t h in one mile of a pl a nned

node w ith ur b an deve l opm e nt

cha r a cteristics.

3. Loca t i o ns w i t h in one - ha l f mile of t he

existi n g or pl a nned J T A R TS.

4. Loca t i o ns ha v i n g pr o j e c t ed surplus servi c e

c ap a city where n e c es s ary fa c i l ities and

se r v i c es ca n be re a di l y e x t e nde d .

5. Publ i c water and s e w e r se r vi c e exists

w i t h in one - h alf mile of t h e si t e.

6. Lar g e S c ale Multi - Use de v elopments and

Mast e r Planned Communi t ies which a r e

d esigned to p r ovide f o r the i n ternal capt u re

of daily trips for w or k, shopping and

recre a t i on a l ac t ivi t ie s .

7. Low de n s i ty re s identi a l de v e lopment at

l o c a t io n s up to three m i les f r om the inward

bound a ry of t he p r e s er va t i o n pr o j e ct l a nds.

I n w ard is me a s u r e d f r om that part o f t h e

p r eservation project lands c l osest t o t h e

exist i ng Suburban Area such that the

pr e s e r v ati o n la n d s se r v es to separa t e

suburban f r o m r u r a l. T h e deve l opm e nt shall

be a l o gic a l e x t e nsion of r e s i d e ntial grow t h ,

w h i c h f u r t h ers t h e int e nt of t he P r e s er v a t i o n

Project to pr o v ide passi v e r e c r e ation and low

int e ns i ty land use buf f e rs around p r o t e c t ed

a r e as. Such sites should be loca t ed within

one - half mile of e x is t ing wa t e r and sewer, or

wit h in J E A plans f o r e x p ansion.

41 . A f t er t he C i ty makes a d etermination t h at t h e r e is a ne ed f o r the

e x p a n si o n of a D e v e lo p ment Ar e a pursuant to Pol i cy 1 .1.21, t h e C ity next

looks to see if the prope r ty i s discouraged under Pol i c y 1.1.20B . The subject

Property does not fall into one of the discouraged lands. The City's expert, Ms.

Reed, explained that i f the que s t i ons of ne e d a n d discouraged lands a r e

satisfac t orily answ e re d , t h e P o licy then r desc i b es l a nds that a r e ge n e r ally

dee m e d a p pro p riate for inclusion in a pa r ti c ular Development Area.

4 2 . The f i rst question is whether the Pr o perty is contiguous to the UP D A

and whe t h e r t h e exten s i on is logi c a l . The s taff r eport notes that the

Proper t y is im m e d i a te l y a d j a c e nt to the UP D A to t he north and that an

extension of the boun dar y is logi c al beca u s e it pe r mi t s an i n f i l l proje c t. Ms.

Reed a n d Ms. H a g a t estified that the proposed e x t e nsion o f t h e UP D A to

include t h e Proper t y is also logi c al because there is a f u nc tional re l ations h ip

to t h e pr o p osed m ixed - u se deve l opm e nt to the nort h .

43 . T he ne x t que s t i on is whether t h e P r ope r ty is within one mile of a

pl a nned node with urban d e v elopment cha r a c t eristi c s. Pet i ti o n e r s and Ri g ht

Si z e st i p ulated t hat t h e P r ope r ty is within a node which was c o nfirmed by

Mr. A t ki n s.

44. T he ne x t c r i t e r i on under P o licy 1.1.20B is whe th er the r e a r e mass

t r ansit se r vi c es ava i l a ble n e a r t h e Propert y . The s t a ff r eport notes t hat m a ss

transit Rout e s 8 and 25 a r e ava i lable at the Prope r t y a n d t h is fa c t was

confi r med by Ms. Reed.

45. The f o urth and fifth cr i t er ia u nder P o licy 1.1.20B addr e ss w h e ther t here

i s s u ff i cient wa t e r, se w er a n d ot h er s er vic e s a v ailable to serve the Proper t y .

T he C ity reque s t ed infor m ation from various a g e nc i es and utili z e d t h e

re s pons e s to ana l y z e the impact of the Ordinance. Th e Ci t y sought

conf i rmation from the Jacksonville Electric Authority , T r anspor t a t ion

P l a n n ing, the Duval C o unty School B o a r d, F lorida Department of

Transportation , a n d t h e C onc u r re ncy a n d Mobility Ma n a ge m ent S y stem

Of f i c e to de t e r m i n e whether t h e systems serving the P r o p e r t y , i.e. w a t e r,

s e w e r, s c hools , a n d r o ads, h ad ava i lable c a p acity to ser v e the site if the

UP D A w as ex p an d ed to include the P r op e rty. All the a g en c i es consulted

re s ponded that there was suf f i c i ent cap a city a v ailable.

46. In addition, Ms. R e ed t s e ti f ied that the Ordinance met P olicy 1.1.20B

beca u se there is ca p a city f o r wat e r a n d s e w e r , th e re is tra n sit avail a bl e , the

a rea is v e ry w alka b le , a n d the r e is a ccess to a lot of neighborhood se r vi c es

n e arby .

