Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner, Board of Professional Land Surveyors, was the agency charged with regulating the practice of land surveying in Florida and the Respondent was a licensed land surveyor under license no. LS0002909. Respondent has been a surveyor since 1975 in Venice, Florida. In 1986, at the time in question here, Respondent was in partnership with another surveyor, Mr. Bolton, the owner of a surveying company in Dade County, Florida. The joint venture between Mr. Lemonde and Mr. Bolton was called Lemonde- Biscayne, Inc. and was operating in Martin County, Florida, near the St. Lucie County line. Respondent was President of the corporation and a working shareholder. Mr. Bolton, the Vice President, was located in Miami, Florida. Respondent also operated Lemonde Surveying, Inc., of which he was the President and sole working share holder, in Venice. Mr. Bolton, is a registered land surveyor and was an overseer of the day to day operations of the surveying company working out of the Martin County office. At that time, Mr. Ellis was office manager of the corporation in the Martin County office serving along with a secretary and a draftsman. Field surveys were accomplished by surveying crews, none of whom were licensed surveyors. At the time in question, Respondent lived in Venice and traveled to the Stuart office for two or three days of each week. Mr. Bolton also came up from Miami to the Stuart office for one to two days each week. Lemonde-Biscayne, Inc. had been doing business in Martin County for approximately two years. The office was closed there the end of 1986. When Mr. Ellis left employment with Lemonde-Biscayne Inc., sometime prior to the soil samples in question, his position was filled by Mr. Repass, an individual with approximately 1-5 years experience in surveying, who was soon to to take the Florida Surveyors exam. Mr. Repass was hired by Mr. Ellis. When the soil surveys were done, Mr. Repass had been in place for about a year. The soil sampling in question was required by the County Health Department, Division of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to determine the appropriateness of soil in the area for the installation of septic tanks. Lemonde- Biscayne, Inc. was contacted to conduct these surveys and because business was quite heavy at that time, Mr. Bolton sent up a two man crew from his Miami operation to do the work in question. Respondent knew nothing about this crew, but accepted the representation from Mr. Bolton that they were qualified surveyors. In fact, the crew worked for the company for approximately two to three weeks prior to any notification of the Health Department's questions about the soil samples. The problem concerning the samples was communicated to Mr. Repass by telephone from Mr. Anderson, the health department official who followed up his conclusions with a letter in September, 1986. When Mr. Repass received the information from Mr. Anderson, he caused new soil samples to be taken at the sites utilized the Bolton crew and determined that their samples, though reported to be done correctly, were in fact not done at all. Respondent did not however, examine the sample site himself nor did he discuss the samples with the crew subsequent to its reported taking of the soil samples and before he affixed his signature to the forms. When Respondent learned of the problem he was in Venice. He immediately went to Stewart and discharged the Bolton crew, returning them to Miami without either seeing or talking to them. It was at this time that Respondent was first advised of Mr. Repass's dissatisfaction with the crew's work in general. Respondent was familiar with the form he signed. In St. Lucie County, every survey of property which did not call for a central sewage system audit had to have a soil sample survey signed by a registered surveyor or engineer. He had signed many of these forms as a land surveyor and this is the only time he can recall having had a problem. When Mr. Lemonde attempted to talk with Mr. Bolton about his crew after the problem came to light, Bolton was not willing to discuss the matter. Respondent does not know what action Bolton took with regard to the crew when it got back to Miami. Before the crew went out to take the samples in question, Mr. Repass instructed them as to where to go and what to do to take the appropriate samples. He told them to make sure that they dug the hole to the proper depth and record the soil makeup. The crew told him that they had done soil samples before, but were not familiar with this specific form. They assured Repass that they could handle the job, however, and when they came back, the write up in their field book, though sloppy, appeared to show that they had done the work in question. Mr. Repass's duties included quality checking their performance when the field notes were returned to the office before any survey report was prepared and released. Since a mathematical calculation is involved, errors generally can be identified without too much difficulty. On soil samples however, there is little that can be done to verify the information brought in by a crew short of going out and redoing the borings Neither Mr. Repass nor the Respondent checked the accuracy of the borings reported by Bolton's crew. Since the crew came highly recommended by Mr. Bolton, himself a long standing, well thought of professional registered land surveyor, Respondent felt confident in accepting this crew's work and signed the forms based on the crew's representation. In his training as a land surveyor, Respondent was not given any training in soils profile or identification. Neither subject is examined during the licensure examination for a surveyor. Most counties in the State of Florida consider soil tests as independent of surveying work and the soil samples are taken by an independent engineer or soils expert. In St. Lucie County, however, the health department requires only that the person doing the soil sample be either an engineer or a registered surveyor. The health department has set no standards for training the people who collect soil data nor are there any standards set for determining color or texture of the samples taken. In Repass's opinion, the others registered surveyors for whom he has worked in the past, did nothing different than that which the Respondent did in this case. Repass himself has done between 500 and 600 soil samples. There is nothing unusual or complicated about the process and he was satisfied before he sent them out that the crew supplied by Mr. Bolton was physically and mentally capable of accomplishing the job. There is no question that the samples prepared by the Bolton crew were false. When Mr. Anderson of the health department saw the six applications in question, in a spot check, he had inspectors from his own office go out and do new borings on the site. Of the six forms in question, five showed differences when the county borings were compared with those of the Bolton crew. St. Lucie County does not publish any guidelines for description of color or texture to be used on the forms involving soil borings. Neither does it require that the person conducting the sample have any special training, regardless of the requirements of Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. This provision calls for soil tests to be performed by either an engineer with soils training who is registered by the State of Florida, or by other qualified persons with soils training. St. Lucie County requires only that the application be filed either by an engineer or a land surveyor who can appropriately describe the plot containing the site of the borings. Petitioner's expert, Mr. John Quillen, a registered land surveyor of many years experience, was unwilling to characterize Respondent's performance here as either fraudulent, incompetent, or negligent. He did, however, indicate, as has been found previously, that there was a substantial inconsistency between the borings done by the Bolton crew and signed off on by the Respondent, and those done by the health department crew as a spot check later on. Mr. Quillen further alleges, and Respondent admits that as a registered land surveyor his signature on the report establishes his responsibility for the report and its correctness. Respondent has taken the position that the practice of surveying does not include soils classification and examination. Surveying training does not include these functions nor does the general practice of land surveying encompass them. Mr. Quillen, on the other hand, indicates that as a land surveyor he can be reasonably expected to do soil samples and has done many in the St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties area. He is unfamiliar, however, with other counties in the state. It is found, therefore, that while soil sampling and classification is not normally a function of a land surveyor, in St. Lucie County, land surveyors take soil samples and when Respondent, as a registered land surveyor, accepted a commission to perform these samplings as a land surveyor, he incorporated this function into the surveying umbrella which enclosed his professional activities. Mr. Briggam, a registered land surveyor practicing in Sarasota County and the Venice area in particular, has not done any work in St. Lucie County while a registered surveyor. Therefore, he is not familiar with the local requirements. He is, however, aware that surveyors do soil surveys in that location. He would not sign off on work done by others in areas in which he had no expertise, nor would he sign documents prepared on the basis of the work of others which he has not had the opportunity to check. However, given the fact that in the instant case, the provider of the crew in question was Respondent's business partner, who had been in business for an extended period of time, and that the act required was a simple boring and report of observation; and, in light of the fact that in St. Lucie County surveyors do this type of work, he might have signed the applications in issue here. Mr. Briggam agrees that when a surveyor sends out a crew to do a job, and it comes back with results, if the surveyor is reasonably sure the crew could do the work, he has to accept that work unless there is some way to check it in the office. Here, as has already been established, no such opportunity presented itself.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Daniel E. Lemonde be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee-, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5111 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Accepted in that the information as to water tables and soil samples on the forms was grossly inaccurate and that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of the inaccuracies at the time he signed. Remainder rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 5 - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted and incorporated herein except for finding that Respondent failed to verify the accuracy of information on the forms through knowledge of the crew. By the Respondent 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7 - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11 - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Unsupported by evidence of record. 14 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill O'Neil, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles J. Cheves, Esquire 341 Venice Avenue, West Venice, Florida 34285 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Have the Intervenors timely challenged the Hamilton County adoption of its comprehensive plan under the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes? If allowed to pursue their challenge, what is their burden of proof? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, (1991), the "fairly debatable" standard? Is it pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, (1991) the "preponderance" standard? Did Hamilton County (the County) fail to adopt its comprehensive plan within sixty (60) days from the receipt of written comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) as required by Section 163.3184(7), Florida Statutes (1991)? If it did, was that failure jurisdictional thereby voiding the adoption process? Within the adopted plan, is Policy V.2.13 requiring special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities and for their placement in areas designated agricultural and located with the rural area of Hamilton County, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1991) and the North Central Florida Regional Policy Plan? Within the adopted plan is Policy 1.15.1 prohibiting the disposal of medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous or solid waste by incineration or by other methods which produce air pollution, other than by facilities permitted, legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991, consistent with plan adoption requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (1991), Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, the State Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, and the North Central Regional Policy Plan? More particularly must these policies meet and do they meet the requirements for surveys, studies and data set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a),(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes (1991) and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact In December, 1990, Hamilton County prepared a proposed comprehensive plan. That proposal was submitted to the Department in accordance with Section 163.3184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Within the Conservation Element of the proposed plan the County included Policy V.2.13, which stated: The County shall only allow hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities as special permits within areas designated agricultural and located within the rural area of the County. Further, the County's land development regulations shall include conditions for such approval of a hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facility as a special permit regarding the location, site design, buffer requirements, access to principal arterials and major intersections, requirements for appropriate public facilities, and require- ments which consider wind currents in relationship to population centers, which will direct any incinerated materials or noxious odors from these population centers. In no case shall a hazardous or bio-medical waste treatment facility be located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area as designated within this Comprehensive Plan. Policy V.2.13 was associated with Objective V.2 which states: The County shall include within the land development regulations, by 1992, provisions for the conservation, appropriate use and protection of the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources, water recharge areas and potable water wells. There was no specific data and analysis in the proposed plan directed to Policy V.2.13. Other policies associated with Objective V.2 addressed water issues. In the data and analysis which the County submitted to DCA with its proposed comprehensive plan the County did identify known pollution problems. This included a reference to point discharges for wastewater, non-point sources of water pollution, point air pollution sources and non-point sources of air pollution. None of the known activities were associated with hazardous and bio- medical waste treatment facilities. The data and analysis associated with the Conversation Element in the proposed plan also identified watersheds, wetlands, lakes, flood prone areas, and current water sources. The data and analysis further discussed the circumstances related to watersheds, wetlands, rivers, lakes, flood prone areas and air quality as the County perceived the existing conditions for those topics. Finally, the data and analysis spoke to the issue of projected water needs. No mention was made concerning how the aforementioned data and analysis would be considered in granting special permits for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. On April 14, 1991, DCA transmitted its comments to the County concerning the proposed comprehensive plan and supporting data and analysis, together with its objections and recommendations for modifications to the proposed comprehensive plan. This activity was in accordance with Section 163.3184(6), Florida Statutes. The report that was transmitted is known as the "ORC" Report. The County received the ORC Report on April 22, 1991. The ORC Report made a number of objections to the objectives and policies set forth in the Conservation Element to the proposed comprehensive plan and recommendations for modifications to the same. The ORC Report specifically objected to Policy V.2.13 wherein the DCA stated: Policy V.2.13 does not describe the 'special permits' concerning hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities within agricultural areas, does not define the extent of the buffers, and does not prohibit these facilities in conser- vation areas. The general recommendation to improve Policy V.2.13, among policies found within the Conservation Element, was to this effect: Provide data and analysis to support the above- referenced policies. Revise the policies to identify the specific implementation programs or activities that will be undertaken by the County to achieve the goal and objectives with which the policies are associated. Eliminate or define all conditional and vague language. Revise the Future Land Use Map to support the revised policies. The County then held two public hearings related to the adoption of a comprehensive plan. See Section 163.3184(15), Florida Statutes (1991). The first public hearing was held on June 18, 1991. At that time no decision was reached to adopt a comprehensive plan. The public hearing was adjourned. On July 23, 1991, the County reconvened the public hearing related to the comprehensive plan adoption. Following the second public hearing associated with the plan adoption, the County in the person of its Board of County Commissioners who had conducted the public hearings, adopted a comprehensive plan for Hamilton County. The adopted comprehensive plan was transmitted to DCA on July 30, 1991. The transmittal letter supporting the adopted comprehensive plan noted that the comprehensive plan was adopted on July 23, 1991. The transmittal letter pointed out the changes to the adopted comprehensive plan which were not reviewed by DCA when DCA considered the proposed comprehensive plan. As with the proposed comprehensive plan, the County submitted data and analysis with the adopted comprehensive plan pointing out the data and analysis accompanying the adopted comprehensive plan which had not been reviewed by the DCA when it considered data and analysis supporting the proposed comprehensive plan. Within the conservation element to the adopted comprehensive plan Objective V.2 remained as set forth in the proposed comprehensive plan. Certain policies associated with Objective V.2 had changed. However, Objective V.2. and its associated policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan continued to address water issues. In particular, Policy V.2.13 did not change with the plan adoption. Additional data and analysis submitted by the County supporting the Conservation Element to the adopted comprehensive plan deleted the Suwannee River State Park as a conservation area. Specific references were made to Jumping Gully Creek, Swift Creek, Hunter Creek and the Withlacoochee River and activities associated with those water bodies. However, as with the proposed plan it was not explained how the County intended to use the original and additional data and analysis in deciding special permit issues for hazardous and bio-medical waste treatment facilities. When the County adopted its comprehensive plan it added an objective and a policy that had not been included with the proposed comprehensive plan in the category of objectives and policies for both urban development areas and rural areas in the Future Land Use Element. New Objective I.15 stated: Residential areas shall be protected from uses which cause or result in greater than average noise, hazards or odors. The associated Policy I.15.1 stated: No medical, bio-hazardous, hazardous, or solid waste shall be disposed of by incineration or by any other method which produces air pollution emissions subject to permitting by the Department of Environmental Regulation within Hamilton County, unless the use or facility was permitted and otherwise legally sited and operated as of July 23, 1991. The supporting data and analysis which the County provided the Department with the adopted comprehensive plan did not address Objective I.15 nor Policy I.15.1, with the exception that residential land use projections are described. The adopted plan provided specific information concerning future residential land use. That description was supported by a residential land use need methodology and analysis of future residential land use needed. As with the proposed plan, the adopted plan included a reference to industrial land use within the Future Land Use Element. In both the proposed plan and the adopted plan in Policy 1.3.1 it was stated: Lands classified as industrial consist of areas used for the manufacturing, assembly processing or storage of products. Industrial development may be approved in areas of the County not designated industrial on the Future Land Use Plan upon submission and approval of a development plan which shall include at the least: an industrial site plan; traffic plan; and traffic impact studies; provisions for the construction and maintenance of a wastewater treatment system meeting requirements of the State of Florida for that use; and a submission of a Future Land Use Plan Map amendment to Industrial classification. Industrial uses shall be limited to an intensity of less than or equal to 1.0 floor area ratio. The data and analysis associated with industrial land use which had been provided with the proposed comprehensive plan remained consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan when describing the methodology for identifying projected industrial land use. The comments in the data and analysis supporting the proposed and adopted plans indicated: Projecting the need for additional acreage for industrial use cannot be approached using a methodology similar to those used for residential and commercial Future Land Use needs. This is due to the fact that there is no direct relationship between population and industrial location. The additional future acreages for industrial location are anticipated to occur on a site specific basis as needed at the time industrial activities are proposed. Within the adopted comprehensive plan, Future Land Use Element related to urban development areas and rural areas is found the general industrial land use classification. The general industrial land use designations are located in the central area of the county to the southwest of the City of Jasper along County Road 249. There is an additional limited industrial land use classification within the urban development area and rural area category. It identifies industrial opportunities at interchanges on Interstate 75. At these interchanges, upon submission of a site plan that comports with development standards, with due regard for safety and adequate access, light industrial development is allowed which does not require an air emission permit from the State of Florida. Industrial land use designations as well as other land use designations were based upon an analysis of the amount and character of undeveloped land in the county, reliable population projections and growth patterns anticipated for the area, together with the availability of the public services to accommodate the projected population. The adopted comprehensive plan includes a Future Land Use Map and Map Series found within the Future Land Use Element of the adopted plan which depicts industrial land use. Intervenors' property carries a general industrial classification in the future land use designation in the adopted plan. Intervenors' property is not located on the Interstate 75 corridor and therefore would not be considered for this special industrial land use classification. The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (the Council) assisted the County in preparing its proposed and adopted plans. The Council staff were engaged in that process as early as 1986. From that point forward the Council staff conducted field surveys relating to land use, compiled data from existing data sources and reviewed population projections and growth patterns in Hamilton County. The Council staff compiled information concerning public facilities, recreational and solid waste facilities, information relating to physical capacity for those facilities and information concerning the financing of capital projects. In anticipation of the requirements set forth in Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, the Council staff conducted field surveys of existing land use to determine the character of undeveloped land in the county. The staff reviewed the population projections of the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research. These activities were designed to assist the County in analyzing the amount of land necessary to accommodate projected growth and the availability of public services. The Council staff was responsible for preparing the proposed plan statement related to goals, objectives, and policies. The staff also prepared the Future Land Use Plan Map. The documents prepared by the Council staff were subject to review and workshops were held to consider those matters. Modifications were brought about through public comments presented at the workshops. The Council staff prepared an evaluation, appraisal and review report to examine the success of previously adopted comprehensive plans. Following the conduct of workshops the public sessions for plan adoption were held on June 18, and July 23, 1991. As representative for the County, the Council staff invited the Department to send representatives to attend the public hearing sessions. The Department was represented at those sessions. In the public hearings related to the plan adoption, there was considerable public testimony expressing concern about health and environmental impacts involved with the incineration of bio-medical waste. In particular, remarks were made about air emissions of mercury and dioxins and the disposal of ash residue from the incineration process. Documents were also presented by members of the public who opposed waste incineration. One document was from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, entitled Seminar-Medical and Institutional Waste Incineration: Regulations, Management, Technology, Emissions and Operations. Another document was entitled Hazardous Waste News #82, June 20, 1988, identified as a weekly news and resource for citizens fighting toxins. A third document was entitled "Facts" related to definitions within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes and observations from the author of this document concerning Intervenors intended operations of a bio-medical incineration facility in Hamilton County. Finally, there was a document from the Hamilton County School Board calling for a buffer zone between any school in the county and facilities which incinerated or otherwise disposed of substances through incineration or other disposal means which would create air emissions from the destruction of solid waste, hazardous substances, bio-hazardous waste and biological waste as defined within Section 403.703, Florida Statutes. The Hamilton County School Board also expressed a desire to completely prohibit the incineration or other disposal of those substances which were generated outside Hamilton County. The EPA document spoke in terms of the emissions from incinerators as being particulate and gaseous emissions. The particulate emissions being constituted of char and soot and minerals in the form of metals, silicates and salts. The gaseous emissions referred to in the EPA document were constituted of combustible emissions such as hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, PCDD and PCDF and noncombustible emissions, such as nitrogen oxides, HCLs, hazardous compounds such as POHCs, products of incomplete combustion such as dioxins, and uncondensed volatile metals in excess air. Dr. Ralph Dougherty, an expert in environmental mass spectrometry, analytical chemistry and the chemistry of waste incineration, provided expert testimony concerning the significance of some of the information provided to the County in its public sessions. This testimony was presented at the administrative hearing. Dr. Dougherty did not attend the public hearing associated with the plan adoption. Dr. Dougherty in addressing the waste stream that is created by bio- medical waste described how the incineration process in destroying polyvinyl chloride, PVC plastic, saran wrap and neoprene converted those materials to chlorinated organics such as dioxin. As Dr. Dougherty established, dioxins are very hazardous substances. Kenneth Krantz appeared for the Intervenors at the public sessions for the plan adoption. At that time Basic Energy Corporation was known as TSI Southeast, Inc. (TSI). He provided written information to the county commissioners concerning the TSI bio-medical waste disposal business intended to be located in Hamilton County. TSI took no issue with Objective I.15 which was adopted on July 23, 1991. Intervenors proposed different text for policy I.15.1 and requested adoption of two additional policies I.15.2 and I.15.3 which would place some restrictions on solid waste disposal but would allow an opportunity for operating the TSI facility in the county. Information provided by Krantz in the public sessions indicated that TSI intended to operate a business to incinerate solid, bio-medical and solid municipal waste, together with a waste recycling area, Pelletizer area and turbine-generator area. Krantz addressed the county commissioners concerning county building permit information about the facility, permitting by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Information was provided concerning square footage for buildings within the overall TSI facility. Information was provided by TSI concerning the intended pollution control systems as being constituted of fabric filters and dry-lime injection systems, together with a detailed description of pending permit applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation for additional incineration units. Information provided by TSI addressed the expected constituents of the air emissions to include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, organics such as dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride and particulate matter. A site location map and schematic showing the flow within the waste stream was also provided. TSI also provided information at the public sessions about the Intervenors anticipated emissions rates for two previously permitted units and the third and fourth units that were being considered by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This data about emission rates included a comprehensive listing of anticipated emissions by pollutant type to include projected measurements of omissions for units one and two which would deal with medical waste combustion and units three and four which would deal with medical waste combustion and possibly refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As commented on by members of the public who appeared at the public sessions for adopting the plan, information provided by the Intervenors verified that significant amounts of pollutants would be discharged into the air through Intervenors' operations. TSI provided information concerning the modeling that was done to measure concentration levels for the expected pollutants. Information was provided concerning the incineration process and the manner in which calculations were made concerning expected emissions levels. Information was provided concerning anticipated annual and short term emission rates for the four units intended to be operated by the TSI. The technical information about the intended TSI facility was through documents that appeared to be from an engineering consulting firm. All information provided in the public sessions that has been described was properly available to the county commissioners when adopting the plan. The information provided at the public sessions which has been described was not presented to the Department with the adopted plan. As stated, on July 30, 1991, the County submitted its plan to the Department to determine if the adopted plan was in compliance with the requirements of law. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991). On September 12, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the adopted plan, not "in compliance". See Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes (1991). Pursuant to that provision, DCA filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings setting forth the reasons for its decision to find the adopted plan not "in compliance". That petition was filed on September 23, 1991. The DCA took no issue with Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On February 20, 1992, Intervenors petitioned to intervene in the not "in compliance" case. As identified in the statement of issues, the Intervenors were and continue to be opposed to the adoption of Policies I.15.1 and V.2.13. On March 17, 1992, an order was entered which granted the Intervenors leave to intervene. Intervenors own property in Hamilton County. As contemplated by Section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes (1993), DCA and the County engaged in settlement discussions. This culminated in a stipulated settlement agreement executed by DCA and County on November 24, 1993. The stipulated settlement agreement is referred to in the statute as a compliance agreement. Intervenors did not join in the settlement. On January 18, 1994, the County adopted the remedial amendments, referred to in the statute as plan amendments pursuant to a compliance agreement called for by the compliance agreement. The remedial plan amendments were submitted to the Department for consideration. On March 10, 1994, DCA issued a cumulative notice of intent addressing the compliance agreement amendments and the plan. DCA gave notice that it attended to find the plan and remedial comprehensive plan amendments/compliance agreement amendments "in compliance" with Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding that the Intervenors did not submit further pleadings within 21 days of the publication of the cumulative notice of intent, the Intervenors were allowed to proceed with their challenge to the plan that was not the subject of the compliance agreement leading to the compliance agreement amendments.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding the Hamilton County comprehensive plan to be "in compliance" with the exception that Policy V.2.13 is only "in compliance" in its latter sentence, the remaining language in Policy V.2.13 is not "in compliance". DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1995. APPENDIX "A" CASE NO. 91-6038GM The following discussion is given concerning the proposed fact finding by the parties: Intervenors' Facts: Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 2 is contrary to facts found. The remaining sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is rejected in its suggestion that there is a perpetual ban on bio-hazardous waste incineration. It is otherwise not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Intervenors' Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is not relevant. Paragraphs 9 through 12 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 14 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the date of adoption was January 18, 1994. Paragraphs 15 through 22 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 23 is not relevant. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 constitutes legal argument. Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 27 through 31 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 32 through 38 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 41 is rejected to the extent that it is suggested that it constitutes agency policy. Paragraphs 42 through the first phrase in 49 are subordinate to facts found. The latter phrase in Paragraph 49 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 50 through 58 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 59 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 60 through 75 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 76 through 82 are rejected as not constituting allowable analysis of data presented in support of the plan adoption. Paragraphs 83 and 84 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 85 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 87 through 91 are rejected to the extent that it is suggested that some lesser standard is involved with consideration of data for optional plan elements as opposed to mandatory plan elements. See Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes (1991) and Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes (1993). Paragraph 92 is acknowledged but did not form the basis for fact finding in the recommended order. Paragraph 93 is rejected as intended to interpret Policy I.15.1 as an absolute prohibition against waste incineration in the County. Paragraph 94 constitutes legal argument. Paragraphs 95 through 102 are not relevant. Paragraphs 103 through 105 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 106 through 108 are subordinate to facts found with the exception of the rejection of Policy V.2.13 in part. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Terrell L. Arline, Esquire Suzanne Schmith, Certified Legal Intern Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Box O Jasper, FL 32052 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Donald J. Schutz, Esquire Suite 415 535 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Linda L. Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact At times relevant Respondent has held license number LS0001999 issued by the Florida Board of Land Surveyors and Mappers. His license is as a land surveyor and mapper. Respondent held an active license from December 31, 1973 through March 9, 1995. On the latter date Respondent's license became delinquent "Due to Non- Renewal." The license remained in a delinquent status at the time of hearing. In this case the Florida Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers under authority set forth in Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, seeks to impose administrative discipline against Respondent. On April 24, 1991 Respondent provided John W. Smith a signed and sealed boundary survey drawing for Lot 8, Pelican Walk in Gulf County, Florida. In November 19, 1991 Respondent provided John W. Smith with a revised signed and sealed boundary survey drawing for Lot 8, Pelican Walk in Gulf County, Florida. Robert Waers is licensed as a land surveyor in Florida. As such he is an expert in land surveying. He reviewed the subject boundary survey drawings prepared by Respondent. The purpose for that review was to identify whether Respondent had complied with minimum technical standards for land surveying when preparing the survey drawings. As Mr. Waers established, a boundary survey is a procedure by which the surveyor identifies the property lines of a parcel of property as described by a legal description. The process also involves the identification of rights associated with that parcel as it exists on the ground with relation to the legal description. In Mr. Wares' expert opinion as a land surveyor Respondent failed to meet minimal standards or the standard of care within the surveying community when preparing the survey drawings at issue. Basically Mr. Wares established that the survey drawings were not complete, defensible, adequate and accurate. As Mr. Wares established, the survey drawings in depicting the outer boundaries on the parcel would lead one to believe that they coincide with the legal description for the parcel. This circumstance would purport to establish that the dimensions on the ground are precisely the same as those described in the legal description. However, the legal description does not form a closed geometric figure. When the geometry of the legal description is computed it does not return to the point of beginning. It misses that point by nine tenths of a foot. Consequently, it would be impossible to show the same measurements on the ground on the survey drawing as would be found in the legal description and accurately portray the situation on the ground. There would be differences between the survey drawing on the ground as physically measured and what is written in the legal description. Respondent has failed to note those differences through a comparison between measurements on the ground and those measurements in the legal description and the recordation of the difference. To properly perform the comparison Respondent would need to reflect the distances measured on the ground and the record distance found with both sets of measurements noted on the survey drawings, which he did not do. In both surveys in question the field data does not support the survey drawings. They are incomplete. They are so disorganized as to make many of the matters contained in the field notes indiscernible. For that reason Mr. Waers, as an expert, was unable to recreate the information in the field data as a means to determine the correct position of the boundaries in the survey drawing. Nor can the field data be relied upon as a means to compute a closed traverse of the parcel, referring to geometry relative to a closed traverse by use of the field notes. In the April, 1991 survey Respondent incorrectly located a residence. The survey drawings did not adequately nor accurately depict the nature or geometry of the fixed improvement. While the dimensions of the fixed improvement are sufficiently detailed, the position of the improvement related to the boundary line for the property is not acceptable in the April, 1991 survey. The April, 1991 survey drawings indicate dimensions of 13.8 feet and 15.7 feet at the northerly and southerly ends of the residence, whereas the November, 1991 survey drawings describes those dimensions as 10.65 and 9.8 feet respectively. As Mr. Waers described a monument is a marker on the ground at boundary corners for the property or along boundary lines. Its purpose is to assist in better establishing the location of a boundary line. The monuments are physical objects. In the event that the monument location and the boundary lines do not coincide, the expectation is that the surveyor will describe that conflict in the survey drawings by comparison. In this case, conflicts existed between boundary lines and monuments and they were not shown on the April and November, 1991 survey drawings. In both the April, 1991 and November, 1991 survey drawings Respondent included legends or notes describing abbreviations and their complete meaning such as R/W for right of way and CH for cord. However, in those drawings, Respondent used the initials RLS, CONC and FR, terms not commonly known by the public, without describing the full meaning of those initials in a legend or note. All matters which have been discussed were observed by Mr. Waers and in his opinion, which is accepted, constitute the failure to comply with minimal technical standards for surveying when examining the survey drawings from April, 1991 and November, 1991 prepared by Respondent. Furthermore, Mr. Wares's opinion that Respondent failed to use due care in performing the surveys is accepted. As established by Mr. Waers, Respondent should have gone to the field and collected sufficient data, made sufficient measurements as to accurately position the residence on the property and to show property lines in all instances that might affect property rights as a means to allow the land owner to make additions to the house without encroaching upon his neighbors property. To perform the survey properly Respondent should have made notes and comparisons between the legal description in the record and the physical boundaries found on the parcel.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Counts I and V with the exception of part (e) to those counts and part (f) to Count V; in violation of Count II but not Count VI; in violation of Counts III and VII; in violation of Counts IV and VIII; and, absolving him of any violation alleged in Count IX. As a penalty, a $1,000 fine should be imposed, with a ninety day suspension should Respondent attempt to reactivate his license. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX CASE NO. 95-5375 The following discussion is given concerning Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are not sufficient in themselves to support findings of fact. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is not sufficient in itself to support findings of fact. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Paragraph 7 is rejected in its suggestion that proof was sufficient to demonstrate that the civil action pertained to the survey performed by Respondent for Mr. Smith. Paragraphs 8 through 18 are subordinate to facts found as is the first phrase in Paragraph 19. The remaining phrases in Paragraph 19 and Paragraph 20 are not sufficient in themselves to support findings of fact. See Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 22 through 27 are not sufficient in themselves to support findings of fact. See Section 120.58 Florida Statutes. Paragraphs 28 through 44 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 47 are not sufficient in themselves to support a finding of fact concerning reporting fixed interior improvements. See Section 120.58 Florida Statutes. Paragraphs 48 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are rejected in the suggestion that proof was made sufficient to demonstrate that the court case which judgement was obtained was proven to be a case related to the survey performed by Respondent for Mr. Smith. Paragraph 53 is subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Miriam Wilkinson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Donald F. Mowrey, Jr. 312 Iola Street Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Donald F. Mowrey, Jr. Post Office Box 838 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456-0838 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the City of Gainesville comprehensive plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 4036 on October 24, 1994, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact have been determined: The Parties Respondent, City of Gainesville (City), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. That chapter is administered and enforced by respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA is charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto. Petitioners, Mark Barrow, Jane Myers, Wilse Barnard, Mary Webb, and Steven and Mary Reid, own property and reside within the City. Petitioners, Historic Gainesville, Inc. and Duckpond Neighborhood Association, Inc., are organizations made up of persons who reside, own property, or operate businesses within the City. By stipulation of the parties, petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenors, John and Denise Feiber and Katherine Bodine, are the owners of two parcels of property which are at issue in this case. Intervenors submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus have standing as affected persons to participate in this proceeding. Background During 1993 and 1994, John Feiber unsuccessfully attempted to sell his 1,800 square foot single-family home for an asking price that was disproportionately high for residential property, and was more in keeping with a commercial asking price. Recognizing that the property would be far more valuable with a commercial classification than its current residential designation, on June 11, 1994, Feiber, his wife, and the owner of the property next door, Katherine Bodine, submitted an application for an amendment to the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to convert a .57 acre parcel from Residential- low Density to Planned Use District (PUD) to change a single family home into a law office, potentially convert an adjacent structure into mixed office and residential uses, and possibly build a third office building. Although the City's Plan Board unanimously recommended that the application be denied, by a 4-1 vote the City approved the application on October 3, 1994. This approval was formally ratified through the adoption of Ordinance No. 4036 on October 24, 1994. After essentially deferring to the City's findings, on January 25, 1995, the DCA completed its review of the amendment and issued a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. On February 15, 1995, petitioners filed their petition for administrative hearing with the DCA generally contending the amendment was internally inconsistent and violated certain parts of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the state comprehensive plan, and Chapter 9J- 5, Florida Administrative Code. In resolving these contentions, on which conflicting evidence was presented, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence. Finally, by order dated March 30, 1995, intervenors were authorized to participate in this proceeding in support of the amendment. The Affected Neighborhood The parcel in question consists of two lots, one owned by the Feibers, the other by Bodine. Both lots are located within, and on the edge of, the Northeast Gainesville Residential Historic District (Historic District), a 63- acre collection of properties, which by virtue of the historically significant structures and residential land use patterns, qualified for listing on the National Register of Historic Places in 1980. The dominant land use and character within the Historic District is residential, and has been since it was zoned residential in 1932. Land uses on Northeast First Street, which forms the western boundary of the District, were always institutional, but on the east side of Northeast Second Street eastward, the uses were always residential with the exception of the Thomas Center, a 1920's vintage building now serving as a City office building. The Historic District is located in downtown Gainesville, beginning just north of East University Avenue and continuing northward until Northeast Tenth Avenue. Within its boundaries on the FLUM are two distinct land use designations, Residential-Low Density and Office. Northeast Second Street serves as the land use boundary between the two, with residential uses permitted on the east side and nonresidential uses permitted on the west side of the street. There have been no encroachments across the residential land use line since 1976 when a nonconforming parking lot was approved by the City. When the City adopted its comprehensive plan in 1985, and revised it in 1991, it continued the same two land uses, thereby codifying existing residential land use patterns and the conversion of office uses that had already occurred along First Street Northeast in the early 1970s. The Amendment As noted above, the parcel in question consists of two legal lots, one owned by the Feibers, the other by Bodine. The amendment changes the FLUM portion of the City's 1991-2001 comprehensive plan to reflect a PUD overlay for the parcel. The land is presently designated as residential-low density, a category in which office uses are not permitted. According to policy 2.1.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), this land use category is appropriate "for single family development, particularly the conservation of existing traditional low-density neighborhoods, single-family attached and zero-lot line development, and small scale multi-family development." Conversely, the same policy provides that "office designations shall not encroach in viable residential areas nor expand strip development." By their application, John and Denise Feiber seek to convert their single-family home at 206 N. E. Third Street into a law office. An adjacent two-story structure located at 206 N. E. Second Avenue would possibly be converted to office uses on the first floor and residential uses on the second floor. That building is owned by Katherine Bodine, an absentee landlord who resides in Jacksonville, Florida. The amendment also permits, but does not require, future consideration of a third, multi-story structure to accommodate offices. After the amendment was approved by the City, Bodine immediately listed her parcel for sale, and its future development is uncertain at this time. FLUE policy 2.1.1 describes the PUD designation as follows: This category is an overlay land use district which may be applied on any specific property in the City. The land use regulations pertaining to this overlay district shall be adopted by ordinance in conjunction with an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of this comprehensive plan. The category is created to allow the consideration of unique, inno- vative or narrowly construed land use proposals that because of the specificity of the land use regulations can be found to be compatible with the character of the surrounding land uses and environmental conditions of the subject land. Each adopting PUD overlay land use designation shall address density and intensity, permitted uses, traffic access and trip generation, environmental features and buffering of adjacent uses. Planned Development zoning shall be required to implement any specific development plan. In the event that the overlay district has been applied to a site and no planned development zoning has found approval by action of the City Commission within one year of the land use designation, the overlay land use district shall be deemed null and void and the overlay land use category shall be removed from the Future Land Use Map, leaving the original and underlying land use in place. Therefore, any land use proposal under this category must be "compatible with the character of the surrounding land uses and environmental conditions" and address the "buffering of adjacent uses." It follows that a PUD may not be applied arbitrarily, but rather it must be appropriate for the area and specific site. The amendment applies the following land use regulations to both the Feiber and Bodine parcels: Residential use of up to ten (10) units per acre and all uses permitted by right and by special use permit within the RMF-5 zoning district is authorized; the maximum floor area of all buildings and structures is 7,185 square feet; the Historic Preservation/ Conservation District requirements of Section 30-79, Land Development Code of the City of Gainesville regulate and control the development and design of all buildings, structures, objects and related areas; in addition to the Landscape and Tree management requirements of the Land Development Code, the property is required to be planted and maintained with residential scale landscaping to conform to the surrounding residential neighborhood, as well as act as a buffer for the surrounding uses; the average weekday afternoon peak trip generation rate per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in office use is not permitted to exceed 1.73; any application for development is required to meet concurrency requirements of Article III of the City of Gainesville Land Development Code for each phase of development; and off-street parking is required to be provided unless on- street parking is created, pursuant to a plan attached to the ordinance as Exhibit "D". The amendment also applies the following land use regulations specifically to the Feiber parcel: An additional land use, Legal Services, as defined in Major Group 81 of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 ed. is authorized; the maximum floor area authorized for such Legal Services is one thousand seven hundred eighty five (1,785) square feet; and, if on-street parking is not provided in accordance with the plan provided in Exhibit "D" of the ordinance, then off-street parking must be provided within 300 feet of the Feiber parcel. Finally, the amendment applies the following land use regulations to the Bodine parcel: Non-residential land uses are permitted as specified in Exhibit "E" of the ordinance; the maximum floor area authorized for non-residential uses is three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet; the second story of the existing building is limited to residential use only; and on-site parking limitations are imposed. In accordance with policy 2.1.1, Planned Development (PD) zoning is required to implement the development plan and the uses permitted in the amendment. The underlying FLUM designation of Residential Low Density, which allows up to 12 units per acre, is neither abandoned nor repealed, but rather remains inapplicable, so long as the property is developed in accordance with a development plan to be approved when the implementing PD zoning is adopted, and such implementing zoning must be adopted within one year of the amendment becoming effective. Data and Analysis Data and Analysis Before the City Basically, the City concluded that the amendment could be justified on the theory that the conversion would provide commercial "infill" of an underutilized parcel with step-down transitions to the inner neighborhood. It further concluded that because of the small size of the parcel involved, the conversion would have a de minimis effect on the neighborhood. When the amendment was adopted, the City had before it the previously adopted comprehensive plan, including the original data and analysis to support that plan, and testimony and exhibits offered both for and against the amendment during a local government hearing conducted on October 4, 1994. Significantly, the City had no studies of any kind regarding marketability, neighborhood stability, availability of land for office and residential uses, or traffic. Indeed, in preparation for final hearing, its expert simply made a walking tour of the neighborhood. Data and Analysis Before the Department On October 28, 1994, the City transmitted the amendment to the DCA for review. The transmittal package contained the following items: The City's Final Order; Ordinance No. 4036, with Exhibits A-E; interoffice communication to the City Commission from the City Plan Board dated July 11, 1994; interoffice communication to the City Plan Board, Planning Division Staff dated June 16, 1994; attachment to Land Use Application (pages 1-5); and excerpts from the City Zoning and Future Land Use Maps showing the zoning and land uses assigned to adjacent properties. However, the transmittal package did not include transcripts of the City Plan Board hearing, the Commission Adoption hearing, or any part of the record of the quasi-judicial hearing of October 4, 1994. The DCA planning staff consulted data contained in the Department of Transportation's ITE Manual in analyzing the traffic and parking impacts of the adopted land use map amendment. It also contacted the Department of State, Division of Historic Resources (Division), for analysis of the amendment's impact on historic resources, and it received comments on the amendment from the the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council (NCFRPC). The DCA planning staff also analyzed the FLUM to determine compatibility of the amendment with surrounding uses. During this review, the DCA planning staff reviewed all pertinent portions of the City's Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs) and data and analysis. This review was done in a cursory fashion, however, since the DCA viewed the application as being a very small project with no perceived impact. Given the lack of any studies concerning marketability, neighborhood stability, availability of land for office and residential uses, and traffic, all of which are pertinent to this amendment, it is found that the City and DCA did not use the best available data and analysis. Therefore, the amendment is inconsistent with the requirement in Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, that the best available (and appropriate) data and analysis be used. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses To the south of the subject parcels is a four-lane loop road (Northeast Second Avenue) which now serves as a buffer from the adjacent uses. Across the street to the south is City Hall, which was constructed more than thirty years ago. To the west of the property is a commercial parking lot with an office building next door to that parking lot. On the east side of the property are multi-family dwellings. To the south and east from the parcels is a commercial lot. An area from the corner of Northeast Second Avenue and Northeast First Street, one block from the subject parcels, and proceeding north along Northeast First Street, contains many non- residential uses, including offices. Areas to the north are predominately multi-family and single-family uses. Transitional uses and buffering are professionally-acceptable planning tools. However, changing a single-family dwelling into an office does not enhance buffering for the residential properties further in the neighborhood because the Feiber house is currently a less intense use than office. Therefore, the amendment conflicts with the plan's requirement that a PUD provide buffering for adjacent uses. The concept of transitional uses entail the practice of providing for a gradation of uses from high-intensity to low-intensity uses. Insertion of another non-residential use at the Feiber property to achieve a chimerical "step-down transitional use" merely moves the "edge" another step inward. Nonresidential uses already exist just outside the Historic District neighborhood that would meet this "step-down" criteria. Retrofitting an existing neighborhood is not appropriate unless it is no longer viable, which is not the case here. Contrary to the proponents' assertion, the Feiber and Bodine parcels will not provide the transitional uses of office and multi-family uses between the high-intensity office (City Hall) uses and lower intensity, multi-family uses to the north of the subject parcels. The four-lane street between the City Hall and the subject property now serves as an adequate buffer. A major goal of the City's plan is to protect viable, stable neighborhoods, and the FLUM, with its residential land use category, provides that protection. This goal cannot be achieved by converting these parcels to office use. Another major goal of the plan is to protect and promote restoration and stablization of historic resources within the City. That goal cannot be achieved by converting these parcels to nonresidential uses. Yet another major goal of the plan is the prohibition of office uses intruding into residential neighborhoods. The amendment contravenes that requirement. Impact on Historic Resources As noted earlier, the Feiber and Bodine properties are located on the southern edge of the Historic District of the City, separated from the City Hall by a one-block long segment of a four-lane street plus the full half-block length of the City Hall parking lot. A major goal of the City's plan is the protection of historic architectural resources and historically significant housing within the City. This goal is found in FLUE objective 1.2, Historic Preservation Element goals 1 and 2, and Housing Element policy 3.1.3. This overall major goal, as embodied in the foregoing objective, policies and goal, cannot be furthered by the amendment. Conversions which intrude across stable boundaries, such as exist in this neighborhood, begin a pattern of disinvestment. As investment subsides, the physical, historic structures will be adversely affected. The conversion contemplated by the amendment would represent a small encroachment of office use into the neighborhood with a cumulative effect. There is nothing to preclude its precedential effect or encouragement of similar applications. Although the Division of Historic Resources stated that it had no objection to the amendment, its acquiesence to the amendment is not controlling. Rather, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the amendment will have an adverse impact on the Historic District and will not further applicable goals, policies and objectives. Local Comprehensive Plan Issues One criteria for evaluating a plan amendment is whether it would result in compatibility with adjacent land uses. The overriding goal in the area of compatibility analysis is the protection of viable, stable neighborhoods. There is nothing in the plan amendment itself which provides compatibility or buffering for the residential properties located to the north and east of the subject parcel. Indeed, office development of the land will increase the pressure to convert more structures. Objective 2.1 of the FLUE establishes an objective of providing sufficient acreage for residential, commercial, mixed use, office and professional uses and industrial uses at appropriate locations to meet the needs of the projected population. Those acreages are depicted on the FLUM. When reviewing a FLUM amendment, such as the subject of this proceeding, the City is required to make a need analysis. The amendment is not supported by any analysis of need. Prior to the amendment, the plan contained an overallocation of office space and a shortage of housing for Market Area 4, in which the subject parcel is located. The amendment does not increase available housing or alleviate the overallocation of office space in Market Area 4. Indeed, it has a contrary result. Adaptive reuse is not promoted by the City's plan. Rather, the Housing Element promotes restoration and conservation of historically or architecturally significant housing, which means returning to housing use, not adapting structures to some other use. In this respect, the amendment is contrary to the City's plan. Summary Because the plan amendment is internally inconsistent and not based on the best available data and analysis, it is found that the amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order finding the amendment to be not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0749GM Petitioners: Petitioners' proposed findings, while substantially modified and shortened, have been generally adopted in substance. Respondents/Intervenors: 1-8. Partially covered in findings of fact 10-16. 9-37. Partially covered in findings of fact 17-22. 38-53. Partially covered in findings of fact 23-30. 54-71. Partially covered in findings of fact 31-33. 72-106. Partially covered in findings of fact 31-38. Note: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, cumulative, irrelevant, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, subordinate, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrice F. Boyes, Esquire W. David Jester, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Suzanne H. Schmith, Esquire 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 C. David Coffey, Esquire 105 S. E. First Avenue, Suite 1 Gainesville, Florida 32601-6215 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dan R. Stengle, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent held a license to practice land surveying in the State of Florida. In March 1984, Joseph L. Abrams a land developer, hired the respondent to perform certain professional services in connection with a proposed development known as Doug's Unit Number One. Mr. Abrams hired the respondent because he had previously performed land surveying services for Mr. Abrams and had done a good job. Doug's Unit Number One involved six acres of land which had been preliminarily subdivided by an engineer into 14 separate lots. The preliminary drawing by the engineer, showing set backs, easements, and other matters, had been approved by the City of Winter Springs, but Mr. Abrams needed a sealed drawing to record. He therefore hired the respondent as a professional surveyor, to describe the lots in surveying terms and prepare a sealed set of drawings. On March 27, 1984, the respondent prepared a bill for the services and itemized the total cost of $756 as follows: drafting of S/D on linen, $250; cost of linen $6; engineering, calculations telephone calls specifications, Winter Springs conference, etc., $500. Mr. Abrams paid the bill the same day. Mr. Abrams was informed that respondent had paid Burl (Mike) Drennen to do the drafting, and, as soon as the drafting was done, either respondent or Mr. Drennen would deliver the drawings, properly sealed, to Mr. Abrams. The drawings were to be delivered in two to three weeks. Respondent also informed Mr. Abrams that respondent was leaving for New Jersey and would be gone for a few weeks. Respondent gave Mr. Abrams his phone number in New Jersey and Mr. Drennen's phone number. After two weeks elapsed and the drawings had not been delivered, Mr. Abrams began calling the respondent and Mr. Drennen. Sometime in April or May, Mr. Abrams was able to contact respondent in New Jersey and the respondent explained that he would be unable to return to Florida for another two to three weeks due to his wife's serious illness. Mr. Abrams also contacted Mr. Drennen, who informed him that he would not deliver the drawings because he had not been fully paid for his drafting services and because he would have to receive authorization from the respondent before the drawings were released since the respondent had hired him. Mr. Drennen told Mr. Abrams that he would try to contact respondent to get the authorization to release the drawings, but Mr. Drennen was unable to contact the respondent. However after several more conversations with Mr. Abrams, Mr. Drennen agreed to deliver the drawings if Mr. Abrams paid him the remaining money he was owed. 1/ On June 6, 1984, Mr. Drennen delivered the drawings and was paid $180 by Mr. Abrams. However, when Mr. Abrams looked over the sheet, he realized that the sheet had not been sealed. He tried to contact the respondent, and when he was unable to do so, he decided to go to another surveyor. The new surveyor could not simply take the drawing and seal it; he had to do the entire project over again. Mr. Mims, the new surveyor, charged $1,250 which was paid in October or November of 1984 and the sealed drawings were delivered and recorded on December 20, 1984. By letter dated June 7, 1984, Mr. Abrams filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, and on August 15, 1984, Mr. Alvin Lewis Smith, an investigator with the Department, contacted respondent by telephone in New Jersey to inquire about the matter. The respondent admitted that he had not completed the project, but he stated that he had his seal in New Jersey and, if Mr. Abrams had sent the drawings to him, he could have signed and sealed the drawings and sent them back to Mr. Abrams. However, when asked if he had done any field work for the project, respondent said that he had not and that he couldn't seal the drawings because he hadn't done the field work. Nevertheless, on August 16, 1984, respondent wrote to Mr. Abrams stating that he had taken his seal to New Jersey and that he could sign and seal the linen and have it back to Mr. Abrams in two days if Mr. Abrams would send the drawings to him by Federal Express. At the hearing the respondent testified that the $756 payment was for drawing up the plat and performing calculations and engineering work on the project, but it was not for doing the field work. However respondent acknowledged that the field work had to be done before the plat could be sealed and recorded. All the other evidence and testimony presented at the hearing indicates that the respondent agreed to deliver drawings to Mr. Abrams that were properly prepared and sealed for recording. It is therefore apparent that the $756 paid by Mr. Abrams to respondent was to cover all the work necessary, including the field work, for the plat to be recorded. Without being sealed, the drawings were useless. During the time of this incident the respondent had personal problems which required him to stay in New Jersey. His wife was quite ill and his wife's parents' estate had to be settled. Respondent has been a registered surveyor for over 30 years and, until the instant action, had never had a complaint filed against him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon due consideration of respondent's personal circumstances at the time of this incident and respondent's previously unblemished record, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding respondent guilty of those acts set forth in Sections 472.033(1)(g) and 472.033(1)(h), Florida Statutes, reprimanding the respondent, and placing him on probation for a period of one year with such terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary by the Board of Professional Land Surveyors. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether amendments to the Palm Beach County (County) Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39, 2004-63 and 2004-64 (Amendments) to accommodate the County's development of a biotechnology research park on 1,900 acres known as the Mecca site are "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Overview of the County's Pre-Scripps Plan The County's first Plan was adopted in 1980. Its 1989 Plan, the first adopted under the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (also known as the 1985 Growth Management Act, or GMA) built upon the strengths of the first Plan. In 1995, the County evaluated and appraised its 1989 Plan, completed an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), and subsequently adopted a substantially-amended EAR-based Plan. In 1999, the Plan again was amended by the addition of a Managed Growth Tier System (MGTS) as a new growth management tool.2 The County's Plan recognizes that development in the County has generally moved from eastern coastal areas to the west and from the southern part of the County to the north. Generally, the Plan has attempted to direct growth towards the eastern part of the County and to encourage infill and redevelopment in that part of the County. Redevelopment is underway in older areas, usually under the auspices of local governments. At the same time, the Plan now recognizes that another growth corridor is located along SR 7 and US 441. Even with the efforts to encourage infill and redevelopment in the eastern part of the County, growth pressures have led to 18,000 acres of new land use approvals in the County north of Lake Worth Boulevard in the last 10 years. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan contains County Directions, GOPs (i.e., Goals, Objectives, and Policies), the MGTS Map, and the Future Land Use Atlas. The County Directions "provide the basis for preparation of the [GOPs]." The GOPs "provide the framework for decisions that direct the location, pattern, character, interrelationships and timing of development, which ultimately affects the distribution of facilities and services to support it." The MGTS Map "defines distinct geographical areas within the County that currently either support or are anticipated to accommodate various types of development patterns and service delivery provisions that, together, allow for a diverse range of lifestyle choices, and livable, sustainable communities." The Atlas "graphically depicts the future distribution, general use and densities and intensities of [land use] within each tier." (FLUE Introduction, pp. 1-2) The County also routinely employs geographic-specific planning tools. The Plan creates at least 15 overlays to meet planning challenges for specific areas. It also recognizes 10 neighborhood plans. Optional sector planning for a large part of the Central-Western Communities of the County also is underway. The FLUE's County Directions include: Livable Communities (with "a balance of land uses and [other features]"); Growth Management (to "provide for sustainable urban, suburban, exurban and rural communities and lifestyle choices by: (a) directing . . . development that respects the characteristics of a particular geographic area; (b) ensuring smart growth . . . ; and (c) providing for facilities and services in a cost efficient timely manner"); Infill Development (to increase efficiency); Land Use Compatibility; Neighborhood Integrity; Economic Diversity and Prosperity (to promote the growth of industries that are high-wage and diversify the economic base); Housing Opportunity ("by providing an adequate distribution of very-low and low-income housing, Countywide"); Economic Activity Centers (to encourage manufacturing and other value-added activities); Level of Service Standards ("to accommodate an optimal level . . . needed as a result of growth"); Linear Open Space and Park Systems; Environmental Integrity (to "[e]ncourage restoration and protection of viable, native ecosystems and endangered and threatened wildlife by limiting the impacts of growth on those systems; direct incompatible growth away from them; encourage environmentally sound land use planning and development and recognize the carrying capacity and/or limits of stress upon these fragile areas"); Design; A Strong Sense of Community; and Externalities (placing "major negative" ones "away from neighborhoods"). (Id. at pp. 5-6) FLUE Goal 1 is to establish the MGTS. Objective 1.1 recognizes five geographic regions (tiers) of land with "distinctive physical development patterns with different needs for services to ensure a diversity of lifestyle choices": Urban/Suburban (land within the Urban Service Area (USA), generally along the east coast but also along the southeast shore of Lake Okeechobee in the extreme west of the County, having urban or suburban density and intensity and afforded urban levels of service); Exurban (land outside the USA and generally between the Urban and Rural Tiers, platted prior to the 1989 Plan and developed at densities greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (du/ac); Rural (land outside the USA and east of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area (Corbet WMA), including large tracts of land, as well as lands platted prior to the 1989 Plan, that had a predominant density of 1 du/10 ac, but less than 1 du/5 ac, and afforded rural levels of service); Agricultural Reserve (primarily for agricultural use, reflecting the unique farmlands and wetlands within it, to be either preserved or developed only at low residential density); and Glades (all land west of the Water Conservation Areas, Twenty Mile Bend, and Corbett WMA, predominantly supporting large-scale agricultural operations, and afforded rural levels of service.) The five tiers are depicted graphically in Map LU 1.1, MGTS, of the Map Series. Conservation lands are also depicted on Map LU 1.1 but are not assigned to a tier. The Map also depicts the United Technologies (Pratt-Whitney) (UT) Overlay and the North County General Aviation Airport (North County Airport), neither one which appears from Map LU 1.1 to lie within a tier. The UT Overlay is in the north-central part of the County, sandwiched between Rural Tier on the north, east, and southeast and Conservation land, including Corbett WMA on the west and southwest, and roughly bisected by the Beeline Highway (Beeline), which runs diagonally through the overlay between its northwest and southeast extremes. The Airport lies farther to the southeast along the Beeline, essentially surrounded by Rural Tier land, except for relatively small pieces of Conservation land contiguous to it along its western boundary and at its southeast corner (the North County Airport Preserve.) Notwithstanding the possible appearance from the depictions on Map LU 1.1, the County has no general planning jurisdiction in any of the incorporated areas of the County.3 Map LU 2.1 depicts the three service areas to guide delivery of public services that are established under FLUE Goal 3. These are the Urban Service Area (USA), the Rural Service Area (RSA), and the Limited Urban Service Areas (LUSA). The USA essentially follows the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. The LUSA is relatively limited geographically and includes the Agricultural Reserve Tier, the UT Overlay, and the North County Airport (with contiguous Conservation lands). The rest of the County is in the RSA. The verbiage of Goal 3, its Objectives and Policies and other parts of the Plan, gives the impression that provision of services is fine-tuned to the character and needs of a particular locale. For example, Goal 3 is "to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost- effective manner, reflective of the quality of life associated with each respective Tier." But actually the Plan assigns countywide level-of-service standards (LOSS's) to seven of nine types of facilities. All urban services can be provided in all areas of the County except that County centralized water and sewer services cannot be provided in the RSA. While theoretically intended to be geographically limited, the main difference between the USA and the LUSA is that the LUSA is outside the USA. The Agricultural Reserve part of the LUSA is actually a westerly extension of the USA. The North County Airport part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier land; the UT part of the LUSA is surrounded by Rural Tier and Conservation lands, the same as the UT Overlay. The County has re-examined its policy decision not to provide centralized water and sewer services in the RSA because it has resulted in various municipalities and utilities special districts and perhaps private alternative providers extending services while the County excludes itself. The County has adopted plan amendments to change this to allow the County to provide such services and to exclude others. Those plan amendments are under administrative challenge at this time and are not yet in effect. The County has three priorities for extending services. One is to encourage development of basic industry to further the Economic Element. The County Plan's Economic Element is optional. It reflects a concerted effort to diversify the economy of the County by encouraging growth in cluster industries, including medical products. Taken together, the Plan reflects a desire to accommodate growth in the Urban/Suburban Tier, especially in the eastern part of the County. Many GOPs in the Plan promote and encourage infill and redevelopment. However, pressure to grow in other parts of the County are undeniable. It appears that, under the Plan, the County will be completely built-out within 30 years. The County's current Plan is detailed and complicated. Many other parts of it, some of which will be addressed later in this Recommended Order, also are implicated in some manner and in different degrees by the Amendments at issue. Scripps Florida In the early 1990s, a County study indicated concern about the three main elements of the local economy: tourism was low-paying; agriculture was low-paying and a declining sector; and construction and development would decline as the County built out. In 1998, a consulting firm (SRI) proposed an action plan for the County to develop economic clusters. The action plan addressed several industry clusters, including medical/pharmaceuticals. SRI recommended, among other things, attracting a biomedical park development, a satellite campus of a medical school, venture capital providers, and a medical research institute. Meanwhile, in the same general time frame, the State’s economic development arm, Enterprise Florida, Inc., targeted the biomedical industry for development in Florida. The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California (Scripps), is the largest not-for-profit biotechnology research organization of its kind in the world. In 2003, Scripps decided to expand its operations. Florida Governor Bush, along with several Florida legislators, personally and through Enterprise Florida and OTTED, actively pursued Scripps to locate in Florida. During the same timeframe, the Federal Government made funds available to Florida under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, for the essential governmental service of improving economic opportunities available to the people of this state by attracting new or expanding businesses to, and retaining businesses in, the State. It was decided to use $310,000,000 of these funds in the pursuit of Scripps and hoped-for related economic and other benefits. By October 2003, Scripps agreed to negotiate expansion to Florida and chose Palm Beach County as its preferred location in the State. Also in October 2003, the Florida Legislature met in special session and, on November 3, 2003, enacted Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, which created the Scripps Florida Funding Corporation to facilitate establishment and operation of a biomedical research institution for the purposes of enhancing education and research and promoting economic development and diversity. The Funding Corporation was required by the law to negotiate a contract with the Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla, California, for Scripps to establish a state-of-the-art biomedical research institution and campus in Florida. After disbursement of $300,000 to OTTED to cover staffing and administration expenses of the Funding Corporation, and upon execution of the contract with Scripps, the balance of the $310,000,000 was to be disbursed to the Funding Corporation subject to the terms of the contract. The Scripps Grant Agreement Scripps Florida and the County entered into a Grant Agreement on February 9, 2004, with a term of 30 years. In the Grant Agreement, the County agreed to pay for or provide: a 100-acre campus for Scripps Florida in the 1,919-acre site at Mecca Farms (Mecca), with a funding limitation of $60,000,000; the construction of initial temporary facilities for Scripps Florida at the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus in Jupiter, with a funding limitation of $12,000,000; the construction of permanent facilities for Scripps Florida at the Mecca site, with a funding limitation of $137,000,000; 400 adjacent acres for development of “related uses”; and applications for approvals for Scripps Florida to develop 2 million square feet at Mecca. The Grant Agreement’s definition of “related uses” was intended to be broad so that the County can open the 400 acres to computer research, telecommunications and other economic clusters if not enough pharmaceutical or life-science research firms are attracted. The Grant Agreement requires Scripps Florida to create or relocate at least 545 new jobs to the Mecca site; to strive to create 2,777 new or relocated jobs; and to work with the County to create a total 6,500 jobs. In the Grant Agreement, the County expressly reserves all legislative and quasi-judicial powers, acting only in its proprietary capacity. The County's Purchase of Mecca Site In accordance with the Grant Agreement, the County proceeded with the purchase of the Mecca site. In October 2003, the Business Development Board (BDB), a non- profit organization that is funded primarily by and reports to the County, already had obtained an option to purchase the site for $60,000,000, if certain government approvals could be obtained. In February 2004, the County acquired the option on the Mecca property from the BDB and exercised it. Including the cost of some "oral add-ons," the purchase price for Mecca was approximately $60,500,000. Characteristics of the Mecca and Surroundings The Mecca site is in the shape of a rectangle located in the north-central part of the County. It is designated in the Rural Tier. For approximately 50 years, most of the site has been used as a citrus grove with trees grown in rows 15 feet apart, 73-acres of agricultural ditches, and a 272-acre above-ground water impoundment area in the northeast quadrant of the site used for irrigation. There also is a 30-acre sand mine operation in the southwestern quadrant. At this time, the Mecca site is accessible by road only by Seminole Pratt-Whitney Road (SPW), a two-lane paved road from the south. When SPW reaches the southwest corner of Mecca, it becomes a dirt road as it continues along the west side of the property. While Mecca itself is in the Rural Tier, it is not surrounded by Rural Tier land. The land to the west is designated Conservation, and the land to the north and south is designated Exurban Tier. The land to the east is designated Rural Tier, but it actually is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The area around Mecca is a “mosaic” of uses, including undeveloped agricultural lands, conservation lands, and lands developed predominantly as undesirable residential sprawl with limited employment and shopping. The nearby Beeline, part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), is classified by the State as “urban” to the east and “transitional” to the west of SPW. Significant among the developed areas near Mecca is The Acreage, abutting Mecca to the south. The County designated The Acreage as part of the Exurban Tier. It is a large, 76 percent built-out, antiquated subdivision with a density of 1 du/1.25 ac and a population of approximately 42,000. As such, it can be characterized as either urban or suburban, but not rural. To the south and west of The Acreage are large citrus groves in the Rural Tier. Farther south and west of The Acreage is Loxahatchee Groves, another antiquated subdivision in the Exurban Tier, with a density of 1 du/5 ac that is just 18 percent built-ut with 1,216 homes built. Farther south, just south of Southern Boulevard, is the Village of Wellington, which is a municipality located within the boundaries of the Urban/Suburban Tier. South and east of The Acreage is the Village of Royal Palm Beach, also a municipality within the Urban/Suburban Tier. The 60,288-acre Corbett WMA is located immediately west of Mecca and is owned and managed by the State as a hunting preserve. It has no tier designation. Corbett has a variety of habitats for endangered or threatened species (wood storks, eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes), including wet prairie, freshwater marsh and pine flatwoods. Corbett could provide habitat for Florida panthers although there have been no confirmed panther sightings in the area in a number of years. Immediately north of Mecca is another antiquated subdivision, Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District (Unit 11). The County is buying Unit 11 for preservation as Hungryland Slough, a regional off-site mitigation area. Unit 11 is designated in the Exurban Tier. Hungryland contains habitat similar to that found in Corbett WMA. North of Hungryland, and south of the Beeline, is a small triangle of Rural Tier land, which is just south and south east of the UT Overlay, which includes the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park). The Rural Tier land to the northeast of Hungryland, across the Beeline, is Caloosa, a large-lot residential development with a density of 1 du/5 ac. To the northeast of Caloosa is Jupiter Farms, another large, 81 percent built-out antiquated residential subdivision with a density of 1 du/2 ac and a population of about 12,600. Jupiter Farms is designated in the Rural Tier although it also seems to fit the criteria for the Exurban Tier. The Vavrus Ranch, a 4,600-acre landholding, is located immediately east of Mecca. Approximately half of Vavrus Ranch is wetlands, and the remainder is improved pasture. The Vavrus Ranch appears to be designated in the Rural Tier, but it actually is in the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Existing urban-scale public facilities between Mecca and Southern Boulevard to serve the suburbs include five fire stations, two post offices, eight elementary schools, two middle schools and two branch libraries, with one high school and one middle school planned or under construction. Existing public facilities north of Mecca in Caloosa include one fire station and one elementary school. East of Mecca and the Vavrus Ranch is the North County General Aviation Airport. To address land use deficiencies in this area, the County has agreed with DCA to prepare a plan for a 52,000-acre sector, which originally included Mecca. Current development has committed approximately two- thirds of lands in the sector to an inefficient pattern that is not “sustainable.” This pattern increases reliance on the automobile; may not be served long-term by private wells and septic tanks; and does not pay for itself, requiring substantial taxpayer subsidies. The sector has a serious jobs/housing imbalance, resulting in more congestion and longer commutes for residents. The County’s sector planning consultants identified Mecca as an appropriate site for an intensive employment center in two out of three initial scenarios. Subsequent studies identified Mecca for other uses, and the site was deleted from the sector planning area in 2004 when the Scripps Florida opportunity arose at Mecca. Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Plan Amendments Since the Scripps opportunity arose, the County's primary vision for Mecca has been to transform its 1,919 acres into a very special place that would be able not only to satisfy the needs of Scripps, but also would have all of the essential elements and many extra amenities so as to enable the County to compete with other areas of the country (and, indeed, the world) to attract related research and development (R&D) and, especially commercial activity in order to reap the maximum possible economic benefits of a biotechnology cluster. This vision included not only onsite opportunities for development of related biotechnology R&D and related commercial ventures, but also a university campus, a hospital/clinic, expansive green spaces and water features, onsite residential opportunities, including affordable housing, and onsite commercial and retail uses, including a town center. The County prepared plans by first reviewing and considering other R&D complexes, companies potentially interested in new locations, views of university officials, the Scripps experience at La Jolla, employees per square foot per industry type, and its own allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in order to identify the developable square footage for R&D at Mecca. As applicant for the necessary DRI approval and Plan amendments, the County’s staff and consultants initially requested approval of 10.5 million square feet for R&D use after balancing space needs, traffic impacts, environmental needs, buffering and other factors. The County’s real estate consultant concluded that a minimum of 2 to 3 million square feet of R&D space would be necessary for the venture to be successful, and that the absorption of 8 to 8.5 million square feet over a long-term build-out period of 30 years was a reasonable expectation. That view was bolstered by the potential establishment of other R&D users, if biotechnology firms do not absorb the entire capacity of the project. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a development of regional impact (DRI) for 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D, including the 2 million square feet for Scripps Florida, in order to provide economic opportunities while avoiding the need for eight-lane roads in the area. In order to accommodate this project, amendments to the County's Plan were necessary. Changes to the Plan adopted October 13, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-34 through 2004-39. Changes to the Plan adopted December 14, 2004, included Ordinance Nos. 2004-63 and 2004-64. Ordinance No. 2004-34 removes the 1,919-acre Mecca site from the Rural Tier; creates a scientific community overlay (SCO) on Mecca; establishes its allowed uses; imposes controls to balance residential and non-residential uses by phase; sets design principles; designates Mecca as a LUSA; and makes related changes to the FLUE and Economic Element and the FLUE Map Series. Ordinance No. 2004-35 modifies FLUE Policy 3.5-d to exempt the SCO from a County-imposed limitation on allowed land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. Ordinance No. 2004-36 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on Mecca from Rural Residential with a density of 1 du/10 ac (RR-10) to Economic Development Center with an underlying density of 2 du/ac (EDC/2). This amendment also sets minimum and maximum amounts of each use and incorporates by reference the land use conversion matrix in the DRI development order (DO). Ordinance No. 2004-37 amends the FLUE Atlas to change the land use on a 28-acre Accessory Site obtained from Corbett WMA from Conservation to Transportation and Utilities Facilities. Ordinance No. 2004-38 amends the Transportation Element (TE) to lower the adopted LOSS on 37 road segments and 6 intersections from the generally applicable standard of “D” to “Constrained Roadway at Lower Level of Service” (CRALLS). Ordinance No. 2004-39 amends the Thoroughfare Right- of-Way (ROW) Identification Map (TIM) and the 2020 Roadway System Map to reflect certain road improvements to accommodate SCO-generated traffic. Ordinance No. 2004-63 updates Tables 1 through 16 of the 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Schedule (CIS), and includes road, water, and sewer facilities to serve the SCO. Ordinance No. 2004-64 updates Table 17 of the CIS, which addresses schools. g. The Petitioners, Their Burden, and Their Issues DCA’s notices of intent to find the Amendments in compliance were challenged by four not-for-profit organizations and one resident of Palm Beach County. All of the Petitioners timely commented, orally or in writing, to the County regarding the Amendments. Additional standing evidence was presented as to each Petitioner. Standing as an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a) was disputed as to all but one Petitioner. As to Petitioner, Maria Wise-Miller, it was undisputed that she is an "affected person" under Section 163.3184(1)(a). It was Petitioners' burden to prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments were not "in compliance." See Conclusions 210-211, infra. Essentially, Petitioners are concerned that development of the SCO on Mecca's 1,919 acres is poor planning because of its present agricultural use, its location in relation to nearby natural areas and rural areas, and its distance from more urban areas and transportation facilities. More specifically, the issues raised by Petitioners as reasons why the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance" are framed in their Amended Petition.4 Implicating numerous applicable statutory and rule provisions, Petitioners' issues involve: urban sprawl; capital improvements (infrastructure); transportation concurrency; data and analysis; internal consistency; natural resources; community character and compatibility with adjacent uses; the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC's) Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP); and State Comprehensive Plan (SCP). No other issues have been added by further amendment, and no additional issues were heard by consent of the parties. See Conclusion 212, infra. H. Urban Sprawl Whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with relevant provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources, is determined by application of Rule 9J-5.006(5).5 Exceedingly detailed and complex, Rule 9J-5.006(5) provides in pertinent part: (d) Paragraph (5)(g) describes those aspects or attributes of a plan or plan amendment which, when present, indicate that the plan or plan amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. For purposes of reviewing the plan for discouragement of urban sprawl, an evaluation shall be made whether any of these indicators is present in a plan or plan amendment. If an indicator is present, the extent, amount or frequency of that indicator shall be considered. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators shall be considered to determine whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl. * * * Primary indicators. The primary indicators that a plan or plan amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl are listed below. The evaluation of the presence of these indicators shall consist of an analysis of the plan or plan amendment within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality in order to determine whether the plan or plan amendment: Promotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. Promotes, allows or designates significant amounts of urban development to occur in rural areas at substantial distances from existing urban areas while leaping over undeveloped lands which are available and suitable for development. Promotes, allows or designates urban development in radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. As a result of premature or poorly planned conversion of rural land to other uses, fails adequately to protect and conserve natural resources, such as wetlands, floodplains, native vegetation, environmentally sensitive areas, natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, lakes, rivers, shorelines, beaches, bays, estuarine systems, and other significant natural systems. Fails adequately to protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and including active agricultural and silvicultural activities as well as passive agricultural activities and dormant, unique and prime farmlands and soils. Fails to maximize use of existing public facilities and services. Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. Allows for land use patterns or timing which disproportionately increase the cost in time, money and energy, of providing and maintaining facilities and services, including roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, stormwater management, law enforcement, education, health care, fire and emergency response, and general government. Fails to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. Discourages or inhibits infill development or the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and communities. Fails to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses. Results in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. Evaluation of land uses. The comprehensive plan must be reviewed in its entirety to make the determinations in (5)(g) above. Plan amendments must be reviewed individually and for their impact on the remainder of the plan. However, in either case, a land use analysis will be the focus of the review and constitute the primary factor for making the determinations. Land use types cumulatively (within the entire jurisdiction and areas less than the entire jurisdiction, and in proximate areas outside the jurisdiction) will be evaluated based on density, intensity, distribution and functional relationship, including an analysis of the distribution of urban and rural land uses. Each land use type will be evaluated based on: Extent. Location. Distribution. Density. Intensity. Compatibility. Suitability. Functional relationship. Land use combinations. Demonstrated need over the planning period. Local conditions. Each of the land use factors in (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of features and characteristics unique to each locality. These include: Size of developable area. Projected growth rate (including population, commerce, industry, and agriculture). Projected growth amounts (acres per land use category). Facility availability (existing and committed). Existing pattern of development (built and vested), including an analysis of the extent to which the existing pattern of development reflects urban sprawl. Projected growth trends over the planning period, including the change in the overall density or intensity of urban development throughout the jurisdiction. Costs of facilities and services, such as per capita cost over the planning period in terms of resources and energy. Extra-jurisdictional and regional growth characteristics. Transportation networks and use characteristics (existing and committed). Geography, topography and various natural features of the jurisdiction. Development controls. Development controls in the comprehensive plan may affect the determinations in (5)(g) above. The following development controls, to the extent they are included in the comprehensive plan, will be evaluated to determine how they discourage urban sprawl: Open space requirements. Development clustering requirements. Other planning strategies, including the establishment of minimum development density and intensity, affecting the pattern and character of development. Phasing of urban land use types, densities, intensities, extent, locations, and distribution over time, as measured through the permitted changes in land use within each urban land use category in the plan, and the timing and location of those changes. Land use locational criteria related to the existing development pattern, natural resources and facilities and services. Infrastructure extension controls, and infrastructure maximization requirements and incentives. Allocation of the costs of future development based on the benefits received. The extent to which new development pays for itself. Transfer of development rights. Purchase of development rights. Planned unit development requirements. Traditional neighborhood developments. Land use functional relationship linkages and mixed land uses. Jobs-to-housing balance requirements. Policies specifying the circumstances under which future amendments could designate new lands for the urbanizing area. Provision for new towns, rural villages or rural activity centers. Effective functional buffering requirements. Restriction on expansion of urban areas. Planning strategies and incentives which promote the continuation of productive agricultural areas and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Urban service areas. Urban growth boundaries. Access management controls. Evaluation of factors. Each of the land use types and land use combinations analyzed in paragraph (5)(h) above will be evaluated within the context of the features and characteristics of the locality, individually and together (as appropriate), as listed in paragraph (5)(i). If a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find a plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction. Innovative and flexible planning and development strategies. Notwithstanding and as a means of addressing any provisions contained in Rules 9J-5.006(3)(b)8., 9J- 5.011(2)(b)3., 9J-5.003(140), F.A.C., and this subsection, the Department encourages innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques in local plans. Planning strategies and techniques such as urban villages, new towns, satellite communities, area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed-use development and sector planning that allow the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to other uses while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost- efficient delivery of public facilities and services, will be recognized as methods of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Of the 13 urban sprawl indicators in Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Petitioners alleged the existence of only 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. While there was evidence from which Petitioners reasonably could argue that the Plan Amendments promote urban sprawl, all of the Rule's indicators are at least fairly debatable. Indicator 2 As to Indicator 2, Petitioners' arguments on urban sprawl hinge in large part on characterization of Mecca as being rural land in the midst of likewise rural and conservation land far distant from any land use that could be characterized as urban or suburban. But while Mecca is distant from most of the Urban/Suburban Tier, neither the Village of Wellington nor Royal Palm Beach, both in the Urban/Suburban Tier, is very far away. The Acreage to Mecca's south, moreover, can be characterized as either urbanizing or suburban, but not rural. To the extent that Mecca is separated from other urban or suburban uses to the east by conservation lands (namely, the Loxahatchee Slough and Grassy Waters Preserve, a/k/a the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area), no urban, suburban or even rural development of those conservation lands should be expected, making it fairly debatable whether "leaping over" those undeveloped lands should be considered an indicator of sprawl. In that sense, those conservation lands are similar to bodies of water. The “patchwork” pattern of developed, rural, and conservation uses near Mecca, including the adjacency of extensive residential development in The Acreage, also is significant. Nearby subdivisions including Jupiter Farms and Caloosa add further context for the sprawl analysis. The multi-use development at the SCO allowed by the Amendments may remediate the existing sprawl pattern near Mecca. Indicator 4 As to Indicator 4, it is at least fairly debatable whether conversion of rural land to urban uses on Mecca is premature in light of the Scripps opportunity and existing development pressures in the area. According to expert planning testimony for DCA and the County, the County is obliged to plan for growth in accordance with GMA and Rule 9J-5 up to its "sustainable carrying capacity," which has not been reached. Whether or not they believe the County has the option to plan to slow or stop growth before reaching "sustainable carrying capacity," it is clear from the evidence that the County is not doing so, but instead is planning for continued growth within the framework of its Plan until reaching what it considers to be "build-out" conditions. Given the County's basic growth policy, the County’s analysis of population projections for the next 20 years, compared to available vacant lands planned for residential use, shows the County has a “tight” plan with a restricted supply of land for development. This land use needs analysis shows that the eastern half of Palm Beach County (which includes Mecca) is experiencing intensive growth pressures due to the restricted supply of developable land, and that it will likely build out in approximately 20 years. Conservative assumptions in the County’s analysis suggest build-out in this area could occur even sooner. In its 1997 EAR, the County also concluded that eastern Palm Beach County would build out in approximately 20 years. The report noted that the approaching build-out of Dade and Broward counties to the south in the near future would further exacerbate growth pressures in Palm Beach County. Industrial lands in eastern Palm Beach County are expected to be exhausted by 2026. Because communities typically need greater locational variety for industrial uses compared to other uses, and in light of the many different activities that constitute an industrial use, the amount of land in eastern Palm Beach County designated for industrial use may be adequate but is not excessive. Besides, a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal-based and aspirational. Seeking to diversify the local economy is an appropriate goal to support additional industrial land. Having a committed end-user for an industrial site is appropriate data to consider in evaluating such a land use change. Onsite residential and commercial uses will support the industrial use and better achieve a balance of uses, which will relieve the necessity to be evaluated against a numeric need test. Likelihood of Economic Benefits Petitioners argue that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because significant economic benefits are so unlikely that the costly planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres cannot be justified. Ordinarily, the likelihood of success of planned land uses would not be relevant to the compliance of a comprehensive plan or plan amendment. In this case, however, the County's vision for a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster at Mecca was the impetus for the major and important changes embodied in the Plan Amendments and is part of the demonstration of need. For that reason, consideration of the issue is appropriate in this case. The evidence is clear that the County's vision is not guaranteed success as planned and that there are significant risks involved. To maximize economic benefits, the County will have to not only attract R&D but also generate commercial spin-offs, where maximum economic benefits result. R&D requires research funding, and commercial spin-offs require venture capital. It also is essential to establish relationships with hospitals or clinics where clinical trials can take place. The predominant source of biotech research funding has been the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In the mid- 1990s, NIH funding increased dramatically, but significant increases in the coming years cannot be counted on, and other sources of research funding will have to replace the deficit. To the extent that pharmaceutical companies are resorted to for this purpose, they may require participation in any resulting commercialization, which could reduce local economic benefits if the funding source is not local. The evidence was that, over the last 30 years or so, significant economic benefits from biotechnology clusters achieving effective commercialization have been concentrated in just nine areas of the country. One is San Diego, California; none are in Florida. These nine areas also have garnered a disproportionate share of NIH research funding (although the percentage has declined a little in the last few years.) They also tend to have scientists inclined towards commercialization of the results of research and businessmen having the special abilities needed in the unique world of biotech, where years can pass before a business begins to see profits, and many start-ups fail. These nine areas also have access to venture capital, a good percentage of which has tended to be local, since many venture capitalists also want to be more active in monitoring and participating in the businesses they fund than most other investors. On the other hand, there was evidence acknowledging that at least some venture capital will seek out and follow good opportunities for profit wherever they may exist. Historically, at least through 2001, the biotech industry has become increasingly concentrated in these nine areas of the country, and they continue to have competitive advantages that the County's vision for the SCO would have to overcome. (On the other hand, several of these nine areas also have competitive disadvantage in the form of high taxes, high real estate costs, high cost-of-living, and less-than- ideal quality of life. So far, however, their advantages have surpassed their disadvantages.) There also is competition from many other cities and counties throughout the country desiring, like Florida and the County, to develop a biotechnology cluster. Recognizing the intense competition, the County's vision is to create a world-class setting for its effort at Mecca. Allowable facilities at the SCO include not just R&D space, but also a clinical hospital of up to 300 beds, a university campus of up to 2,000 college and university students, public facilities supporting environmental amenities, community facilities and retail facilities in a “town center,” and 2,000 or more housing units, including affordable housing. The SCO contemplates a mixture of uses that is hoped will lead to synergistic relationships and exchange of “tacit knowledge,” which are important to the success of a biotechnology cluster. Scripps Florida, as the anchor institution, will bring critical world renown and credibility. The principles of adjacency within the SCO are intended to promote synergy that transcends local competition and attracts regional and national users. In planning the SCO, Scripps’ experience in La Jolla and the views of Scripps officials were taken into account. Scripps’ campus at Torrey Pines Mesa has been in existence for almost 30 years, and has worked well. Scripps attempts to keep its buildings close to one another and has met with difficulty finding scientists willing to fill workspace four miles from the main Scripps campus. The FAR for the 500 acres of R&D use at the SCO is very low, at 0.39.6 By comparison, there was evidence that the FAR of the 900-acre University of Florida campus in Gainesville, Florida, is 2.00. Petitioners contend that much less than 500 acres is needed for the 8.5 million square feet of R&D provided in the SCO. However, the County found that Scripps’ buildings in California are constructed in horizontal fashion, with three, four and rarely five stories. Taller buildings have lower net-to-gross floor area, so they have significant added cost. Scripps considers close-by affordable housing desirable, especially for graduate and post-doctoral students. For other occupants of the SCO, low-rise construction makes it easier for companies to add space as they grow. High-rise construction is more expensive, harder to finance because of pre-leasing requirements, and less efficient. Based on the evidence, the FAR is fairly debatable. Venture capital from within and outside Florida is growing, as is capital interest in the Scripps initiative in Florida. Four clinical hospitals have expressed interest in participating in the SCO. In the year after announcement of Scripps Florida, the number of new life-science projects announced in Florida quadrupled in comparison to recent years. Workforce training and educational improvement are contemplated as support for and results of the SCO. The State has implemented and funded workforce programs in the life sciences, including in the County. The County has participated in the development of a consortium of Florida institutions of higher learning aimed at creating a specialized campus in the SCO. Scripps Florida is obligated to establish accredited science degree programs and internship programs for educators and secondary, post- secondary, graduate and post-doctoral students. Petitioners’ economic witness testified that the County lacks key competitive ingredients for developing a successful biotechnology cluster. Other witnesses, however, explained the level of efforts that the State, the County, and Scripps Florida are making to bring those ingredients to fruition. In addition, while Petitioners’ economic witness recited past experience of the biotechnology industry and forecast limited success for Scripps Florida primarily based on year seven, the last year of presently-committed State funding, he acknowledged that biotechnology research parks tend to experience a slow ramp-up, and the County anticipates a 30-year build-out. Of course, other sources of needed funding would have to be found after year seven. The evidence was that the chances for successful development of a biotechnology cluster at Mecca will decrease if no universities or hospitals are established onsite at Mecca and will decrease the longer it takes to establish them. If the planned biotechnology cluster does not succeed as well as planned, the SCO incorporates flexibility for absorption of R&D floor space by other types of research and development occupants. Often, when a large development project does not succeed as planned, pressures develop for investors to change the project's characteristics in an attempt to cut losses and increase profitability by selling land more quickly. In the case of the SCO, the investors are the taxpayers of Palm Beach County. It cannot be predicted what kind of pressures the County would feel, or what changes to the planned build-out would occur, if the SCO does not succeed as planned. Based on all the evidence, it is fairly debatable whether the likelihood of economic benefit is enough to justify the planned use of Mecca's 1,919 acres. Other Alternatives Petitioners also contend that the proposed development at Mecca is not needed because better alternatives exist. Specifically, they contend that the Scripps project could be sited: on the Briger site adjacent to the Florida Turnpike on its west and straddling I-95 in the City of Palm Beach Gardens; on Parcel 19 just west of I-95 and the Florida Turnpike, straddling Indiantown Road in the Town of Jupiter; or in the Park of Commerce (a/k/a Florida Research Park) in the unincorporated County near Mecca in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of the Beeline and SPW. Although the County had a contract with Scripps Florida to be located at Mecca, during the review process the BCC requested a study of possible alternative sites. The number of sites reduced rather quickly to three: Briger; Parcel 19; and the Park of Commerce. Data and analysis at the time of adoption of the Plan Amendments indicated that each of these alternative sites had flaws and risk factors, making it fairly debatable whether Scripps should be sited at any one of them instead of at Mecca. All three proposed alternatives have less acreage than Mecca and do not provide the same opportunities for affordable housing, open space, or flexibility of design, so as to be able to be developed in accordance with the vision the County has for development on its own 1,919 acres at Mecca. The Park of Commerce has limited opportunity for affordable housing, is limited in permitted uses, and is limited in flexibility by existing and platted infrastructure and industrial uses. It is now being used for industrial purposes--a railroad, a General Motors distribution facility, and a Walgreen's distribution facility--not considered to be consistent with the County's vision for a biotechnology research park. In addition, it may become necessary in the future to construct an overpass at the Beeline and SPW directly over the only suitable location for construction of the Scripps facilities at that site. Parcel 19 cannot accommodate affordable housing and would require $75 million in construction of major interchanges at I-95 and Indiantown Road, after which Indiantown Road still would be seriously over capacity, creating great traffic problems. In addition, it would be difficult to achieve the County’s targeted development program of 8 to 8.5 million square feet of R&D uses. The 682-acre Briger site favored by the Petitioners is bisected by I-95 into two triangular pieces. It would not meet the acreage requirements of the County’s contract with Scripps Florida unless the City of Palm Beach Gardens waives certain upland preservation requirements. In addition, at this time Briger remains on the County’s list of properties for acquisition for preservation (although its placement on the list may be out-of-date since Briger's hydrologic connection to the Loxahatchee River Slough has been more disrupted by development since its listing). Even if the Scripps contract requirements could be met, it would require higher vertical construction, which would be less compatible with surrounding residential uses, would provide less open space, and would have reduced flexibility. The County's complete vision for onsite incorporation of uses and amenities would not fit on Briger. For example, the university tie-in, the hospital, and residential features would have to be offsite. Briger might have a short-term marketing advantage over Mecca (in part because hospitals and FAU's Jupiter campus already exist in close enough proximity). Briger also would be closer to major transportation facilities, but that advantage would not necessarily offset Briger's deficiencies. It is fairly debatable whether long-term success would be more likely at Mecca or at Briger. All four sites–-Mecca, Briger, Parcel 19, and the Park of Commerce-–are located in the eastern half of Palm Beach County, where growth pressures are strong, the County’s Plan is "tight," and build-out is anticipated within the next 30 years, even without the SCO, based on County data compilations for land use need purposes. Natural Resources Protection and Conservation While they may not protect and conserve natural resources in an absolute sense (as is rarely if ever possible when development takes place near natural areas), it is at least fairly debatable whether measures in the Plan and Plan Amendments to protect and conserve natural resources are adequate. See Findings 146-182, infra. Indicator 6 As to Indicator 6, significant new infrastructure will have to be extended to Mecca under the Plan Amendments. Development closer to existing roads and, to a lesser extent, the existing USA and LUSA might make more use of existing facilities and services possible. But the evidence was that most of the $15 million of centralized water and sewer lines that will serve the SCO at Mecca already are planned for extension of service to the UT Overlay. Many of the road improvements planned for the SCO at Mecca also are already planned. See Findings 116-117 and 152-155, infra. In addition, it is at least fairly debatable whether and to what extent greater use could be made of existing public facilities and services by locating the Scripps elsewhere in the County, or whether location elsewhere in the County would be better or even possible, especially given the County's complete vision for development of the SCO at Mecca. See Findings 85-92, supra. Given the decision to develop at Mecca, there was no evidence that existing public facilities and services will not be used to the maximum extent possible. Indicator 7 As to Indicator 7, there is no reason to believe that the development at Mecca resulting from the Plan Amendments will not maximize the use of future public facilities and services. (The County has not planned to provide centralized water and sewer service to the Vavrus property because it does not have the legal right or ability to provide services within the boundaries of the City of Palm Beach Gardens.) Indicator 8 As to Indicator 8, a disproportionate increase in the cost in time, money, and energy may result from providing and maintaining facilities and services to the SCO. However, while this indicator may be in evidence short-term due to the cost of constructing facilities to the SCO, over time these costs would be ameliorated as more development occurs in the area. Indicator 9 As to Indicator 9, as depicted on Map H of the DRI application, which is referenced in new Policy 1.2-f as a “land use/site planning measure,” it is at least fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The only rural uses adjacent to Mecca are the Vavrus land to the east, and Map H depicts a 50-foot buffer there. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Indicator 10 As to Indicator 10, no language contained in the Plan Amendments discourages or inhibits infill or redevelopment, and the Plan still contains several provisions encouraging infill and redevelopment. On the other hand, development occurring at Mecca obviously will not result in infill or redevelopment. To the extent that the availability of economic incentives for infill and redevelopment is limited, the significant economic incentives committed to the Mecca project will not be available for infill and redevelopment. However, it is at least fairly debatable whether the infill and redevelopment measures in the Plan will be compromised by the Amendments in view of the increasing growth pressures in the County and the “tight” supply of land for development. The Plan Amendments include numerous anti-sprawl development controls that also are considered in the urban sprawl analysis. The principal controls are in the structure of the Plan Amendments, primarily the minimum and maximum amounts established for specific uses, a requirement for phasing, and a required balance of residential and non- residential uses for each phase. To mitigate sprawl, development controls should be meaningful and predictable, but also flexible. They need not include numeric setbacks and building spacing requirements, or a site plan. It is at least fairly debatable that the controls in the Amendments satisfy the State’s criteria. Cf. Rule 9J-5.006(5)(j). Petitioners' Evidence One planning witness for Petitioners who opined that the Amendments constitute sprawl did not consider the extent, amount or frequency of any indicator, contrary to Rule 9J-5.006(5)(d). He also opined there is no need for the Amendments. However, in analyzing this issue, he only reviewed portions of the Plan and a six-page summary of the EAR prepared by Petitioners’ counsel. He did not examine the 2003 Population Allocation Model or the County’s population projections and land use need analysis.7 Another planning witness for Petitioners rendered opinions about the interpretation of several indicators in the urban sprawl rule, but his testimony did not constitute expert opinions as to whether the Amendments constitute sprawl, or are "in compliance." A third planning witness for Petitioners, from the TCRPC, opined that the Amendments are sprawl, as is the existing development near Mecca. However, he admitted the definition of “sprawl” in the TCRPC's SRPP is not the same as the definition in Rule 9J-5. Urban Sprawl Summary Based on the foregoing, the determinations by the County and DCA in this case that the Plan Amendments are consistent with the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plan, the GMA, and Rule Chapter 9J-5 regarding discouraging urban sprawl, including provisions concerning the efficiency of land use, the efficient provision of public facilities and services, the separation of urban and rural land uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources are subject to fair debate. Capital Improvements In this category, Petitioners contend that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Section 163.3177(3)(a) and Rule 9J-5.016(2) and (3)(b). The statute provides: The comprehensive plan shall contain a capital improvements element designed to consider the need for and the location of public facilities in order to encourage the efficient utilization of such facilities and set forth: A component which outlines principles for construction, extension, or increase in capacity of public facilities, as well as a component which outlines principles for correcting existing public facility deficiencies, which are necessary to implement the comprehensive plan. The components shall cover at least a 5-year period. Estimated public facility costs, including a delineation of when facilities will be needed, the general location of the facilities, and projected revenue sources to fund the facilities. Standards to ensure the availability of public facilities and the adequacy of those facilities including acceptable levels of service. Standards for the management of debt. The Rule provides: Capital Improvements Analysis Requirements. The element shall be based upon the following analyses which support the comprehensive plan pursuant to subsection 9J-5.005(2), F.A.C. Current local practices that guide the timing and location of construction, extension or increases in capacity of each public facility; The general fiscal implications of the existing deficiencies and future needs for each type of public facility. This analysis shall be based on the needed improvements, as identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements, and shall address the relative priority of need among facility types, and shall support the future land use element; The costs of needed capital improvements for mitigation of existing deficiencies, replacement and new growth needs pursuant to the future land use element and shall explain the basis of cost estimates; The impact of new or improved public educational and public health care systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure; The use of timing and location of capital improvements to public facilities to support efficient land development and goals, objectives, and policies in the future land use element. This analysis must take into consideration plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government jurisdiction; and An assessment of the local government's ability to finance capital improvements based upon anticipated population and revenues including: Forecasting of revenues and expenditures for five years; Projections of debt service obligations for currently outstanding bond issues; Projection of ad valorem tax base, assessment ratio and millage rate; Projections of other tax bases and other revenue sources such as impact and user fees; Projection of operating cost considerations; and Projection of debt capacity. Requirements for Capital Improvements Goals, Objectives, and Policies. * * * (b) The element shall contain one or more objectives for each goal and shall address: The use of the capital improvements element as a means to meet the needs of the local government for the construction of capital facilities necessary to meet existing deficiencies, to accommodate desired future growth and to replace obsolete or worn-out facilities; The limitation of public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas; The coordination of land use decisions and available or projected fiscal resources with a schedule of capital improvements which maintains adopted level of service standards and meets the existing and future facility needs; The extent to which future development will bear a proportionate cost of facility improvements necessitated by the development in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards; and The demonstration of the local government's ability to provide or require provision of the needed improvements identified in the other local government comprehensive plan elements and to manage the land development process so that public facility needs created by previously issued development orders or future development do not exceed the ability of the local government to fund and provide or require provision of the needed capital improvements. There was no evidence that the Plan does not contain a CIE meeting these requirements or, more germane to this case, that the Plan Amendments undo the Plan's CIE, which already has been determined to be "in compliance." Actually, while seemingly focusing here on capital improvements other than those related to traffic circulation, Petitioners attempt to use these requirements primarily as additional bases for their urban sprawl arguments, supra, and their transportation concurrency and data and analysis arguments, infra. Chapter 2003-420, Laws of Florida, provides that the County in which Scripps is located shall have the exclusive right to provide central water and sewer service to the project. The County intends to provide such service to the SCO via lines extending from Okeechobee Boulevard and SR 7 about 12.5 miles away. The County has enough plant capacity to serve the SCO through build-out. Assuming Scripps Florida is located at the SCO, it would be expected to pay guaranteed revenue fees, connection fees, and on-line rates (which could be special rates set for Scripps and Mecca.) The evidence was that the total cost of construction for the lines to serve the SCO, while substantial at approximately $15 million (some of which would be expended with or without the SCO), is a relatively small percentage (5-6 percent) of the County's overall capital improvements budget, is relatively minor in light of the County’s strong financial condition, will enhance the use of existing assets and rate stability for customers, represents a least-cost and efficient approach for the area to be served, and will not cause other water and sewer needs to go unmet. The County’s 2005-2010 Capital Improvements Schedule (CIS) is financially feasible, as are each year’s program in the CIS. The CIS is based on best available data. Capital outlays to support the SCO will not deprive the County of money for other needed projects or distort the County’s fiscal priorities. Transportation Concurrency The Petitioners' focus here is on the CRALLS designations. CRALLS designations have been assigned to 37 different road segments and 6 intersections, not only near Mecca but also as far north as Indiantown Road, as far south as Okeechobee Boulevard, and as far east as I-95. They are set at vehicle loadings that match the traffic loads expected with development of the SCO. They only apply to the SCO. Other developments cannot rely on them but must use an applicable LOSS. In part, Petitioners frame their arguments on inconsistency with statutes and rules governing interim LOSS designed to correct existing deficiencies and set priorities for addressing backlogged facilities; Transportation Concurrency Management Areas used to promote infill and redevelopment; and Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas used to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill and redevelopment and to achieve other goals and policies of the state comprehensive plan, such as promoting the development of public transportation. See Section 163.3180(9) and Rule 9J-5.0055(4)-(6). However, DCA and the County have made no effort to defend its CRALLS under those provisions.8 Rather, their position is that a CRALLS designation is a specialized LOSS that is "in compliance" without resort to those provisions of the law. DCA and the County seemed to come close to defending the CRALLS in part on the ground that the County has absolute discretion to establish these CRALLS and that they are not even subject to review for adequacy. Such a legal position would be untenable. Cf. Conclusion 217, infra. Assessment of the adequacy of the CRALLS is required. The transportation issues associated with the SCO are unprecedented in the County because of its size, location, and 30-year build-out. To address the challenges posed by these factors, the County relied on a combination of strategies to address transportation, including road improvements, CRALLS, adopting development controls for the SCO, and requiring mitigation. The initial transportation issue for the SCO was posed by FLUE Policy 3.5-d. This policy prohibits land use changes expected to generate significant impacts on any roadway segment projected to fail to operate at LOSS "D" based on the adopted Long-Range Transportation Plan. This policy is self-imposed and not required by the State. The SCO would generate trips beyond the significance thresholds in FLUE Policy 3.5-d. The County Engineer supported an exemption from this policy for the SCO because traffic considerations should not outweigh the economic and other land use goals the County is pursuing with the SCO. The first traffic analysis for the SCO was included in the DRI application, and was predicated on 10.5 million square feet of R&D. Later, in conjunction with re-zoning, the County’s consultants prepared a concurrency analysis for 8.5 million square feet of R&D, reflecting the maximum allowed by the Plan Amendments. All traffic analyses were performed as they would have been for a private developer, with methodologies approved by the County in collaboration with FDOT, TCRPC and Martin County. Assumptions were conservative, representing a worst- case scenario. SCO-related road improvements approved by the County in its five-year road program for 2005-2009 included 18 segments and three intersections at a total cost of $179.7 million. Of these, eight projects totaling $64.8 million were not new or changed in their amount of funding. The SCO-related improvements in the five-year road program were incorporated into the CIS for 2005-2010. An additional $26 million for these projects was included for 2010. Approximately 70 percent of the improvements needed for the SCO was previously identified on the 2020 Roadway System Map. In addition to these construction projects, the County also lowered the LOSS on some roads and intersections that would be impacted by the SCO over the next 30 years. In doing so, the County utilized its long-standing policy of establishing a CRALLS designation for each such road segment or intersection. The County is authorized under its charter to set LOSS's for all major roadways in unincorporated areas and municipalities except for the FIHS. The State sets the LOSS on roads in the FIHS. The County's generally applicable LOSS is LOSS “D”. Since 1989, the County has utilized the CRALLS strategy to establish an alternative LOSS on some roads due to physical or policy constraints. Examples of physical constraints include natural features, waterways, right-of-way limitations, and other roads; neighborhood opposition to a wider road would be an example of a policy constraint. CRALLS designations are not limited to the Urban/Suburban Tier; they may be adopted for land in any tier. Under TE Policy 1.2-f, CRALLS designations by the BCC must be based on data and analysis. These data and analysis must address 11 criteria in the County’s Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). CRALLS standards typically are expressed as a numeric limit on trip loadings on the road segment or intersection in question, rather than reliance upon the conventional, generalized “A”-“F” standards used by transportation engineers. Since 1993, Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5 have granted a local government discretion to adopt LOSS for seven types of public facilities, including roads other than FIHS roads. The only State requirements are that LOSS's must be adequate, based on data and analysis, and established for each facility type. Local governments are not prohibited from adopting LOSS's for different facilities within a service type or even project-specific LOSS's that overlay the more generally applicable LOSS for a facility or facility type. Of the 37 road segments and six intersections given project-specific CRALLS designations in the Amendments, the designations on nine road segments will become ineffective when the roads are widened as planned. Another seven segments may eventually have their CRALLS designations repealed as unneeded. These segments are projected to be no more than 12 percent over generalized LOS “D”, and the County’s experience is that a detailed arterial analysis generally will show such a segment actually operating at LOS “D” when site-specific factors are considered. Seven segments and one intersection already had CRALLS designations, but the CRALLS was changed to accommodate the SCO. An additional nine segments and four intersections were expected to have a CRALLS designation even without the SCO, due to pre-existing conditions. On all but two of these, the SCO accounted for 5% or less of the trip loadings. Five segments and one intersection received a CRALLS designation solely because of the SCO. These include three segments of PGA Boulevard, two segments of SPW, and the Northlake Boulevard to Orange Boulevard intersection. In analyzing an LOSS for adequacy, a local government should consider both technical and policy issues. Technical issues for roads include the actual amount of traffic to be allowed on a road segment or intersection at the peak hour in the peak season. Policy issues involve comparing increased congestion to other planning principles, such as preventing sprawl, promoting economic development, and neighborhood opposition to wider roads. There is not a limiting list of planning principles to consider in evaluating adequacy. The County Engineer concluded that these CRALLS designations were appropriate and adequate LOSS's. He based his opinion on the amount of traffic on each segment or intersection, how the road would function, fiscal issues, his knowledge of the area, residents’ opinions, and other factors. He noted that the maximum trips in each CRALLS designation are for the peak hour in the peak season; the peak season represents a 15 percent increase over the off-peak season. The CRALLS determinations were supported by the best available data. Among other things, the data and analysis addressed the 11 criteria identified in the ULDC. As transmitted, the Amendments included a number of temporary CRALLS designations. In its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC), DCA objected that temporary CRALLS designations without an accompanying long- range CIS were inconsistent with Chapter 163 and Rule 9J-5. DCA suggested the County identify improvements for those CRALLS that were indeed temporary, and assign permanent CRALLS to those segments for which no improvements were planned. Of the 43 CRALLS designations in the Amendments as adopted, all but two were permanent. The CRALLS designations on two segments of Northlake Boulevard were to be “no longer in effect” after the extension of PGA Boulevard. These CRALLS designations are supported by a fully-funded extension of PGA Boulevard from SPW to the Beeline in the CIS. Considering the road improvements in the adopted CIS and the CRALLS designations adopted in the Amendments, the County will achieve and maintain the LOSS's on roads affected by the Amendments through 2009. In addition to road improvements and adopting CRALLS, the County adopted “best planning practices” for transportation in the Amendments. These included a variety of requirements in FLUE Policy 2.8-c, 1.-3., emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian mobility, project design measures like slip roads, and mixing uses to enhance internal trip capture. Policy 2.8-c, 9., included several requirements intended to foster public transportation at the SCO. Policy 2.8-d required a balance of residential and non-residential uses in each five-year project phase. Finally, the Amendments include required mitigation measures in conjunction with the CRALLS designations, including road construction and design principles for the SCO. Petitioners’ transportation witness opined that the CRALLS designations were not adequate and, in some cases, not feasible. But for several reasons, his opinions were not beyond fair debate. First, he based his opinion on the traffic analysis of 10.5 million square feet of development in the DRI application, which was later reduced to a maximum of 8.5 million, unbeknownst to the witness. Second, his technical analysis was general and did not take into account the County’s actual experience, which is not professionally acceptable data and analysis for purposes of a plan amendment. For example, some CRALLS loadings he said were impossible to achieve are already being met or exceeded in the County on actual roads, and traffic on some roads flows at speeds equivalent to LOS “D” even though trip loadings greatly exceed the LOS "D" numbers on the generalized LOS tables. Third, his opinion did not take into account the possibility that required on-site affordable housing and CRALLS mitigation measures in the Plan Amendments might increase internal trip capture and reduce trips on the external roadway system. Fourth, he assumed that the only policies the County could consider when evaluating the adequacy of a CRALLS designation are infill, redevelopment, and promotion of “forgotten modes” of transportation like bicycles; he did not consider economic development, urban sprawl, growth pressures, and other planning principles. Data and Analysis Paragraph 75 of the Amended Petition, labeled "Data and Analysis," alleges that the Plan Amendments are: not clearly based on the relevant and appropriate and professionally-accepted data and analysis regarding: impacts to adjacent natural areas; compatibility with adjacent land uses; impacts to the Loxahatchee River and restoration thereof; the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP] and components thereof; impacts to rural communities; the availability and necessity of infrastructure and the provision thereof to support the project; the necessity for and the amount of land needed to accommodate the project; the availability and suitability of alternative sites for the project; the character of the undeveloped land and the surrounding community; the economic impacts of the proposed plan amendments; [and]9 the likelihood of developing an economically significant biotech industry as [a] result of the plan amendments . . . as required by sections 163.3177(6)(a), (8) and (10)(e), Fla. Stat. and Rule 9J-5.005(2) and (5)10 and 9J-5.006(2) and 9J-5.013(1) F.A.C.11 Section 163.3177(6)(a) requires that the future land use plan be based on appropriate data and analysis. Section 163.3177(8) requires all elements of comprehensive plans to be "based upon data appropriate to the element involved." Section 163.3177(10)(e) states the Legislature's intent that goals and policies be "clearly based on appropriate data"; states that DCA "may evaluate the application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted"; and states that DCA "shall not evaluate whether one accepted methodology is better than another." Rule 9J-5.005(2) states in pertinent part: (a) All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Rule 9J-5.006(2) describes the Land Use Analysis Requirements for the FLUE. It should be noted that new FLUE Policy 2.8-f in the Plan Amendments provides: "If the Scripps Research Institute does not move forward on the Mecca site, Staff shall bring to the BCC for initiation proposed amendments to consider removing any text and maps related to the [SCO] from the Comprehensive Plan." While Petitioners characterize this Policy as an admission that the Plan Amendments are not "in compliance," the Policy actually is prudent and would allow reconsideration of planning for Mecca and vicinity with a Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort located elsewhere in the County (or even without any Scripps-anchored biotechnology cluster effort in the County, if that were to occur) as part of the EAR-based and sector planning efforts of the County. Some parts of the data and analysis would not be "professionally accepted" and, standing alone, would not be adequate to support the Plan Amendments. For example, the Washington Economic Group report is not "professionally accepted" because: it does not explain its methodology; it is based on an erroneous assumption that the plan for Scripps Florida, which is planned to be smaller than Scripps California, will generate the level of biotechnical industry found in all of San Diego, which includes not only Scripps, but also the University of California at San Diego and the Salk Institute in its cluster; it overestimates the importance of Scripps' role in the San Diego cluster; and it double- counts Scripps employment in its employment estimates. But other data and analysis corrected these errors. The amount of data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments is voluminous. Petitioners' data and analysis arguments essentially are that the same evidence they presented as to the substantive areas of concern proves alleged failures of data and analysis to be "professionally accepted" and adequate. As indicated elsewhere in this RO, Petitioners' evidence did not prove their case as to substantive areas of concern beyond fair debate; likewise, they did not prove beyond fair debate that the totality of the data and analysis supporting the Plan Amendments were not "professionally accepted" or were inadequate. Internal Consistency The Amended Petition alleges numerous internal inconsistencies. Section 163.3177(2) requires: "The several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent . . . ." Rule 9J-5.005(5) repeats this admonition in subparagraph (a), and subparagraph (b) adds: "Each map depicting future conditions must reflect goals, objectives, and policies within all elements and each such map must be contained within the comprehensive plan." Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following statements in section B., the Assessment and Conclusions section of the Introduction to the FLUE, that the updated 1989 Plan implements the direction provided by the BCC to: strengthen and facilitate revitalization and redevelopment and infill development programs; protect agricultural land and equestrian based industries; balance growth through the County; * * * 8. establish a timing and phasing program to provide for orderly growth; * * * coordinate growth with the provision of infrastructure; define how growth/services will be managed in rural residential areas; define service areas and the type of services to be provided within each service area; and provide criteria for expanding the Urban/Suburban Tier. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the FLUE: Goal 1, to establish the Tier System. Policy 1.1-b, establishing criteria for redesignation of a Tier. Policy 1.1-d, not to modify the Tier System if redesignation would exhibit the characteristics of urban sprawl, as defined by Rule 9J-5.006. Objective 1.4, for a Rural Tier to protect and maintain rural residential, equestrian, and agricultural areas. Policy 1.4-k, not to make future land use decisions that increase density and/or intensity requiring major new public investments in capital facilities and related services in the Rural Tier. Objective 2.1, to designate sufficient land area in each land use designation to manage and direct future development to appropriate locations to achieve balanced growth. Policy 2.1-f, not to exceed the natural or manmade constraints of an area considering assessment of soil types, wetlands, flood plains, wellfield zones, aquifer recharge areas, committed residential development, the transportation network, and available facilities and services; and not to underutilize existing or planned capacities of urban services. Policy 2.2-b, requiring: an adequate justification and a demonstrated need for proposed future land use; for residential density increases to demonstrate that the current land use is inappropriate; for a review and determination of compatibility with existing and planned development in the immediate vicinity; and an evaluation of impacts on the natural environment, availability of facilities and services, adjacent and surrounding development, future land use balance, prevention of urban sprawl as defined by Rule 9J- 5.006(5)(g), Community Plans and/or recognized Planning Area Special Studies, and municipalities in accordance with Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1.1. Policy 2.2-d, to ensure consistency of the County's ULDC with the appropriate elements of the Plan. Objective 2.6, to establish a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Policy 2.6-b, requiring the TDR program to be the method for increasing density within the County unless an applicant can justify and demonstrate need and that the current designation is inappropriate, or is using the Voluntary Density Bonus program, as outlined in the Housing Element and the ULDC. Policy 2.6-f, limiting potential TDR receiving areas to the Urban/Suburban Tier, Planned Development Districts and Traditional Development Districts requesting a density increase, and subdivisions requesting a bonus density above the standard density. Policy 2.6-h, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would result in a significant negative impact upon adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Land. Policy 2.6-i, prohibiting designation of receiving areas which would be incompatible with surrounding existing and future land uses. Goal 3, to define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner. Objective 3.1, to establish graduated service areas to distinguish levels and types of services needed in a Tier. Policy 3.1-a, to establish the USA, LUSA, and RSA considering: the density and intensity of land uses depicted in the FLUE Atlas; the cost and feasibility of extending services; the necessity to protect natural resources; and the objective of encouraging reinvestment in the Revitalization and Redevelopment Overlay. Objective 3.4, to require a RSA which meets the needs of rural development and use without encouraging the conversion of rural areas to more intense uses. Policy 3.4-a, for the RSA to include those areas of the County where the extension of urban LOS's is neither foreseen during the long range planning horizon nor warranted by development patterns or densities and intensities allowed. Policy 3.4-c, not to provide or subsidize centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the RSA unless: required to correct an existing problem; required to prevent a projected public health hazard; required to prevent significant environmental degradation; or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. Objective 3.5, to require availability of services concurrent with impacts of development, to ensure consistency of decisions regarding location, extent, and intensity of future land use (particularly urban expansion), with types of land use and development established in each Tier. Objective 4.1, to develop and implement a Community Planning and Neighborhood Planning program, consider the program's plans for more livable communities with a strong sense of place and identity for the various regions in the County. Policy 4.1-c, to consider the objectives and recommendations of all Community and Neighborhood Plans, including recognized Planning Area Special Studies, prior to extending utilities or services, approving land use amendments, or issuing development orders for rezoning, conditional use, or Development Review Committee approval. Goal 5, to provide for the continual protection, preservation, and enhancement of the County's various high quality environmental communities. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following parts of the Conservation Element (CE): Objective 2.1, to preserve and protect native communities and ecosystems to ensure that representative communities remain intact, giving priority to significant native vegetation. Policy 2.1-g, to ensure that management plans are developed for County-owned or County-managed natural areas and that uses allowed on these lands are compatible with them and preserve their natural character. Objective 2.4, to protect and preserve endangered and threatened species, species of special concern, and their associated habitats. Petitioners allege inconsistency with the following GOPs of the CIE: Objective 1.1, to maintain minimum LOSS's for various facilities, including traffic circulation, and to issue development approvals based on ability to maintain those LOSS's. Objective 1.4, to identify and fund services and capital improvements required by the Plan. Policy 1.4-a, to fund projects and programs to (not in order of importance): correct public hazards; eliminate existing deficiencies in LOS's; provide capacity for projects in the USA approved through development orders; provide for renewal and replacement of, and improvement to, existing public infrastructure and physical assets; maintain LOS's as new growth occurs; increase existing LOS's to desired LOS's; and implement the GOPs in the Plan. Policy 1.5-c, not to provide urban LOS's in the RSA except where allowed under CIE Objective 1.1, required to correct a public health hazard, or required by the Public Health Department for development in the Rural Tier adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to adoption of the Plan in 1989. (Other internal consistencies mentioned in Petitioners' PRO were not alleged or heard by consent and may not be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra.) The evidence did not prove beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments cause the elements of the Plan to be internally inconsistent, or cause the depictions of future conditions in the FLUE Atlas not to reflect the GOPs within all elements of the Plan. Natural Resources Impacts on the Mecca Site As a result of its use for citrus growing and mining, Mecca itself is devoid of significant environmental value. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has found no jurisdictional wetlands on it. There are no native plant communities; in fact, there is virtually no native vegetation anywhere on the site. Mecca is used by wildlife in limited and intermittent ways. The main wildlife use is localized foraging by species such as sandhill cranes and wood storks in the impoundment and irrigation ditches. Mecca does not provide suitable habitat for nesting or denning. A listed species survey revealed no gopher tortoises or snail kites. The surface water management system for the first 535 acres of the SCO has received a construction permit, and the system for the total site was conceptually approved based on water quantity and water quality compliance. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, DOAH Case Nos. 04-3064 and 04-3084, 2004 WL 2770101 (DOAH December 3, 2004; SFWMD Final Order December 8, 2004). No significant adverse impacts to natural resources on Mecca itself would result from development of the SCO on Mecca. Impacts of Development on Mecca on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca The lands surrounding Mecca are more significant environmentally. They include Corbett WMA to the west, Hungryland Slough to the north and northeast, the Vavrus property to the east, and the North County Airport Preserve (Conservation lands to the west, south, and southeast of that Airport) east of the Vavrus property. Farther away to the east and northeast is the Loxahatchee Slough and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River, including its federally- designated Wild and Scenic and Outstanding Florida Water portion. Farther away to the southeast is the Grassy Waters Water Preserve Area, which is both a high quality natural wetlands area and an important source of drinking water for the City of West Palm Beach. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires the adoption of design standards for the SCO which, among other things, will at a minimum address: 4. Protection of conservation lands to the north and west of the SCO and include a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding areas of environmentally sensitive lands. In accordance with this Policy, Map H designates a 247-acre, 500-1,000 foot wide flow-way along the entire north and west sides of Mecca. The flow-way will consist of braided channels through a freshwater marsh, as well as forested wetland and upland tree islands. These wetlands will enhance recreation and wildlife use. The mining lake and a new, separate lake on the south end of the site will have littoral shelves and plantings conducive to wildlife use. In addition to providing onsite environmental benefits, the flow-way will help protect adjacent environmental lands to the west and north from the effects of development on Mecca itself. Impacts of Road Construction on Natural Areas Surrounding Mecca SPW as currently depicted in the Plan runs directly along the western border of Mecca immediately adjacent to Corbett WMA. By virtue of the Amendments, the road alignment has been moved eastward onto Mecca, with the flow-way on its west as a buffer between the actual road and Corbett. This road alignment and buffer can be expected to have less of an impact on Corbett than would an alignment without a buffer. In addition to the impacts of development on Mecca itself, the Plan Amendments also affect road construction offsite that have environmental impacts. The extension of SPW from south of Mecca north to the Beeline through the Hungryland Slough was planned and included in the Plan's 2020 Roadway System Map before the Amendments were adopted, but was not in the County's five-year road program through 2009. The Amendments enlarged the planned roadway from four to six lanes and accelerated its construction to 2007. The extension of PGA Boulevard west from the Beeline to Mecca was not depicted in the Plan prior to the Amendments. The Plan Amendments identify a new 260-foot wide ROW on the new TIM; although the ROW could accommodate ten lanes of roadway, a six-lane road is depicted on the new 2020 Roadway System Map. The new road construction is expected to impact a number of wetlands on private property, but the exact extent of this impact is not known as its precise alignment has not been selected, and the general alignment depicted in Ordinance No. 2004-39 does not allow an exact assessment of potential environmental impacts. In order to examine potential impacts of the PGA Boulevard Extension, the County studied the “worst case scenario” for the extension if it were completed in a straight-line from the Beeline to Mecca. A road constructed on this alignment would directly impact over 45 acres of wetlands, and have an indirect impact upon another 56 acres of wetlands. SFWMD considered this “worst case scenario” as part of its review of secondary impacts for purposes of the conceptual permit it issued for the SCO, which assumed that impacts will be lessened during subsequent permitting as a result of SFWMD's avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements. See Florida Wildlife Federation, et al., v. SFWMD, et al., SFWMD Order No. 2004-208 FOF ERP, supra. Habitat Fragmentation The integrity of natural areas is very important to wildlife. For one thing, the ability of wildlife to move around and mix to enlarge the gene pool increases the structural stability of wildlife populations. Loss of enough integrated habitat can be very damaging to particular species of wildlife. As habitat becomes further and further fragmented by development, the remaining connections among areas of quality habitat become increasingly important in general and especially for particular species of wildlife. Development and roads built through natural areas result in road kill and habitat fragmentation, which compromises the quality of the natural areas. Before the Plan Amendments, through at least 2009, wildlife would have had the ability to use Mecca and especially Hungryland to move between Corbett, Vavrus, the North County Airport Preserve, without having to cross any major roads until coming to the Beeline and Northlake Boulevard, which separate those areas from the Loxahatchee Slough northeast of the Beeline and north and south of existing PGA Boulevard, and from the Grassy Waters Preserve south of Northlake Boulevard. At some point between 2009 and 2020, a four-lane extension of SPW was planned to be added. As a result of the Plan Amendments, the SPW extension will be accelerated to 2007 and constructed with two additional lanes. As a result, the Plan Amendments will tend to reduce connectivity, increase fragmentation of natural habitats, and probably increase road kill of deer, alligators, various kinds of turtles, otters, and snakes. While not part of the Plan Amendments, planned protection measures include fencing to separate Corbett from the Mecca project and wildlife crossings and bridging installed along with the widening of SPW north of Mecca and the extension of PGA Boulevard to Mecca in an attempt to retain the linkage of open wetland and upland areas to the west, north and east, consistent with CE Objective 5.1. Unfortunately, even if the fencing and wildlife crossings and bridging are 100 percent effective for larger animals (which they probably will not be), it should be recognized that many smaller animals will benefit little from them if at all. In particular, increased road kills of listed indigo snakes should be expected due to their large habitat home range (200-acre home range for males). Fire Management Virtually all plant communities in the vicinity of Mecca are fire dependent--in order to be maintained in their natural state, they must be burned approximately every three years, or they will be invaded by exotic species, and their habitat values will be reduced. The inability to maintain a regular burn schedule also poses a public safety threat due to the increased risk of wildfires. Fire management is compromised near roadways and developed areas due to health concerns, reduced visibility, and increased wildfire threat. Caution is used when burning near roadways so as not to cause (traffic accidents,) or to be blamed unfairly for causing them, which can be just as bad for the public relations that have to be maintained to successfully fire-manage natural lands. If an airport, hospital, school, or community is within two miles of a burn area, it is considered a smoke-critical area. If Mecca is developed as proposed, it will be considered a smoke-critical area for many burns in Corbett, which will not be able to be burned if the wind is blowing from the west. In Corbett, which has a lot of lighter wood, fires often smolder for weeks, further constraining fire management. For these reasons, the development allowed by the Plan Amendments will negatively impact the management of Corbett. However, there are alternative fire-management techniques that can be used, if necessary, in natural areas adjacent to Mecca. In addition, with or without the SCO, the County was planning a four-lane extension of SPW along the eastern boundary of Corbett, which would be a constraint on fire management. Light Impacts The proposed development on Mecca will add light sources that will alter the nighttime sky viewable from Corbett, Hungryland, and the Loxahatchee Slough. Depending on the extent, such an alteration would reduce recreational values of Corbett. Lights also can interrupt bird migration and be harmful to migratory birds. The area surrounding Mecca is important for migratory birds because the lack of lighting provides a dark sky and safe route for migration. Special downward-directed lighting that can reduce the adverse impacts from lighting is intended to be used on the Mecca project although a clear requirement to use them is not included in the Plan Amendments. Noise, Pollution, and Mosquito Control Noise and other roadway disturbance cause behavioral problems in wildlife, disrupt bird-nesting for considerable distances, and negatively impact prey and predator by interfering with offensive and defensive mechanisms. However, it should not be anticipated that these kinds of impacts will be significant. In most cases, they probably will disturb the human recreational users of these public lands more than the wildlife. Fertilizer and pesticide use on Mecca may be harmful to wildlife on adjacent properties. But there are ways to control their ill effects through land development regulation consistent with provision in the CE of the Plan. Mosquito control is typically required in urban developments, and is accomplished through the use of pesticides that are not only targeted towards mosquitoes, which are an important part of the food chain, but also kill a wide variety of insects, spiders, and invertebrates. This reduces the populations of these species, negatively impacts species that rely on them for food, can be expected to result in less food for birds such as tree swallows, which feed heavily on mosquitoes, as well as dragonflies, and numerous species that rely on mosquito larvae in the aquatic environment. Loxahatchee River Basin Petitioners contend that it is unacceptably poor planning to develop the SCO on Mecca at this time and eliminate it as an option for use for water storage as part of efforts to restore the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River has been negatively impacted by development in its basin. Such development has resulted in several changes, including the redirection of water discharge to other basins and an unnatural increase in stormwater drainage. These changes to the drainage patterns have resulted in several problems, including excessively high flows in the river following rainfall events, and reduced base flows during the dry season. Excessive flows during the wet season have resulted in erosion of the stream bed, sedimentation blocking the channel at times, and sometimes water quality problems and fish kills. Reduced base flows during the dry season have contributed to allowing saltwater intrusion up the river channel. (Other contributing factors include straightening and stabilization of the inlet to reduce the need for maintenance dredging and the removal of a large oyster bar from the riverbed for navigation purposes.) Saltwater intrusion has altered aquatic ecosystems and caused a change in the vegetation along the riverbanks. Specifically, freshwater cypress-dominated wetlands used to occur as far seaward as 6.2 miles from the river mouth; now mangroves have replaced the cypress swamps as far inland as river mile 9.2, and the cypress wetlands to river mile 10.2 are stressed. Restoration of the Loxahatchee River is an objective of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One. One component of North Palm Beach County Part One was for SFWMD to acquire rock mine pits for water storage from Palm Beach Aggregates near where the L-8 canal meets the C-51 canal. SFWMD plans to channel water through canals into these pits during wet season or high rainfall events, then discharge the water from the pits back through the canals during dry season. One destination for this fresh water during the dry season would be the Loxahatchee River. Until recently, prior to the Scripps opportunity, the North Palm Beach County Part One CERP team also was considering use of Mecca for water storage as a possible management measure in the overall CERP strategy for restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Mecca was considered for two main reasons. One was its location on the west leg of the C-18 canal, which receives discharges from the C-18 basin and flows into the Loxahatchee River. Water could be fairly easily stored there during the wet season and released to the river during the dry season. The other was its disturbed condition, being an orange grove and sand mine. The only other potential water storage sites near the C-18 canal without pristine wetlands that would be unsuitable and undesirable sites for a water storage facility is approximately 1,500 acres of disturbed agricultural land on Vavrus. (The other two-thirds of the Vavrus property has high-quality wetlands habitat.) However, Mecca was not specifically mentioned in any component of CERP, North Palm Beach County Part One, and consideration also was being given to restoring the Loxahatchee River without using Mecca for water storage. No decision was made to use Mecca for water storage, and no steps were taken to purchase Mecca for this purpose. When the Scripps opportunity arose, the County purchased the property for development of a biotechnology research park and applied to SRWMD for a surface water storage and management system and environmental resource permit. One issue was whether the permit would be consistent with the objectives of SFWMD, including CERP. SFWMD did a preliminary study, which included modeling, and determined that Mecca would not be needed for water storage, finding that water storage capacity available in the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits was sufficient, given the pits’ location, depth, and access to nearby canals. SFWMD already had a contract for use of 48,000 acre-feet feet of storage capacity, which is more than seven times the achievable storage at Mecca. In addition, SFWMD was negotiating to acquire the right to double that storage capacity at Palm Beach Aggregates. Based on the County's plans to develop the SCO on Mecca, and the options available for restoring the Loxahatchee without water storage on Mecca, the CERP team eliminated the Mecca option. Instead, SFWMD and the County coordinated on the role the SCO might play in the recovery effort. SFWMD concluded that Mecca could be used to advantage as part of the water conveyance system between the rock mine pits and environmental areas, including the Loxahatchee River. Establishing a flow-way from the south to north of Mecca would give SFWMD another route with which to move water, would reduce dependence on Lake Okeechobee for fresh water, and would provide greater base flows to the Loxahatchee. Based on SFWMD input, the County designed for Mecca a flow-way that will allow flow up to 1,000 cubic feet of water per second (cfs) to assist recovery efforts for the Loxahatchee. Construction at Mecca is phased to assure that the existing onsite impoundment will be in place until the flow-way is functioning. This conveyance system will benefit offsite resources and improve water quality, and is consistent with and complementary to SFWMD’s CERP implementation. Petitioners' witnesses criticized the decision to proceed with development of the SCO on Mecca at this time on the ground that CERP's implementation report (a/k/a "tentatively selected plan") has yet to be approved. However, approval requires not only agreement by the State and federal agencies involved but also a vote of the United States Congress, which may not occur until 2008. It is a fairly debatable policy question whether to postpone a decision on developing the SCO at Mecca until Congress approves an ultimate CERP implementation plan. Petitioners' witnesses also criticized the modeling relied on by SFWMD to eliminate the Mecca option. They pointed out that the modeling was not peer-reviewed and that it assumed 80,000 to 100,000 acre-feet of storage at the rock mine pits. But this point, too, is fairly debatable. First, while peer-review is required in the CERP planning process, it is not required of data and analysis under the GMA. See Finding 136, supra. Second, the purpose of the modeling was to supplement modeling already done assuming 48,000 acre-feet of storage for comparison purposes. It was not intended to answer the ultimate question of CERP planning process--whether the CERP implementation plan will meet CERP objectives, including restoration of the Loxahatchee. In addition, based on the evidence, prospects for obtaining the additional storage seem reasonably good. Third, water from the rock mine pits is only one of four sources of flow needed for restoration of the Loxahatchee. The combination of sources CERP will use has not been determined yet. Preliminarily, it is estimated that base flows from the south will be required to maintain 65 cfs minimum flows at the Lainhart Dam. Based on the evidence, the prospects for being able to maintain those flows using water from the rock mine pits are reasonably good. Other necessary flow will be sought from the Palmar/Cypress Creek and Kitchen Creek areas to the north. Fourth, as for reducing high flows during the wet season, it is fairly debatable whether the plan to use the Palm Beach Aggregates rock mine pits alone for water storage will work well enough. It could be that, despite capacity limitations on storage potential in the C-18 basin, some storage there may prove beneficial, perhaps in conjunction with aquifer storage and recovery wells (ASRs), along with the rock mine pits. Even with the Plan Amendments, there remains some potential at this time that a limited portion of Mecca and disturbed portions of Vavrus could be used for this purpose if needed. Petitioners' witnesses also complained that use of the rock mine pits along with a flow-way through Mecca will require potentially costly land acquisition and permitting and modification of existing canals and construction of new canals, as well as larger pumps, and that water will be lost in transit between the rock mine pits and Mecca through evaporation. But there was no evidence that those factors will in fact harm or jeopardize restoration of the Loxahatchee River. Meanwhile, it is significant that the flow-way on Mecca will be provided by the County and will not cost SFWMD or CERP anything. Natural Resources Summary As can be seen, development of the SCO at Mecca will not be without some adverse impacts to natural resources and the environment. However, the County's determination that the benefits of the SCO outweigh the harm of those impacts, so as not to cause the Plan Amendments to be "in compliance," is a policy decision that is at least fairly debatable. Community Character and Compatibility It is obvious that the Plan Amendments will result in a complete change in the character and use of the Mecca site. Without question, development of the SCO at Mecca will impact adjacent lands and the character of the nearest communities. The question raised, however, is whether the changes at Mecca are compatible with the character and uses of the surrounding lands. New FLUE Policy 2.8-c requires, among other things: urban uses allowed by the SCO to have a defined edge; protection of conservation lands to the north and west by a passive recreational wetland system to enhance the quality of surrounding environmentally sensitive lands; and compatibility with and minimization of impacts on land uses adjacent to the SCO. Map H of the DRI application shows wetland and other buffers on the north, west, and south sides of the SCO, and a 50-foot upland buffer along the Vavrus property to the east. There was evidence that the 50-foot buffer on the east is sufficient for the current use and the rural residential land use designation (1 du/10ac) placed on the Vavrus site at this time by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. The Mecca project has been designed so that, if there are changes in the future in the land use on the Vavrus property, those buffers would continue to provide compatibility. Corbett WMA and the Hungryland preservation lands in Unit 11 will be buffered by passive recreational wetlands 500 to 1,000 feet wide, based on Map H. Corbett WMA will be benefited by moving Seminole Pratt-Whitney (SPW) Road to the east of the SCO westerly buffer and converting the existing roadbed to an equestrian trail.12 To the south, The Acreage is an example of urban or suburban sprawl. A residential development platted in 1.25- acre lots, it has all internal roads in place and in use. There was ample evidence that development of the SCO can be compatible with The Acreage. The southerly buffer between the nearest residence in The Acreage and development in the SCO would be about 800 feet. SPW already is in the 2020 TIM and Roadway System Map as a four-lane paved road through The Acreage and north past Mecca and the Beeline to Indiantown Road. However, SPW Road already has a 120-foot-wide ROW, which can accommodate a six- lane road, and The Acreage Neighborhood Plan calls for construction of this road from Northlake to the Beeline Highway, as well as extension of SR 7 north from Okeechobee Boulevard to Northlake. There is already heavy traffic on the few major through-roads in The Acreage, and that will increase incrementally. At the same time, some work trips from The Acreage to areas of the County farther east could be offset by employment opportunities in the SCO. The North County Airport has a five-mile runway buffer zone precluding educational uses. That buffer zone was accommodated on the SCO by the arrangement of uses on Map H. The new extension of PGA Boulevard from the SCO to the Beeline Highway will be subject to FAA setback requirements, but there are options for addressing that issue when an alignment is selected. The 28-acre Accessory Site is located on the west side of SPW Road just south of the SCO. Its use for construction of SPW Road, a connector canal, and an FPL substation is compatible with the existing FPL transmission line on the property. The substation will be sufficiently buffered by canals and SPW Road from The Acreage to its east and south. Many residents in the communities in the vicinity of Mecca desire to preserve the character of their communities or, it seems, even restore it to what it was before the growth the County has seen in this area over the last several years. Several own horses and desire to continue to ride their horses along the roads in the area. However, as indicated, with or without the Plan Amendments, growth in the area was expected, the County was planning to build roads in the area, and traffic was expected to increase. Based on the foregoing, it is fairly debatable whether the Plan Amendments are compatible with community character and surrounding land uses. Regional and State Plans Section 163.3177(10) states in pertinent part: for the purpose of determining whether local comprehensive plans are consistent with the state comprehensive plan and the appropriate regional policy plan, a local plan shall be consistent with such plans if the local plan is "compatible with" and "furthers" such plans. The term "compatible with" means that the local plan is not in conflict with the state comprehensive plan or appropriate regional policy plan. The term "furthers" means to take action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the state or regional plan. For the purposes of determining consistency of the local plan with the state comprehensive plan or the appropriate regional policy plan, the state or regional plan shall be construed as a whole and no specific goal and policy shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans. Treasure Coast Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP) In the Amended Petition, the Petitioners did not allege the Amendments are inconsistent with the SRPP, as a whole. Only allegations in the Amended Petition may be considered. See Conclusion 212, infra. Notwithstanding testimony from Petitioners’ TCRPC witness that the Plan Amendments were not consistent with some provisions of the SRPP, he did not testify that they were inconsistent with the SRPP as a whole. The Amendments further some parts of the SRPP. These include SRPP Goal 3.6 and SRPP Goal 3.7 of the Economic Development element, and their supporting strategies and policies. Petitioners' TCRPC witness testified there were five inconsistencies between the Amendments and the SRPP. However, he admitted that he did not recommend that TCRPC file formal objections to the Amendments with DCA on three grounds he cited for inconsistency at hearing --proximity to the Corbett WMA and other natural resources, the CRALLS designations, and proximity to the North County Airport. In discussing some provisions, this witness failed to give the SRPP its proper context. Many goals, strategies, and policies in the SRPP use directive verbs intended to be recommendations to a local government, not requirements. As one of his five grounds of inconsistency with the SRPP, Petitioners' TCRPC witness opined that Regional Goal 4.1 and its supporting measures require the County to prepare a regional plan before urban development may be allowed at Mecca, and to ensure such development meets the SRPP’s definition of a new town, village or city. However, this goal and its key provisions use the verb “should” and therefore are not mandates. Further, a plain reading of these provisions shows no requirement for the County to complete a regional plan as a pre-requisite for urban development. Also, the TCRPC witness opined that SRRP Policies 9.1.1.1 and 7.1.3.1 prohibit CRALLS designations outside urban areas. However, a plain reading of these policies shows no basis for such an assertion, and the witness later admitted the SRPP does not prohibit CRALLS designations in rural areas. Moreover, his testimony on this point was contradicted by his testimony that the SRPP is only “advisory.” State Comprehensive Plan The State Comprehensive Plan (SCP) is a very broad, direction-setting document. The SCP provides over-arching policy guidance, and does not impose or authorize the creation of regulatory authority. The Amended Petition alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the goals of the SCP regarding Land Use, Water Resources, Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Transportation, and Urban and Downtown Revitalization, as well as numerous policies under these goals. Based on these allegations, Petitioners alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the SCP as a whole. To the contrary, the record evidence demonstrates that all relevant issues regarding water and other natural resources, land use, and transportation were taken into account by the County and are addressed in the Amendments. Additionally, the Amendments are consistent with and further numerous goals of the SCP not mentioned in the Amended Petition. The Amendments contain a commitment that each phase of development must contain affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. This commitment furthers the SCP goal to “increase the affordability and availability of housing for low-income and moderate-income persons ” § 187.201(4), Fla. Stat. The Amendments have as their principal focus the creation of quality employment opportunities with Scripps Florida as anchor tenant. This purpose is consistent with and furthers the SCP policy to “[a]ttract new job-producing industries, corporate headquarters, distribution and service centers, regional offices, and research and development facilities to provide quality employment for the residents of Florida.” § 187.201(21)(b)(1), Fla. Stat. Summary Using the statutory definition of internal consistency, it is not beyond fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with either the TCRPC's SRRP or the SCP.