47 . Ms. Reed a n d Ms. Ha g a p er suasively testified that the Ordinance

met the c r i t e r i a for l a nd de e m ed appr o p r i a t e for inclusion in the UP D A as

s e t f o r t h i n Policy 1 . 1.20B. Petit i one r s a n d R i ght Si z e did not offer any

evidence r ega r di n g t h e c o n siste n cy of t h e Ordinance wi th Poli c y 1.1.20B and

their e x p e rt did not off e r any opinio n s o r ot h e r wise discuss consistency o f t h e

Ordinance with P o licy 1.1.2 0 B .

48 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the

Ordinance was not consistent with F LUE Poli c y 1.1.20B.

49 . F LUE Pol i cy 1.1.21 re quires t h e C i ty to ana l y z e n e ed fo r all l a nd use

map ame n d m e n t s . The P oli c y states:

F uture am e ndme n t s to the F uture Land U s e M ap

s eries ( F LUMs) shall i a nclude consider t i on of t h i e r

po t ential to further t he g o al of t mee i n g or e x ce e di n g

t he amount of land r e qui r ed to a c comm o da t e

anticipat e d gr o w th a n d the p r o j e ct e d population of

the a r e a a n d to allow for t h e ope r ation of re a l e state

m a r k ets to provide a d eq u ate c hoi c es f o r per m an e n t

a n d s e a s o nal reside n t s a n d busi n ess consistent with

F LUE Pol i cy 1.1.5. The proje c t ed growth nee d s and

popu l a ti o n projec t i o ns must be ba s e d on r e l e va n t

a n d appro p r i a te d a t a wh i ch is c o l l e c t ed pursua n t to

a p r o f ession a l ly a c c p e t a ble m e t hodol o gy. I n

c o nsi d e r i n g the g r ow t h nee d s and the alloca t i o n of

l a nd, the City shall also evalua t e land u s e ne e d

based on the chara c t e r i st i cs and land deve l opm e nt

pa t t er n of loc a l i z e d ar e a s . Land use need i d e n t i f i ers

inclu d e b ut may not be limit e d to, proximity to

compa t i b le use s , deve l opm e nt sca l e, site

l i mi t a t i o ns, a n d the l i ke l ihood of further i ng g rowth

manage m ent and mobili t y goa l s.

50 . Petit i one r s a n d R i ght i S ze stipul a ted that t hey did n ot object to a

d e n si t y on the Proper t y of 40 ru /acre or 114 total units , but o bje c t to the

additional 19 units pe r m i t te d by the Ordinance .

51 . P e titioners ' a n d R ight Si z ' e s e x pert , Mr. Atkins , testified t h at need to

expa n d t h e UP D A to n e c ompa s s the P r o perty was not demonstrated, and

that ne e d f or t h e " a d dit i onal n umb e r of uni t s " was not demonstrated.

52 . T h e C i ty ' s expert s , Ms. Reed and Mr. K i l lingsworth exp l a i n ed that

Table L - 2 0 of the F L UE i d e n t i f i es land use c a t eg ories a nd their p r o j e ct e d

ne e d at t h e end of the 2030 planning horizon. Mr. Killings w or t h testified

that Tab l e L - 20 de monstrates t hat at the e n d of the p la n n ing hor i zon t h e

R P I land use w ill be at 119 perc e nt of need, w h i l e t h e C G C land use will be at

84 pe r cent of ne e d a . This indicates need for a dditional C G C designa t e d

lands by 2030, as w e ll as a n ov e r - a da bun nce o f R P I - d e s i g na t ed lands. Since

the Ordinance includes a r e q u est to c h a nge existi n g RP I - de s i gn a t ed lands to

C G C, it a d dres s es both t h e need t o inc r e a s e CGC - designated l a nds and to

de c r e ase R P I - de s i gn a t e d la n d s.

53 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h t estified t h at Table L - 20 was p r e p ar ed by t h e C i ty

to comply with s ection 163.3 1 77(6), w h i c h re q u ires all l o c a l go v e r n m e n ts to

project n eed and to a s s u re that the r e is market a v ailability to re s pond to

s u ch n e e d . The T abl da e, along with the underlying t a a n d an a l ysis used to

support it, w as re v i e wed by t h e F l o r i da D e partment of Communi t y Affairs

( n / k /a the Department of Economic Opportunity) and f ound t o comply with

state la w .

54 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h also t esti f ied that the C ity c o nsider e d testimony

by t h e S a n Mar c o M e rc h ants Ass oc i a tion, local re s i d e n t s , a nd the a p p lica n t

pr e s e nted d ur i ng t h e h ear i n gs . The testimony de m o nstra t es that the

Ordinance would a d d r e ss cu r r e n t e c o nom i c a n d housing needs in the ar e a.

Mr. Killi n gswo r t h opined that t h e t e stim o ny a n d Table L - 2 0 demonst r ate a

need for the Ordinance to acc o m m oda t e anti c ipated grow t h a nd the

projec t ed population of t he a rea.

55 . W ith re g a rd to t h e land u se n e e d i d e n t i f i e rs of pr o ximi t y,

c o m pa t i b ility , a nd sc a l e , M r. K i l lingswort h testified that "c ompa t i b ilit y " as

de f i n ed in the F LUE "doesn't mean y ou ha v e to have the s a me u ses adjace n t

to e a c h oth e r, it doesn’t mean that you have to ha v e the same den s i ty

a d j a c ent to each ot h r e . " Instead it means that " those uses have to ope r a t e in

c onj u nc t ion w ith ea c h o t h er a n d t h e r e h as to b e some [ ] se n s e to t h e scale,

t h e m a s s, a n d bulk of the t struc ure. " See Tr. at p g. 203 , lines 11 - 17 .

56 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h also testified that although the City's ana l ysis was

that the Ordinance met t h e l a nd use need i d e n t i f i e r s , t h e l i mitations

inc l u ded in the s ite s i pec fic p ol i c y / t e x t a me n dm e nt were an additional way

to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses with rega r d to use, s cale , and

height.

57 . T h e C G C portion of t h e Prope r ty is cur r ently pe r m i tted to be de v e l oped

up t o 40 ru / a cre. T h e s i t e s p e c i f ic p olicy/ t ext a mendment limi t s the Proper t y

to a total of 1 3 3 residential units ( or approximately 46 ru / a c r e ), which the

City Council d e t ermined is c ompati b le, p a r ti c ul a rly g iven the fa c t t h at t he

E a st S a n Marco p rope r ty direc t ly nor t h of the Property c a n b e develop e d

with up to 60 ru / ac r e.

58 . The Comp Plan F L UE does not e s t a blish height li m itatio n s f o r any of

t h e l a nd use c a t eg o ries, including C G C and RP I . Mr. K i l l ingsw o rth testified

that the s ite s pecific p olicy/ t e x t a me n d me n t prov i d es for s t a ndar d s r e l ated

to height t h at are ot h e r wise not in the F LUE . T he E a s t S an M a r co p roject

to t h e nor t h has a height li m it of 50 f eet , and the low d ensity residential

ne i g hb o r h o od to the south h a s a he i ght limit of 3 5 f e et. Mr. Killingsworth

o pined that t he li m itation in t h e s i t e s p ec i fic p oli c y/ t x e t a me n d me n t ,

r e s tric t i n g the he i ght on the Prope r ty to an a v erage of 35 fe e t , a l l o ws for an

a p pr o p r i ate tra n s ition betw e en the uses to the nor t h and t he uses to the

south , thus ensuring c o mpa t i bilit y .

59 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the

Ordinance was not consistent with F LUE Poli c y 1.1.21.

60 . F LUE Policy 1.1.22 states: " F uture d e ve l opment order s , de v el o pment

per m i ts and p lan a m en d ments shall m a intain compa c t a n d compatible l a nd

use pa t t e r n s, m a i nt a in an increa s i ngly f e fici e nt u r b an ser v i c e d e l iv er y

system a n d discour a ge u rb a n spra w l as de s cr i bed in t h e Deve l opm e nt A r eas

and the P lan Ca t e gory D s e criptions of the O p erative Provisions. "

61 . P etit i one r s e x ' and Right Size's pert Mr. A tkins t e stified that he did

not review Policy 1.1 . 22. H o we v er, in an a b u ndance o f caution, t h e Ci t y a n d

I ntervenor s p r e s ented evidence to e s t a b l i sh t h at t h e Ordinance was

c o nsi s tent w i th Poli c y 1 . 1.22.

62 . Mr. K i l l ingswor t h pointed to the d e finit i on of compact deve l opm e nt

f rom the FLUE , which includes t he ef f i cient use of l and p r imarily by

i n crea s ing int e nsity, density , a nd r e d uc i ng s u r f a c e pa r ki n g . He testified that

the Ordinance accomplished these criteria.

63 . Mr. K i l l ingsworth te s t ified t h at t he height a v er a gi n g in the s i t e

s p e c i f ic p olicy/ t e x t a me n dm e nt assist ed with e n suring compa t i bilit y , a n d t h at

the p r o pos e d development 's mix of commer c i a l, re s i d e n t i al , a nd instit u t ional

uses on a small si t e met t h e d e f i n ition of c o m p a c t deve l opm e nt .

64 . Ms. Reed t e s ti f ied tha t the P r o perty is in an a r e a with full u r b an

serv i c e s , has access to transit, and fr o nts on an a r t erial r o a d way .

Furthermore, it pr o m o tes a a comp ct and c o m p a t i b le l a nd u s e p a t t e rn t h r o ugh

r edevel o pme n t a n d i n f i l l .

65 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the

Ordinance was not consistent with FLUE Policy 1.1.22.

Data and Analysis

66 . T h e parties a g r e ed in the Amended J o int Pre - Hear i ng S t ipulation t hat

the fa c ts remaining for adjudication with r ega r d t o " d ata and a na l ysi s "

we r e exc l usi v e l y rela t e d to subsec t i on (c) of Poli c y 4 .4.16 , the s i te s p e cific

p olicy/ t ext a me n d me n t that a ddr e s s ed only building height . However,

P e t i t ione r s ' and Ri g ht Si z ' e s e x p e r t Mr. Atkins did not d is c uss d ata and

ana l ysis spec i fi c ally rela t e d to subsection (c) of Pol i cy 4 . 4 .16. M r . Atkins

testified about data a n d ana l ysis r ela t ed to t h e Ordinance genera l ly.

67 . The City addressed t h e da t a a n d ana l ysis supporting the Ordinance,

and the City's response to that data and analysis. The City c onside r e d data

f r o m pro f e s si o na l ly acce p t e d sour c es and app l ied an ana l ysis ba s ed on

e stablished proc e du r es set for t h in the Comp P l a n .

68 . The pr o c e s s of data col l c e t i on be g an with t h e s ubmittal of the

applica t i o n , w h i ch i n c l uded a survey, a legal de s cr i pt i on and an owne r ' s

aff i davit. Mr. Kill i ngswor t h testified that chapter 6 40 o f t h e C i ty ' s Or d i n ance

Code se t s out the process by which FLUM amendme n t a p pl i c a t i ons a r e

pr o ce ssed a nd r e vi e wed by t h e pl a nning sta f f. S e c t i on 650.404( b ) r e q uires

that t h e C ity hold a Citi z e n s I n for m a t i on Me e t i ng that allows receipt of

additi o nal da t a fr o m the a f f e cted communit y .

69 . Ms. R eed explained that all a mendments are e v al u at e d based upon

standar d s a n d m e t hodol o gies e s t a blished in the F LUE for the ass e ssment of

data and ana l ysis , which include s public fa c i l ities, school impacts, population ,

and de v e lo p ment impacts.

70 . The City p la n n ing staff c o l l c e t e d b a c k ground da ta for the i nitial

a n a l y sis of the Ordinance. The back g round s e c t i o n of the s t a ff r e port goes

t h r o u gh an ana l ysis of t he ch a ra c t e r isti c s of t h e s i te, i nc l ud i ng t h e l o c a t i on,

a c re a g e , and sur r o unding uses ; r desc i b es t h e s ite in gene r al ; identifies the

Council di s tric t ; iden t i f i es the Pl a nning Di s trict ; a n d notes if there ar e any

ap p lica b le vision plans. T he Ci t y planning staff also did re s e a rch on

a p pl i c a t i ons a n d a m endments that have oc c ur r ed in proximity to the

Proper t y. The backgr o und i n f o r ma t i o n is p art of the d a t a and a n aly s is t hat

t h e C i t y used t o deter m i n e whet h er t h e Ordinance A m e n dm e nt was consist en t

with the Ci t y' s pol i c i es.

71 . In addition, F LUE Poli c y 1.2.16 re q ui r es t h e C i ty to assume maximum

de v elopment potenti a l when analyz i n g the i m pa c t s of a me n d ments to the

F LUM unless there is a si t e - sp e cific po l icy limi t ing den s i ty or i n t e n si t y.

72 . I n this instance, t h e s ta f f r eport w as comple t ed pr i o r to the a d di t ion

of the s ite s pecific p olicy/ t e x t a me n d me n t to the Ordinance, w h i ch

s p e c ifically li m its t h e density a n d int e nsity permitted on t he Proper t y . The

City's sta f f f o l l owed t h e gui d e l i n es of P o licy 1.2.16 a n d util i z e d t he

m a ximum d evelopment potential for the t Proper y in r e v ie w i ng the

a p pli c a t i o n, i.e., 2.87 ac r es of CGC designated pr o p e r ty in the UP D A.

Ms. Reed testified that t h e s i te s pec i fic p ol i c y / t e x t a me n dm e nt " a d d ed

pa r a m e t ers a n d l i mitations t h at we r e not t h ere b efo r e, so it re a lly lesse n e d

t h e impact based on what w e an a l y z e d versus what was ulti m a t e ly a p p r o ved. "

See Tr. at p g. 291 , lines 8 - 1 7 .

73 . Under P o l icy 1.2. 1 6, the City developed a t a ble enti t led " D e v e l opm e nt

St a nda r ds f o r I mpact A s se s s me n t ," which is used to collect and analyze

spec i fic impact data.

74 . The da t a gath e red by the City for the table i n c l u ded the a nalyses

provided by v a r i ous a d v i sing age n cies and e n t i ties . The da t a and analyses

provided by the oth e r agencies and entities are summ a r i zed in the t a b le in

the staff report.

75 . The t a ble a lso includes a s e c t ion w he r e the City staff i d e n t i f i es and

re v i e ws oth e r a p pro p riate plans and studies. The s e plans and studies have

not b e e n adopted into t h e C i ty' s Comp P l an, b u t t h ey are ut i lized a s da t a and

a n a lysis when the planning st a ff r e vi e ws a F L UM a m endment.

76 . The s taff r eport i de n t i f i es thr e e plans app l i cable to the sit e , the

S o utheast Jac k s o nville Vision P l a n , the N or t h S a n M a rco A c t i on Plan, and

the St r ategic Regional P olicy Pl a n. Ms. Re e d explained t h at t h e Ordinance

was consist e nt with t h e S o uthea s t J a c ksonvi l le V ision P l an which provides f o r

new de ve l o p m e nt along He n dricks Ave n u e compatible with existi n g

ne i g hbor h oods. T he s t a f f r eport notes that design deta i l s c a n b e ad d re s sed in

t h e companion P U D rez o n ing a p p lica t i o n.

77 . Like w i se, t h e s t a f f r eport co n c l udes t hat t h e Ordinance is gene r ally

consist e nt with t h e f eatures of t h e N o rth San Ma r co Ac tion Pl a n and t h at

d e s i g n de t ails would be ha n d led t hr o u g h the P UD r e vi e w and

im p leme n t a tion.

78. F inally, M s. R e ed e xpla i ned that the C ity found t hat the Ordinance

would ac h i e ve the St r a t egic Regional Poli c y Plan ' s goa l s of i m pr o vi n g

qua l i t y - o f - l i f e with a p propriate i n f i ll a n d re d evelopment and by p r oviding

di v e r se housing opt i ons.

79 . Additi o nal evidence and testimony offe r ed by the a p pli c a n t a n d t h e

citi z e n s dur i ng the Pl a nning Com m issi o n, LUZ Com m ittee , a n d C i ty Council

hear i ngs was c o l l c e t e d a n d a na l y z ed by the Ci t y pr i or to f inal a c t i o n on the

a me n d m e nt application .

8 0 . T he a dditional data a n d info r m a t i on gather e d d u ring t h e m an y

diff e r e n t hearings on the Ordinance resulted in the recommendation of

the LU Z C ommi t tee to add the s ite s p c e ific p olicy/ t e x t a m e ndment to the

Ordinance.

8 1 . T he s i t e s p e c i f ic p ol i c y / t e x t a me n d m e n t limits the de v elopment

pot e ntial on the Proper t y. Mr. Kill i ngswor t h testified that the s ite s pec i fic

p o licy/ t e x t a mendment was a dir e ct re s ult of t h e C ity ' s a n a lysis of input f r o m

the public r e l a ted to int e nsity, density , and c o m pa t i b ilit y . Ms. R e ed testified

that "all of these t hings we r e consid e red toget h er a s a w hole in ord e r to come

up w ith a re c o m me n d a t i o n, both in the staff r e port and final a ppr o val by

C o unc i l as amende d . "

82 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the

Ordinance was not supported by data and analysis, and that the City's

response to that data and analysis was not appropriate.

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

83 . Section 163.3177(1) req u ires t h at a C o mp Pl a n " e s t a blish mean i n gf u l

a n d pred i c t ab le s ta n d a r ds for the u s e a nd de v elopment of land a nd provide

me a n ingful guidelines for t h e content of more detailed l a n d d e ve l opm e nt a n d

use r egulations. "

84 . Petit i one r s ' a n d R i ght i S z e ' s exp e rt , Mr. Atkins , opined t h at

s u bse c t i on ( c ) of t h e s i t e s p e c i f i c p ol i c y / t e x t a me n d me n t is " va g u e i n its

a p pl i c a ti o n a n d c e r t ainty in its out c , ome " in that " [ t ]h e r e i s no d e f i n e d limit

of w hat t h e heig h t m ight be in violation of the re q ui r e m ents of s ection

163.3177(1). " Mr. Atkins acknowledged that the Comp Plan FLUE doe s not

otherwise address height and that "[i]t all seems to be handled at the PUD or

LDR level." This fact was confirmed by the City's expert, Mr. Killing sworth.

85 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h exp l ained that the objective of t he s i te s pec i fic

p olic y / t e x t a mendmen t , as a whole, is to e stablish a maxi m um deve l o pme n t

poten t ial o r ot h e r wise re s t r ict deve l opm e nt on the P ro per t y consist e nt with

O bj e c t i v e 4.4 o f the F L U E. The d e nsity l im i tations, c omb i ned w i th the

he i ght l i mit a tion, restric t l the deve opm e nt potential on the Prope r t y.

86 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h testified that subse c t i on ( c ) r e p rese n t s a pol i cy

s t a t e m e nt by the City Council that height should be no m ore than an ave r a g e

of 35 f e e t , a nd it provides guidance as to how t h e h eight is to be ca l cu l ated ,

which will ul t imately be im pleme n t e d in the L DRs and the PUD. S ubsection

(c) p r o vi d es m ore s p e c i f ic i ty reg a rding height t h an would ot h e r w ise b e

ach i e v ed through a Comp P l an l a nd use c a t egory w i t h out a s ite s pecif i c

p olicy/ t ext a me n d me n t .

87 . Mr. Killi n gswor t h also testified t hat although the height l i mitation i n

su b sec t ion (c) m ay not d i c t ate t h at t he higher he i ghts should be on t h e

north e rn p o r t i o n of the Prop e rty and transition to the lower he i ghts on the

southern p or t i o n of t he P r ope r t y , the PUD a n d the deve l opm e nt of t h e

Prop e r t y w i ll ne e d to comply w ith othe r parts of the Comp P l an that re q u ire a

tra n si t ion bet w een uses.

88 . Petitioners and Right Size did not prove beyond fair debate that the

Ordinance does not guide future de v elopm e nt de c i si ons in a consistent

manner , a nd does not e s t a blish meaningful a n d p r e d i c t able stan d a r d s for

t h e use a n d deve l opm e nt of la n d .

Ultimate Findings

89 . Petiti o ne r s a nd R i ght S i ze did n ot prove beyond fa i r de b a t e that the

Ordinance is not i n c o m p lianc e . A ll other c o n te n t ions not specif i c a l ly

discussed ha v e been consider e d and re j ec te d .

90 . The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compli a nce is f a i r ly

d e b a t able.

C ONCLUSIONS O F L AW

Scope of Review and Standing

91 . Chapter 163, part II (Community Planning Act) , Florida Statutes, and

the case law developed pursuant thereto, are the applicable law in this

proceeding. See Amelia Tree Conservancy, Inc. v. City of Fernandina Beach,

Case No. 19 - 2515 GM (F la. DOAH Sept. 16, 2019; Fla. DEO Oct. 16, 2019). A

hearing on a plan amendment is a de novo proceeding. Id.

92 . To have standing to challenge a comprehensive plan amendment, a

person must be an "affected person" as defined in the Community Planning

Act's section 163.3184(1)(a). Petitioners and Right S ize are affected persons

and have standing to challenge the Ordinance .

9 3 . An affected person challenging a plan amendment must show that the

amendment is not "in compliance" as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b). "In

compliance" means consistent with the requirements of sections 163.3177,

163.3178, 163.3180, 163.3191, 163.3245, and 163.3248.

Burden and Standard of Proof

94 . As the part ies challenging the Ordinance, Petitioners and Right Size

have the burden of proof.

95 . The C ity's determination that t he Ordinance is "in compliance" is

presumed to be correct and must be sustained if the City's determination of

compliance is fairly debatable. See § 163.3187 (5) (a) , Fla. Stat. ; Coastal Dev. of

N. Fla. v. City of Jacksonville Beach , 788 So. 2d 204, 210 (Fla. 2001).

96 . The term "fairly debatable" is not defined in chapter 163. In Martin

County v. Yusem , 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme

Court explained "[t]he fairly debatable standard is a highly deferential

standard requiring appro val of a planning action if a reasonable person could

differ as to its propriety." The Court further explained, "an ordinance may be

said to be fairly debatable when for any reason it is open to dispute or

controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction that

in no way involves its constitutional validity." Id. Put another way, where

there is "evidence in support of both sides of a comprehensive plan amendment, it is difficult to determine that the County's decision was anything but 'f airly debatable.'" Martin C ty. v. Section 28 P ' shp, Ltd .,

772 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

97 . "A compliance determination is not a determination of whether a

comprehensive plan amendment is the best approach available to the local

government for achieving its purpose." See Martin Cty. Land Co. v. Martin

Cty., Case No. 15 - 0300 GM RO ¶ 149 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 2015; Fla. DEO

Dec. 30, 2015). Moreover, in a compliance determination, the motives of the

local government are not relevant. See Pacetta, LLC v. Town of Ponce Inlet ,

Case No. 09 - 1231 GM (Fla. DOAH Mar. 20, 2012; Fla. DEO June 19, 2012).

98 . The s tandard of proof for findings of fact is preponderance of the

evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

Internal Consistency

99 . Section 163.3177(2) r e q u i r es t h e sever a l e l ements of the c o m pr e hensive

pl a n to b e consistent. A plan ame n d m e n t c r ea t es an internal i n c o nsi s tency

when it co n flicts with an existing provision of the c o m pr e he nsive pla n .

100 . The City's Comp P l an i s f o rmatted with goals, obj e c t i v e s , and poli c ies

that desc r i b e h o w the City's p r o grams, a ctivit i e s , and land deve l opm e nt

re g u l ations w i ll be i n itiated, modified, or c o n tinued, t o impl e me n t the C omp

Pl a n in a c o nsi s tent man n e r . S e e § 163.3177( 1 ), F la. St a t. In the conte x t o f

the C o mmunity Planning Act, g o als are sta t e m en ts of long - te r m vision or

a s p ira t ional ou t comes and ar e not m e asur a b l e in and of themselves. Goa l s

m ust be implemented by int e r m e dia t e ob j e c t i v es a n d s pe c i fic pol i c i es to ca r ry

out the gen er al plan goals. S ee § 163.3164(19), ( 34), and ( 37), F la. Stat.

10 1 . I nt e rnal consiste n cy does not r e qui r e a comprehe n sive plan

a m e ndme n t to fur t her eve r y g oa l, objec t i v e, a n d poli c y in the comp r ehensive

plan. I t is enough if a plan provision is "compatible with," i . e . , d o es not

c o nfli c t with, o t h e r goals, obj e c t i v e s , and policies in t h e pl a n. I f the compa r ed

provisions d o not conf l i c t, they a r e coor d i n a t ed, rel a ted a n d consist e nt. See

Melzer , et al. v. M a r tin Ct y ., Case Nos. 02 - 1 0 14 GM a nd 02 - 1 0 15 GM , RO ¶ ¶

194 - 1 9 5 ( F la. DOAH J u ly 1, 2003; F l a . DCA O c t. 24, 2003).

10 2 . Consi s tency of the Ordinance w ith the Cit y ’s L DRs was not an i s sue

o f l a w t o be deter m i ned in this proceeding. See Amelia Tree Conservancy, Inc.

v. City of Fernandina Beach, Case No. 19 - 2515 GM (Fla. DOAH Sept. 16,

2019; Fla. DEO Oct. 16, 2019).

10 3 . Likewise, ma n y c o m m u n ities have fr e e - s t a nding v ision pl a ns " w h ich

m a y , in pa r t, inform future planning d ecisions. " See 1182/3526S Rouse LLC

and 1185/3626N Rouse LLC v. Orange Cty. , Case No. 18 - 5985 GM RO ¶ 63

( Fla. DOAH Oct. 14, 2019) . The eviden c e demonstra t e s that the City has

visi o n plans that fall within this ca t e gory and which were re v i e wed by t h e

C i ty' s pla n n ing staff . Howev e r, the s e vision plans have not b e e n adopted as

p a r t o f t h e C o mp Pl a n. T h erefor e , w h i l e t h e vi s ion plans may be consider e d as

data a n d a n alysis ava i l a b le f o r re v i e w b y staf f , t h ey are not p a r t of t h e " in

compliance " d eterminat i on in this c a se. See Amelia T ree C o nse r v anc y , Inc . ,

RO at ¶ 137 ( p l an not adopted a s p a rt of C o mp Pl a n is not rev i e w e d f o r

compliance ) .

1 04 . Based on the foregoing F indi n gs of Fac t , P e titi o ne r s and Right Size

did not prove bey o nd fa i r deba t e that the Ordinance is interna l ly

inconsistent with C o mp P lan F LUE Poli c ies 1.1.20A, 1.1.20B, 1.1.21 , and

1.1.22.

Data and Analysis

1 05 . Section 163.3177(1) ( f ) r equires that a l l plan a m en dme n ts be " b a s ed

on r e l evant and a p propr i a t e da t a a nd an a na l ysis by the local government. "

§ 163.3177(1) ( f ) 2 ., F l a. S t a t . " T h e st a tute e xpl a ins that to be ba s ed on da t a

' m e a n s to r eact to it in an a p propriate w ay and to t h e extent n e c essa r y

i n dica t ed by t h e data a va i l a ble on that par t i c ular subj e ct at t h e ti m e o f

adoption of the . . . plan amendme n t at i s su e . '" 22 2 Lakeview LLC v. City of

West Palm Beach, Case Nos. 18 - 4 7 43 GM and - 18 4773 GM RO ¶ 8 4 ( F l a .

DOAH D e c. 26, 2019), aff'd per curiam , 295 So.3d 1185 ( ( F l a. 4th DCA 2020).

1 06 . All data a va i l a ble to the local government a n d in existence at t h e

ti m e o f a dopt i on of t he pl a n a m endment may be pr e s e n t e d. See 1182/3526S

Rouse LL C ., RO at ¶ 62 .

107 . Releva n t a n alyses o f data ne e d not h ave b e en in exist e nce at t h e

time of a doption of a p l an amend m ent. D a ta e x i s ting at the t i me o f adoption

m ay be a na l y z e d through the time o f the administrative he a r i n g.

See 222 Lakeview LLC , R O at ¶ 8 6.

108 . D a t a suppor t i ng an a m e n d m e n t must be ta k en f r o m o pr f e s s iona l l y

ac c e p ted sourc e s . See § 163.3177 ( 1)( f )2., F la. St a t. H o w e v e r, local go v er n m e nts

are not r e qui r ed to collect origi n al data. Id.

109 . Petit i one r s a n d R i ght Si z e arg u ed both that the Ci t y did not ha v e any

data to support the Ordinance, a n d that the C ity d id n ot look at e n ough

d a t a to support t h e O rdinance . Howe v e r, consistent with the b urden of

proof, it is n ot enough fo r a petiti o ner to sim p ly allege t h at a land use

a m e ndme n t is not based upon the be s t a v ailable existing data . A petiti o ner

m u st spec i fi c a l ly i d e n t i fy t h e best avail a ble existing data t h at the l ocal

gov e rnment f ailed to use. See Envt ' l . Coalition of Fla., Inc. v. Browar d Cty. ,

586 So. 2d 1212, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

110 . B ased upon the f o regoing F indi n gs of Fac t , P e titione r s and Right Size

did not identify the d ata t h at the City a l l e ge d ly f a i l e d t o use. " The fact t h at

ot he r d a t a m a y b e a v ailable is irre l v e an t , as l o ng as the data upon w h i c h t h e

Cit y ' s d e c i s ion to adopt the F LUM Amendme n t i s based is ta k en fr om

prof e s sionally accep t e d sourc e s and gath e red t hr ough prof e ss i ona l ly a c cep ted

me t h odologies. " Ame l ia Tree C onse r van c y, I n c . , RO at ¶ 152.

111 . The e v i d ence d e m onst r a t ed that there was extens i ve da t a and

analysis, t a k en fr o m prof e s sional ly a cc e p t ed sourc e s , a n d g a t he r ed th r ough

prof e s siona l l y ac c epted me t hodol o gies to support t h e Ordinance.

112 . Based upon the f o regoi n g F i n dings of F a c t, Petiti o ne r s and Right

Size did not prove b e y o nd fair deba t e that the Ordinance is not based on

re l e v ant a n d a p propr i a t e data a n d an ana l ysis by the Ci t y , as required by

s e c t i on 163.3177(1)( f ) .

Meaningful and Predictable Standards

113 . Com p r e hensive plans must pr o vi d e " m a e ni n gf u l a n d pr e di c tab l e

st a nda r d s f o r the use a n d d e v elopm e nt of land and p r o vi d e m e a n i n gf u l

guidelines f o r the c o n tent of more de t ail e d land deve l opment and u s e

r e gul a tions." § 163.31 7 7(1), F la. Stat.

114 . Petiti o ne r s' and Right Size's ar gument w as limit e d solely to

sub s ection ( c ) o f t h e s ite s pe c ific p oli c y/ t e x t a me n d m e nt . Policy 4.4.16 ( c) limi t s

the he i ght of t he p roposed use on the Prop e rty and se t s out guidelines for

t h e ca l culation of h e i g ht.

115 . A cha l lenged plan a m endment must be viewed in the c o n t e x t of the

guidance provided by t h e entire Comp Plan. The LDRs should c o nt a in t h e

detail s, and it is not n e c e s s a ry to a dd these d e t ails t o the Comp Pl a n.

See Ki n gswood Ma n or Ass' n, Inc. v. Town o f Eatonvill e ,

Case No. 1 5 - 0308 GM RO ¶ 20 ( F l a. D O A H June 3, 2015 ; Fla. DEO

Aug. 13, 2015 ) ( "[T]he Plan Amendment is guidance for the content of more

detailed land development and use regulations.").

1 16 . Subs e ction ( c ) of the s ite s i pec fic p oli c y/ t ext a m e ndme n t limi t s he i ght

on the P r oper t y . This sets a s tanda r d for the use a n d d e v elopment of the

Prop e rty that is n ot other w i s e ge n er a l l y a ddre s sed by the C o mp Pl a n a n d its

land use ca t e gor i es , and is somethi n g t hat can be i m pleme n t ed t h r o ugh t h e

C i ty ' s L DRs. Subsection (c) guides f u t ure de c i si o ns re g arding the re g u la t i o n

of t h e u se o f the Proper t y in a consist e nt, pre d i c ta b l e and m ea n i ngful m a nne r .

1 17 . The pr e p onderan c e of the evidence sho w s that the Ordinance

esta blishes mean i n gf u l a n d p re t dic a b le standar d s. Petiti o ne r s and Right Size

fa i l ed to prove beyond f a ir de b a te t h at t h e Ordinance does not satisfy the

re q ui r e m e nts of s ec t ion 163.3177(1).

Summary

118 . F or the r e a s ons s t a t ed above, t h e C i ty's dete r m ina t i o n that the

Ordinance , " i n compliance " is f a i rly de b ata b l e .

119 . F or the r easons stated a b o ve, Petit i one r s and Right Size did not prove

beyond fa i r deba t e that the Ordinance is not " in c o m pli a nce , " as that term is

defined in section 163.3184(1)(b).

R ECOMMENDATION

Based upon the for e g o i n g F indings of F a ct and Conclusi o ns of L a w, i t is

R ECOMMENDED that the D e p artment of E c o no t mic Oppor uni t y e n t e r a f i nal

order finding O r d i n a n ce N o. - 2019 750 - E " in complianc e , " as d e fined by

s ection 163.3184 (1)(b).

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 10 th day of August , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

F RANCINE M. F FOLKES

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 10 th day of August , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire

Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 3007

St. Augustine, Florida 32085 - 3007

(eServed)

Frank D. Upchurch, Esquire

Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 3007

St. Augustine, Florida 32085 - 9066

(eServed)

Emily Ga rdinier Pierce, Esquire

Rogers Towers, P.A.

1301 Riverplace Boulevard , Suite 1500

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

(eServed)

Courtney P. Gaver, Esquire

Rogers Towers, P.A.

100 Whetstone Place , Suite 200

St. Augustine, Florida 32086

(eServed)

T.R. Hainline Jr. , Esquire

Rogers Towers, P.A.

1301 Riverplace Boulevard , Suite 1500

Jacksonville, Florida 32207

(eServed)

Jason R. Teal, Esquire

Office of General Counsel

City of Jacksonville

117 West Duval Street , Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(eServed)

Paul M. Harden, Esquire

The Law Firm of Paul M. Harden, Esquire

501 Riverside Avenue , Suite 901

J acksonville, Florida 32202

(eServed)

Gary K. Hunter, Jr., Esquire

Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

(eServed)

Mohammad O. Jazil, Esquire

Hopping Green & Sams, P.A.

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

(eServed)

Craig D. Feiser, Esquire

City of Jacksonville

Office of General Counsel

117 West Duval Street , Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(eServed)

Trisha Bowles, Esquire

City of Jacksonville

Office of the General Counsel

117 West Duval Street , Suite 480

Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 5721

(eServed)

Ken Lawson, Executive Director

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building , MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT TO S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.