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DCA enter a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Walter L. Moyer, violated Section 472.033(1)(g) and (h) F.S. and Rule 21 HH-2.01(3) by performing a land survey in a negligent or incompetent manner, without due care and without due regard for acceptable professional standards, and violated Section 472.033(1)(e), (g) and (h) F.S., and Rule 21HH- 2.01(3) and (5) FAC, by providing a false or deliberately inaccurate survey sketch to a client on two separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Walter L. Moyer has been licensed by the State of Florida as a registered surveyor from approximately August 1977 until present, and holds license number LS 0002828. His address for license purposes is Palm Bay, Florida, in Brevard County. His practice as a surveyor has been primarily in construction-related surveys and lot surveys, with very few parcel surveys. THE CHILCOTT SURVEY (COUNT I) In June 1984, Charles and Robin Chilcott purchased property on Grant Road, in Brevard County, consisting of approximately 1.44 acres of undeveloped land. The Chilcotts acquired the parcel with the intent to construct a home and keep their horses. Shortly after purchase, the Chilcotts retained Moyer to prepare a boundary survey of the parcel. The cost of the survey was $315.00 including $7.50 extra cost for two concrete monuments, rather than iron rods, at the front corners, as requested by the Chilcotts. The survey was performed on July 27, 1984, and Moyer was paid. He furnished the Chilcotts several sketches of survey which he had signed and sealed. In 1985, the Chilcotts hired a contractor, Casey Jones, and commenced building their house. At the request of Casey Jones, Moyer prepared both the foundation and final surveys. These two surveys were added to the boundary survey on September 26, 1985, and November 23, 1985, respectively. At the time that the field work on the foundation and final survey was done, Moyer detected no problems with the monumentation he had initially set in the boundary survey. He did not see any evidence that the monuments had been disturbed. The final survey shows the house to be 17.35 feet inside the east lot line. The Chilcotts wanted at least that distance because the area is zoned agricultural and they did not want the neighbor's livestock close to the house. They also understood that the county required a minimum 10-foot set-back. In connection with the construction of their home, and in reliance upon Moyer's survey identifying their property's boundary, the Chilcotts installed a well and a fence and had approximately 800 feet of sod planted along the east boundary. The Chilcotts have since learned that those improvements are not on their property and that their house is, in fact, only 7.25 feet from the lot line. In May, 1986, David Rothery, a Florida licensed land surveyor, performed a boundary survey of the Donald Waterbury parcel adjacent to and just east of Chilcott's land on Grant Road. Rothery checked and double-checked his field measurements and still found a ten foot discrepancy in the placement of the monuments on the eastern corners of the Chilcott parcel. Those monuments were ten feet too far to the east and were, therefore, placed ten feet within the Waterbury boundaries. He did not observe any indication that the monuments had been moved, and when he placed his corners for the proper boundaries, he found no evidence that monuments had ever been there before. As required, the monuments placed by Moyer had his identification on them. Rothery put a dotted line on his survey with the notation, "Apparent survey error on adjoining property by Walter Moyer Land Surveying". Rothery also called Moyer and told him about the discrepancy. On the morning of May 10, 1986, Moyer went back out to the Chilcott property and discovered that his monuments were ten feet too far to the east. He was in the process of moving them when he was confronted by Charles Chilcott. He told Chilcott that an error was made, that he "dropped ten feet". There was some discussion about possible remedies such as paying for the well and fence to be moved or buying the ten feet from Waterbury. Chilcott did not let Moyer finish moving the monuments. That night, Chilcott, who had never met Moyer before, but had only communicated by phone or in writing, called Moyer's house and confirmed that it was the same person he had seen moving the monuments. That was the last time Chilcott spoke with Moyer. Chilcott called Moyer's house several times over the following months, but always reached Mrs. Moyer and his phone calls were not returned. Moyer did contact Waterbury about purchasing the ten foot strip. Waterbury was concerned about how this would affect his eventual ability to build on his lot and refused to sell. Waterbury is not pressing the Chilcotts about their encroachments; he simply expects to have the matter resolved sometime in the future. By a letter dated 8/18/86, the Chilcotts requested damages of $2,500.00 from Moyer, including an estimate of costs to move the well, fence and a power pole and to replace sod. On September 13, 1986, another letter from Chilcott to Moyer listed the same plus additional damages, for a total demand of $4,025.00. In a letter to Chilcott dated August 27, 1987, Moyer offered to pay the application fee to seek a variance from the setback requirement and offered to provide a final survey and half the cost of moving the well. The letter denied that the problem was Moyer's fault and said that Moyer believes that the markers were moved between the date the survey was completed and the date of the foundation. The Chilcotts rejected that offer. No evidence in this proceeding supports Moyer's contention that the Chilcotts or someone else moved the monuments he originally set in 1984. The evidence does establish a strong circumstantial basis for finding that the monuments were not moved, but were incorrectly placed by Moyer at the time that the boundary survey was completed. Setting the monuments properly is an essential component of conducting a boundary survey. Moreover, when a subsequent final survey is done, it is the duty of the surveyor to assure that the original monuments have not been disturbed during construction and site work by a contractor. Assuming that Moyer is correct in his contention that the monuments were moved after they were set by him, but before the foundation was placed, it was his duty to discover that fact. He did not, since his final survey shows that the house is 17.35 feet from the boundary, whereas the house is, in fact, approximately seven feet from the adjoining property. Except when witness monuments are used, as when a tree or other obstruction sits on a boundary corner, it is a violation of standard surveying practice to place a monument other than where it is shown on the survey drawing. In this instance, the drawing is accurate; as described in the Chilcott deed, the northeast corner of their property is 600 feet from the section corner. There was no need for witness monuments here; yet the east boundary monuments are ten feet off and are 590 feet from the section corner. There is no overlap in the legal descriptions of the Waterbury and Chilcott properties to account for the overlap in monuments discovered by David Rothery, the Waterbury surveyor. Surveying is a system of checking measurements. Both human and equipment errors in the profession are neither rare nor entirely common. Even the most up-to-date electronic equipment is subject to discrepancies. Checking and rechecking field measurements helps alleviate errors. The minimum technical standards developed by and for the profession are intended to reduce errors, although it is not clear that slavish adherence to those principles will absolutely prevent any possibility of error. When errors do occur, the standard of the profession is to work with the client to resolve the problem. In some cases, this may mean the purchase of the client's property or adjoining property if the party is willing to sell. Moyer's limited offers do not meet the established standards of the profession. THE BURGOON-BERGER SURVEYS COUNTS II AND III On August 21, 1986, Moyer signed and sealed a survey sketch of Lot 22, Block 2245, Port Malabar, Unit 44, in Brevard County Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey of Lot 22 showed the drawing of an improvement within the boundaries of the lot with a notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 25.86." Next to the date on the survey is the abbreviation, "FND". The survey was submitted to the Palm Bay Building Department on August 26, 1986, the day before the pre-slab inspection. A pre-slab inspection is done before the slab is poured; therefore, at the time the survey was signed and sealed, the concrete slab had not yet been poured. On October 20, 1986, Moyer prepared a sketch of survey of Lot 7, Block 1054, Port Malabar Unit 20, in Brevard County, Florida for Burgoon-Berger Construction Co. The survey sketch indicated an improvement within the boundaries of the lot, with the notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV 26.87". Next to the date on the survey is the notation "FND". The survey was submitted to the City of Palm Bay on October 28, 1986. The pre-slab inspection was done by the City on October 22, 1986. Again, the survey was signed and sealed before the slab was actually poured. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", is commonly understood to mean "foundation, finished floor elevation". "FND" is commonly understood to mean "foundation". Moyer, himself, has used both notations to signify those common usages. Foundation is generally accepted in the land surveying profession to mean something permanent and constructed, like a concrete slab, not bust the ground or wooden form boards used to guide the pouring of the slab. A survey which depicts an improvement with the note, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV", when the floor has not been finished misrepresents the status of the construction of that project. Reviewing personnel at the Palm Bay Building Department rejected the surveys and alerted the City's Flood Plain Administrator. That individual, Maria Parkhurst, reported the incidents to the Department of Professional Regulation. Lots 22 and 7 are both in the flood plain and slab elevation is significant, as the City must assure that federal maximum elevation requirements are met. The City requires the submission of surveys containing slab elevation data. Banks also rely on foundation surveys submitted by contractors in order to determine the state of construction before the release of a foundation draw. That is, before the contractor is entitled to partial payment for his work, the bank needs to know if the work has been done. Both Moyer and his client, Bergoon-Berger, intended the notation in these cases to mean "finished form", not "finished floor". Burgoon-Berger had Moyer perform a survey after the wooden form boards were constructed, but before the concrete slab was poured, in order to assure that the house was placed properly on the lot. The survey was somehow submitted prematurely to the city, whereas because Moyer and his client intended that the poured slab be re-surveyed before the sketch was submitted. When the survey for Lot 7 was resubmitted to the City on October 31, 1986, the slab had been poured and, while the elevation remained the same, the size of the fireplace foundation was slightly smaller. The notation, "FOUNDATION FF ELEV" remained the same, with nothing on the face of the survey sketch to indicate that this later version was the finished floor, rather than the finished form. Moyer no longer uses these abbreviations. A survey is not valid until it is signed and sealed, but once it is signed and sealed, it signifies to the client and to the public at large that the information provided therein is true and accurate. The standard of professional land survey practice dictates that abbreviations which are not commonly accepted should be explained on the face of the drawing. The professional standards also dictate that even if a client asks for certain information on a survey, in anticipation that other third parties might rely on the survey the professional should either refuse to indicate improvements that do not exist yet or indicate unambiguously that the improvements are intended, but still under construction. Notwithstanding Bergoon-Berger's and Moyer's intentions with regard to the two surveys at issue, Moyer failed to meet professional standards when he signed and sealed those surveys and released them to his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of Counts I, II and III of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing him on probation for a period of two years, under such conditions as the Board may deem appropriate, including, but not limited to the participation in continuing professional education courses and the pursuit of a reasonable resolution to the Chilcott's boundary problems arising from the Respondent's negligence in performing their survey. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner (Count I) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 2. 3-4. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Incorporated in Part in Paragraph 1., as to the limitation of experience, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in part in Paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 9-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 4. 14-18. Adopted in Paragraph 3 and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 11. 23-28. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 8, however the accurate date is May 10, 1986, and the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Moyer spoke to either of the Chilcotts before coming back. This fact is not material. 32-33. Adopted in Paragraph 8. 34. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 9. Adopted in part in Paragraph 9, otherwise rejected as unsubstantiated by competent evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 42-43. Rejected as cumulative. 44. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. 45-47. Rejected as cumulative. 48-49. Adopted in Paragraph 12. 50-51. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative. 54-55. Adopted in Paragraph 14. (Counts II and III) Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 15. Adopted in Paragraph 16. 4-6. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Adopted in Paragraph 20. Adopted in Paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Adopted in Paragraph 18. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 25. Respondent Adopted in Paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in Background. Adopted in Paragraph 2. Adopted in Paragraph 3. 8-11. Rejected as immaterial. 12-13. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Adopted in part in Paragraph 7. Adopted in Paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the fact that the Chilcott house is 7 feet from the boundary. That fact is adopted in Paragraph 6. 19-20. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 14. Adopted in Paragraph 10. Rejected, except as adopted in Paragraph 10. 24-25. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 11. Adopted in part in Paragraph 14, otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 13. Rejected as immaterial. While the boundary depiction is accurate, the placement of the house is in error on the final and foundation surveys and, of course, the markers are erroneously set. 30-33. Addressed in Background. 34. Adopted in Paragraphs 15 and 17. 35-36. Adopted in part in Paragraph 22, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 37-38. Rejected as immaterial. 39. Adopted in Paragraphs 19 and 22. 40-44. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: DAVID R. TERRY, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 JAMES P. BEADLE, ESQUIRE 5205 BABCOCK STREET N. E. PALM BAY, FLORIDA 32905 ALLEN R. SMITH, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 TOM GALLAGHER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Background Lee County adopted its comprehensive growth management plan under Section 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, (the Act) on January 31, 1989 (without regard to the subject plan amendments, the Plan). The Plan is compiled in the first volume of a three- volume set. The remaining volumes contain data and analysis (Original Data and Analysis). The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) determined that the Plan was not in compliance with the Act. DCA filed a petition challenging the Plan under Section 163.3184(10), which commenced DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM. Pursuant to a settlement agreement, on September 6 and 12, 1990, Lee County adopted Plan amendments and revised the Original Data and Analysis. These amendments to the Plan shall be referred to as the Plan Amendments. The Plan Amendments are contained in a three-volume set. The first volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning traffic. The second volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis concerning the future land use map series, which includes two maps forming the 2010 overlay. The third volume contains Plan Amendments and data and analysis involving general matters. The Plan, as amended by the Plan Amendments, shall be referred to as the Amended Plan. The additional data and analysis submitted by Lee County in September, 1990, shall be referred to as the Revised Data and Analysis. The Original Data and Analysis and Revised Data and Analysis shall collectively be referred to as the Data and Analysis. On or about October 29, 1990, DCA published a notice of intent to find the Plan Amendments in compliance. Petitioner Brenda Sheridan, who is a resident of Lee County, had previously submitted oral or written objections during the review and adoption proceedings concerning the Plan Amendments. On or about November 17, 1990, Petitioner commenced the above-styled case by filing with DCA a petition alleging that the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis are not in compliance with the Act and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (collectively referred to as the growth management law). Wildlife Habitats and Vegetative Communities (Issues 2 and 6) As to Issue 2, the Revised Data and Analysis contain limited data or analysis pertaining to wildlife habitat and vegetative communities. Much of the data and analysis concerning wildlife habitats and vegetative communities are in the Original Data and Analysis and were unchanged by the Revised Data and Analysis. The Revised Data and Analysis inventory only certain habitats or vegetative communities and analyze the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon only certain unique wildlife habitats. The habitats or communities so considered are only those used by wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. The Revised Data and Analysis state: The only documented wood stork rookery in Lee County is on Telegraph Creek. In the past 3 years, no nesting has occurred there. It is possible that they exist in the Flint Pen Strand, adjacent to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Corkscrew includes a well-known wood stork rookery. Wood stork productivity is highly variable as a result of annual rainfall amounts which accumulate in South Florida. Flight paths . . . associated with that rookery cross into feeding locations within Lee County. These movements are primarily dependent on food availability. Tall structures placed in this flight path could affect the wood storks. The first monitoring report concerning the impact of WEVU's new broadcast tower on wood storks has been submitted. Every day during breeding season a biological intern has inspected the 60-acre tower site for injured wood storks. No injuries or fatalities were found. Feeding areas of the Corkscrew Swamp colony have been documented in Lee, Collier, and Hendry Counties. Southeastern Lee County provides important forage areas for this colony; occasionally saltwater habitats are also used. These food sources are essential to the success of wood stork reproduction within the colony. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks from the Corkscrew Swamp Colony. Lee County wetlands provide significant feeding areas for wood storks. As water levels drop in the winter, fish are trapped in depressions associated with the wetland. These fish become an easy meal for the wood storks. The storks rely on this feeding source for successful breeding and survival. Strict enforcement of strong wetland regulations is the first step to protect this important feeding source. The Lee County Protected Species Ordinance provides the next step in protecting wood stork forage areas. It requires surveys and management plans for the wood storks. Nesting, roosting, and rooking areas are identified in the survey. Preservation of those areas can be accomplished through conservation easements granted to the county. All management plans must follow the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region, a 1990 publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Of the 20 surveys submitted to date, only one indicated the presence of wood stork areas. Two wood storks were identified off of the property. The management plan associated with this property includes preservation of the wetlands associated with this documented forage site. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-3. Figure IX.C-1 indicates the foraging sites used by wood storks of the Corkscrew Swamp colony from 1985 to 1988. The 30 indicated sites are (with one exception) concentrated in extreme southeast Lee County. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones. Addressing Florida panthers, the Revised Data and Analysis report: The greatest problems facing panthers are directly related to human intrusion. Habitat loss due to increased development erodes the range necessary for each cat's survival. Florida panthers require extensive and biologically diverse landscapes. Male panthers utilize up to 400 square miles of territory. Biotic systems utilized by the Florida panther include "mixed swamp forests, cypress swamps, sawgrass marshes, mesic hammocks, pine flatwoods, and palmetto prairies." (Maehr, David S., "The Florida Panther and Private Lands.") Uplands are especially critical habitats for Florida panther. The tall palmetto systems which are particularly beneficial to the panther are also particularly prized for agriculture and development. Because of the vast range necessary for the survival of the panther, protection of their habitat cannot be fully accomplished through site design regulations for private development. Large areas need to be acquired, preserved, and managed for the long- term survival of this species. Suitable corridors must also be maintained, either through acquisition or regulations. . . . In recent years, two cats have been documented in Lee County. One travels from Collier County, through the Flint Pen Strand, and north past the Southwest Florida Regional Airport to the Caloosahatchee River. This is a young panther. This movement is reflected in Figure IX.C-2 showing public lands within panther range. The second panther has been documented in Northern Lee County. Its range probably includes portions of Charlotte County. Figure IX.C-3 showing Florida panther range is currently out of date given the known travels of the first panther. The enlargement of this map in Figure IX.C-4 illustrates the importance of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition in the preservation of well-documented panther habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-5 to IX-6. Figures IX.C-3 and -4 disclose that about 50 square miles of south Lee County serves as known panther habitat, although actual habitat is even greater. The 50-square mile area contains much of the land in Lee County east of I-75 and the headwaters of the Estero River. All of the area is designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource or Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones except for all or parts of six one- mile sections, which are designated Suburban and General (Interchange Area). The Revised Data and Analysis discuss the habitat of black bear: Black bear range requirements are strikingly similar to that of the Florida panther. Like the Florida panther, the adult male will occupy home ranges that are greater than the female; in the case of the black bear, 3 to 8 times greater. The range of the black bear forage area extends anywhere from 40 to 312 square miles. In Lee County, bears are known to exist in the northern and southeastern areas of the county. Bear dens are common in the eastern extent of the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. Black bear are generally more common in the southeastern area of the county (see Figure IX.C-7). Black bears have a diverse diet including acorns, various berries, and insects. Under some circumstances, they may also consume feral hogs and cattle. Consistent with their famous desire for honey, bears are notorious for invading apiaries. This activity causes an obvious conflict between bee-keepers and the bears, as many orange groves currently exist in the northern and eastern areas of the county. More groves are permitted in the area as well. Bears studied in the Ocala National Forest predominantly utilized pine flatwoods for bedding and forage. "Pine flatwoods provide good cover for winter bedding as well as a nearly year-round source of food and water. This habitat type supports a variety of food- producing plans including gallberry, blueberry, and saw palmetto." (Wooding, John B. and Hardisky, Thomas S., Final Performance Report: Black Bear Study, page 18.) Bears studied in [the] Osceola National Forest utilized cypress/bay swamps greatest in the fall and winter. The dense cover and fall food supply are explanations for this use. Black bears are prone to utilize areas which include oak in the autumn to take advantage of acorn production. Oak hammocks provide black bears with dense cover and food during these periods. It appears that black bear hibernate to some degree in south Florida. This period of hibernation is of a shorter duration (2 to 3 months) and the bears are more alert during hibernation than they are in more northern areas. However, building energy stores for the hibernation is still important to the black bear in south Florida. Florida black bear dens are simply beds made of vegetation such as palmetto fronds. They are known to den in a variety of habitats. However, pine flatwoods and cypress swamps would appear to be the most utilized for this area. "It is speculated that Florida black bears have adequate food supplies to reproduce by the age of 3-4 years." (Wooding and Hardisky, page 23.) Black bear road kills have been reported along I-75. These bears were crossing in the vicinity of San Carlos Park. Bears have been sighted in that community and occasionally elsewhere west of I-75. However, I-75 is more typically a barrier to black bear migration to the western half of the county. Preservation of large tracts of unfragmented forests is necessary for the continued survival of black bear in Lee County. Public acquisition of connected forested tracts is an effective way of ensuring habitat preservation for black bear. The Flint Pen Strand acquisition includes the area of most extensive bear denning and bedding in Lee County. Since this area is connected by the Bird Rookery Swamp acquisition to the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, connectivity of preserved land is accomplished. The largest area of land currently under public control in southeastern Lee County is owned by the city of Fort Myers. Their southeast wellfield site encompasses 6 sections and is compatible with the management of black bear. This area is just 2 miles from the Flint Pen Strand acquisition. A link between the two would provide the needed connectivity and should become a priority. Enhancement of large preserved tracts may yield a higher density of bears. This enhancement includes the planting of forage plants and the maintenance of dense vegetation. A burning program that favors the production of soft mast-forming species should be evaluated with consideration of promoting Melaleuca [sic]. Joint Exhibit 10.c, pages IX-6 and -13. Figure IX.C-7 shows that most of the bear use areas correspond to the depicted location of the Florida panther habitat. As to Issue 2, to the extent that the Revised Data and Analysis address vegetative communities and wildlife habitats, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Revised Data and Analysis are inconsistent with the criteria of an inventory of existing coastal wildlife habitat and vegetative communities and analysis of the environmental, socioeconomic, and fiscal impacts of development and redevelopment upon unique wildlife habitat. As to Issue 6, the Plan Amendments address to a limited extent regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat. The Plan Amendments address the wood stork and its habitat as follows: Objective 77.10: WOOD STORK. By July, 1991, regulatory measures to protect the wood stork's feeding and roosting areas and habitat shall be adopted and enforced by Lee County. Policy 77.10.1: By December 31, 1990, the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) and its administrative code (AC-13-10) shall include wood storks as a Lee County Listed Species, requiring surveys for and protection of wood stork habitat. The county shall maintain an inventory of documented feeding, roosting, and rooking areas for the wood stork to ensure that surveys submitted through the Protected Species Ordinance include such areas. Policy 77.10.2: By December 31, 1990, the county shall require management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to utilize "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Wood Stork in the Southeast Region" (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990). Policy 77.10.3: By July 1991, the county shall provide incentives for the creation of wood stork feeding areas in mandatory littoral shelf design, construction, and planting. These incentives shall include relief from 50% of the shrub requirements in exchange for fish entrapment areas. Policy 77.10.4: By July 1991, the county shall identify wood stork flight patterns from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas within the county. Regulations protecting significant flight areas shall be adopted by July 1992, restricting the construction of tall structures such as broadcast towers (see Policy 2.1.5). Policy 2.1.5 provides: 25/ * [[After the completion and acceptance of a special study]] <<By July 1991, the county shall complete a special study on locational criteria for tall structures such as broadcast towers. These criteria shall include wood stork flight corridors from roosting and rooking areas to feeding areas as well as airport hazard areas. By July 1992, new>> tall structures such as broadcast towers shall be [[encouraged or]] required to be located in areas identified as appropriate <<after examining the findings of the study (see Policy 77.10.4).>> * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Policy 77.10.1 requires Lee County to keep an inventory of wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas to ensure that developer-provided surveys include such areas. The Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the County is already aware of certain of such areas. Policy 77.10.2 requires, by December 31, 1990, Lee County to demand that management plans for existing wood stork feeding, roosting, and rooking areas use regionally applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for habitat management. The requirement of management plans arises from the inclusion of wood storks among Lee County Listed Species, as provided in Policy 77.10.1. Policies 77.10.3 and 77.10.4 provide additional protection for wood storks found in Lee County. The Plan Amendments address the Florida panther, black bear, and their habitat as follows: Objective 77.11: FLORIDA PANTHER AND BLACK BEAR. By June 30, 1991, county staff shall develop measures to protect the Florida panther and black bear through greenbelt and acquisition strategies. Policy 77.11.1: County staff, working with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, shall identify known black bear and Florida panther corridors in Lee County. Policy 77.11.2: Criteria developed for ranking land acquisition priorities shall include known panther and black bear corridors. Policy 77.11.3: Lee County shall inform Collier and Charlotte counties as to Lee County corridor acquisition projects to encourage a regional approach to corridor acquisition. Policy 77.11.4: Lee County shall support the acquisition of the Flint Pen Strand through a millage increase of .2 mills over a three-year period. Acquisition of this documented Florida panther and black bear corridor shall be coordinated with the South Florida Water Management District's "Save Our Rivers" program and the state's "Conservation and Recreational Lands" program. Policy 77.11.5: Important black bear and Florida panther use areas shall be identified. Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated within these use areas. The corridor boundaries shall include wetlands, upland buffers, and nearby vegetative communities which are particularly beneficial to the Florida panther and black bear (such as high palmetto and oak hammocks). Policy 77.11.6: Florida panther and black bear corridors shall be included in the Protected Species Ordinance (#89-34) management section. Where corridors are purchased (or designated for purchase) adjacent to the development site, then a buffer to the corridor of no greater than 500 feet shall be required. Policy 77.11.7: In any vegetative restoration projects conducted by Lee County for land acquired due to its environmental sensitivity (such as the Six Mile Cypress Strand and the Flint Pen Strand), plant lists shall include species that provide forage for the prey of the Florida panther and forage for the black bear. The Plan Amendments also modified another policy contained in the Plan: Policy 77.4.1: Identify, inventory, and protect flora and fauna indicated as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern in the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Fauna and Flora of Florida," Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, as periodically updated. <<Lee County's Protected Species Ordinance (#89- 34) shall be enforced to protect habitat of those listed species found in Lee County that are vulnerable to development. There shall be a funding commitment of one full-time environmental planner to enforce this ordinance through the zoning and development review process.>> Although not further described in the Amended Plan, the Protected Species Ordinance, which is not part of the Amended Plan, is addressed in the Revised Data and Analysis: The Protected Species ordinance (#89-34) was adopted by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 1, 1989. The ordinance was the first in the nation to require a survey for listed species habitat and a management plan for proposed development sites. The survey method is delineated to ensure a proper survey is performed. This survey is only required for those vegetative communities known to harbor listed species from the "Official Lists of Endangered and Potentially Endangered Flora and Fauna of Florida" of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Once the listed species are identified, a number of regulatory tools are used to preserve the nesting, feeding, and "other use" areas. These tools include the transfer of density on-site, use of open space requirements, and credits toward regional park impact fees. * * * The ordinance is being administered to allow maximum development flexibility while preserving listed species habitat. Joint Exhibit 10.c, page IX-1. Added by the Plan Amendments, Objective 17.4 states: NATURAL RESOURCES. County regulations, policies, and discretionary actions shall permit no further degradation of estuarine and wetland resources and no unnecessary loss of native upland vegetation and wildlife habitat. Although unaffected by the Plan Amendments, other provisions of the Amended Plan address wildlife habitat and identifies techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment upon important vegetative communities. These provisions state: Goal 77: RESOURCE PROTECTION. To manage the county's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal species diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Objective 77.l: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. By 1991 the county shall adopt a resource management plan that will ensure the long- term protection and enhancement of the natural upland and wetland habitats through the retention of interconnected, functioning, and maintainable hydroecological systems where the remaining wetlands and uplands function as a productive unit resembling the original landscape. Policy 77.l.l: The county shall designate a natural resource management agency with responsibilities including: Identifying upland and wetland habitats/systems most suitable for protection, enhancement, reclamation, and conservation. Recommending standards to the Board of County Commissioners for Board approval for development and conservation that will protect and integrate wetlands (Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones), and significant areas of Rare and Unique upland habitats (RU) as indicated in the Lee County Coastal Study, including but not limited to: sand scrub (320); coastal scrub (322); those pine flatwoods (411) which can be categorized as "mature" due to the absence of severe impacts caused by logging, drainage, and exotic infestation; slash pine/midstory oak (412); tropical hardwood (426); live oak hammock (427); and cabbage palm hammock (428). The numbered references are to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level III (FDOT, 1985). Preparing standards for wetland and rare and unique upland mitigation. Preparing a prioritized listing of wetlands, rare and unique uplands, and critical endangered and threatened species habitat properties for possible acquisition. Recommending a plan for eradicating and controlling problematic exotics Melaleuca, Schinus, and Casuarina with the highest priority placed on preventing new or accelerated infestations in wetlands and rare and unique upland habitats. Maintaining a central clearinghouse for all environmental studies and recommendations by both public and private organizations. Completing the mapping of the hydrological boundaries and habitats of each coastal watershed that extend landward of the coastal area study boundary. Preparing recommendations for maintaining or restoring the desired seasonal base flows and water quality into the coastal zone after reviewing monitoring data. Coordinating the preparation of plans with the municipalities, South Florida Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management District to better control flows of freshwater and reduce pollutant discharges into the Lee County coastal waters. Regularly updating the Level III maps and database of the Coastal Study to reflect the existing conditions following each aerial photography overflight of the county. Providing an annual report to the county commission on the status of wetlands, native uplands, and rare and unique habitats. The report should focus on the adequacy of the land use regulations and management plan to protect and enhance these natural systems. Adjustments should be made in the regulatory process to address whatever deficiencies are noted. Objective 77.2: PLANT COMMUNITIES. By 1991, Lee County will have completed an inventory of natural plant communities and will adopt a program to protect at various suitable locations remnant tracts of all important and representative natural plant communities occurring within Lee County. Policy 77.2.1: Establish a coordinated natural resources information exchange program with state and regional agencies. Policy 77.2.2: Prevent incompatible development in and around areas that have been identified as unique or important natural plant communities. Policy 77.2.3: Prevent water management and development projects from altering or disrupting the natural function of significant natural systems. Policy 77.2.4: Encourage the protection of viable tracts of sensitive or high-quality natural plant communities within developments. Policy 77.2.5: Prepare and adopt regulations to control the clearing of natural vegetation except where and when needed for permitted development. Policy 77.2.6: Avoid needless destruction of upland vegetation communities including coastal and interior hammocks through consideration during the site plan review process of alternative layouts of permitted uses. Policy 77.2.7: Specify in the development regulations where inventories and assessments of the impacts of development in environmentally sensitive lands and Rare and Unique upland habitats shall be required. Policy 77.2.8: Promote the long-term maintenance of natural systems through such instruments as deed restrictions, covenants, easements, transfer of development rights, restrictive zoning, and public acquisition. Policy 77.2.9: Identify possible programs which would help to eradicate noxious plant species and/or non-native plant species from environmentally critical areas and Rare and Unique upland habitats, and implement pilot programs. Incentives such as density bonuses may be considered. Policy 77.2.10: Development adjacent to aquatic and other nature preserves, wildlife refuges, and recreation areas shall protect the natural character and public benefit of these areas including, but not limited to, scenic values for the benefit of future generations. Policy 77.2.11: The planting of Brazilian Pepper, Melaleuca, and Australian Pine is prohibited in order to prevent the spread of these noxious species. Policy 77.2.12: Lee County shall protect its natural resources by encouraging and cooperating with the local Mosquito Control District to employ the maximum feasible use of natural biological agents to control injurious insects. Objective 77.3: WILDLIFE. Maintain and enhance the current complement of fish and wildlife diversity and distribution within Lee County for the benefit of a balanced ecological system to which man is inexorably linked. Policy 77.3.1: Encourage upland preservation in and around preserved wetlands to provide habitat diversity, enhance edge effect, and promote wildlife conservation. Policy 77.3.2: Develop a plan to establish wildlife corridors in order to help to maintain regional species viability and diversity. Policy 77.3.3: Adequate safe passage for wildlife under or across new and reconstructed roads shall be provided where appropriate. Objective 77.4: ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES IN GENERAL. Lee County will continue to protect habitats of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern in order to maintain or enhance existing population numbers and distributions of listed species. * * * Policy 77.4.2: Conserve critical habitat of rare and endangered plant and animal species through development review, regulation, incentives, and acquisition. Policy 77.4.3: Require detailed inventories and assessments of the impacts of development where it threatens habitat of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Policy 77.4.4: Restrict the use of critical habitats to that which is compatible with the requirements of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. New developments shall protect remnants of viable habitats when listed vegetative and wildlife species inhabit a tract slated for development, except where equivalent mitigation is provided. Objective 77.5: LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES. By the beginning of the 1989 nesting season (May 1), establish a program to minimize the disorientation of hatchling sea turtles along the Gulf beaches. Policy 77.5.1: The sea turtle protection program shall include at least the following activities: Prepare a guide for homeowners and builders which explains the detrimental effects of night-time beachfront lighting on hatchling sea turtles. Examine public light sources (streetlights, security lights, beach access lights, etc.) and prepare a plan to minimize the amount of harmful light from such sources onto the beach during the nesting season. Conduct an educational program to persuade residents to reduce lighting levels on the beach and to publicize other hazards to turtles from activities of people, pets, and vehicles. Encourage electrical suppliers and lighting dealers to stock special fixtures which reduce the negative effects of beachfront lighting. Develop an ordinance which controls the installation of new light fixtures which could shine on the beach, and which encourages or requires that existing lights be shielded or turned off during the nesting season. Determine whether certain areas of the beachfront are not used by sea turtles for nesting and should therefore not be subject to the same restrictions. Objective 77.6: SOUTHERN BALD EAGLES. During 1989, amend the county's ordinance protecting southern bald eagle habitat to provide an optimum mix of incentives and regulations for protecting buffer areas around nests. Policy 77.6.l: Maintain a policy of negotiations with owners of land surrounding eagle nests to provide an optimal management plan for land subject to imminent development. Policy 77.6.2: The county Eagle Technical Advisory Committee shall complete by the end of 1989 an assessment of all eagle nests in Lee County, and shall prepare proposed guidelines for each nest. Policy 77.6.3: The Committee shall also prepare management guidelines to inform land owners and the general public of proper practices to minimize disturbances to eagle nests. Objective 77.7: WEST INDIAN MANATEES. Minimize injuries and mortality of manatees to maintain the existing population by encouraging the adoption by the state of Florida and local governments of regulations to protect the West Indian Manatee in the Caloosahatchee and elsewhere in Lee County. During 1990, manatee management plans will be prepared for other waters of Lee County also frequented by manatees. Policy 77.7.1: Characterize and map important manatee habitats; identify and evaluate potential threats to important habitats; and consider management agreements to protect such habitats. Policy 77.7.2: Identify areas of greatest actual or potential boat/barge mortality and/or injury by December 31, 1990, and establish slow or idle speed zones. Policy 77.7.3: Inform and educate the public through sign posting, lectures, and regulations about manatee protection. Policy 77.7.4: Educational materials regarding manatees should be disseminated to boaters and warning signs placed in areas where both manatees and humans congregate. Policy 77.7.5: Construction and expansion of multi-slip docking facilities and boat ramps shall be encouraged in locations where there is quick access to deep, open waters where the associated increase in boat traffic will be outside areas of high manatee concentration. Policy 77.7.6: Rezoning and DRI applications for marinas and boat ramps shall be evaluated in the context of cumulative impacts on manatees and marine resources. Policy 77.7.7: State, local, and private interests shall work in cooperation to develop and implement area-specific manatee protection plans. Policy 77.7.8: By October 1, 1991, the county shall provide a permanent funding source to assist the Florida Department of Natural Resources in enforcement of such manatee protection plans as may be adopted. Objective 77.8: GOPHER TORTOISES. During 1989, determine the suitability of publicly owned property for the relocation of gopher tortoises. Policy 77.8.1: The county's policy is to protect gopher tortoise burrows wherever they are found. However, recognizing that there occasionally are unavoidable conflicts which require the relocation of gopher tortoises, the suitability of alternate sites should be evaluated as to --physical suitability of the site for the gopher tortoises; --long-term protection of the land; --conflicts with other management objectives for the land; and --costs that would be incurred by the relocation. Objective 77.9: RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER. By 1990, county staff will prepare a list of best management practices for the red- cockaded woodpecker's habitat. Policy 77.9.1: County staff will note and document other possible red-cockaded woodpecker sites during routine site inspections. As to Issue 6, to the extent that the Plan Amendments address the identification of regulatory or management techniques for limiting the impacts of development and redevelopment on wildlife habitat, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with the criterion of a policy identifying such regulatory or management techniques. Future Land Use Map Series (Issues 3, 4, 5, 7, and 11) Issues 5, 7, and 11 As to Issue 11, the future land use map series, which includes the 2010 overlay, reflects a planning timeframe of 20 years. The schedule of capital improvements covers a five-year timeframe. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan uses inconsistent timeframes, such as those mentioned above, as well as timeframes of five years for potable water and sewer, less than 10 years of need for potable water wellfield protection, and one year for mass transit. Different timeframes may be appropriate for different projected items because of the varying amounts of available data and analysis for different items, varying planning requirements in the growth management law concerning different items, and varying degrees of predictability for different items. As to Issue 11, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of two planning timeframes. As to Issue 5, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis identifies potable water wellfields or their cones of influence. Map 8 of the Amended Plan identifies the cones of influence surrounding depicted wellfields and indicates that it was "as adopted [on] January 31, 1989." Map 8 obviously was part of the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. The extensive amendments and revisions concerning the new 2010 overlay, the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, related Plan Amendments, and the data and analysis underlying these operative provisions do not provide a basis for Petitioner's assertion that the future land use map series fails to identify potable water wellfields permitted to pump less than one million gallons per day and their cones of influence. Issue 5 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. As to Issue 7, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis involves densities in the coastal high hazard area, except to the extent that the 2010 overlay may reduce such densities by limiting residential uses when compared to the original 70-year future land use map. 26/ Issue 7 is directed toward the Plan, not the Plan Amendments. Issues 3 and 4 Overview As to Issues 3 and 4, the Plan Amendments substantially changed the future land use map series by the addition of the 2010 overlay and related text. However, except for the introduction of the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, the Plan Amendments, including the 2010 overlay, did not substantially alter the types of land uses permitted by the future land use map series in the Plan. The 2010 overlay and related text address the timing of land uses by limiting the amount of land that may, prior to 2010, be devoted to the uses designated by the future land use map in the Plan. Issues 3 and 4 generally raise the issue whether the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, are supported by data and analysis. Because the Plan Amendments and the amended future land use map series do not generally change the uses that are ultimately to be allowed in an area, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series are not implicated by allegations that the amended future land use maps are not consistent with soils, topography, and floodplains. For the same reason, the Plan Amendments and amended future land use map series do not play a significant role in determining whether land use designations for specific areas, such as North Bonita Springs, are supported by data and analysis. However, as explained below, the Plan Amendments, including the amended future land use map series, directly affect the amount of land that will be available for designated uses by 2010. Based on the findings contained in the following sections, the designations contained in the amended future land use map series--even as limited by the 2010 overlay--lack support from data and analysis in two crucial respects. The first deficiency is that the density allocations are not supported by data and analysis. The second deficiency involves all designations, not just residential designations expressed in terms of densities. The second deficiency contains two parts. First, the existing land use baseline data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis. Second, the County has yet to design a reliable process for updating the available baseline existing land use data. The determination whether the density allocations in the amended future land use map series are supported by data and analysis begins with consideration of the ratio of the maximum population accommodated by the Amended Plan for the planning timeframe divided by the projected population at the end of the planning timeframe. The resulting ratio is not itself determinative of the issue whether data and analysis support the density designations in a comprehensive plan. A wide range of density allocation ratios may be calculated for the same plan. There are a variety of reasonable assumptions and adjustments, especially for reducing the maximum population accommodated by the plan. Also there are a range of reasonable density allocation ratios. A density allocation ratio represents a rough calculation of the relationship between the amount of land needed for residential uses during the planning timeframe compared to the amount of land so designated during the planning timeframe. If the ratio is relatively high, there is a greater chance that the plan may not facilitate the efficient use of land or the efficient provision of public facilities, especially if the spatial distribution of densities and textual plan provisions do not tend to achieve these objectives. In any event, a density allocation ratio is an important factor in determining whether data and analysis support the density designations contained in a comprehensive plan. As explained below, the Data and Analysis contain a critical adjustment by which the maximum densities permitted in the Amended Plan are reduced to reflect historic densities--by an unstated amount and according to an incompletely described methodology. The second deficiency concerning supporting data and analysis undermines residential, commercial, industrial, and other designations. The baseline existing land use data are omitted from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis, and the process by which existing land uses will be updated is uncertain and unreliable. The 2010 overlay is meaningless without these data. As described below, the 2010 overlay divides the County into numerous subdistricts. The 2010 overlay limits development in each subdistrict to a maximum acreage for each land use category. The acreage limitations represent total acreage, which consists of the acreage of existing land uses that preexisted the implementation of the 2010 overlay and the acreage of land use authorized pursuant to, and following, the implementation of the 2010 overlay. The baseline data missing from the Amended Plan and Data and Analysis are the acres of each existing land use for each subdistrict. The absence of such data from a readily available source such as the Amended Plan or Data and Analysis undermines effective implementation of each of the designations contained in the 2010 overlay. Although the evidence indicates that the County has adequate baseline existing land use data, such data, for the reasons set forth in the Conclusions of Law, must be included in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis because of its indispensable role in the implementation of the 2010 overlay. Neither the Amended Plan nor the Data and Analysis identify the process by which Lee County will update the baseline existing land use data. Evidence at the final hearing revealed serious deficiencies in the updating process, which requires the County to extrapolate from traffic data and analysis the ongoing incremental acreage increases of land use, rather than track the increases as they are authorized in a more straightforward fashion. Thus, concerning the second deficiency, the designations contained in the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis only to the extent of: 1) a clearly ascertained baseline, in terms of acres of existing land uses by category for each planning subdistrict, set forth in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis and 2) the identification of a reliable means of determining the incremental acreage increases authorized by the County for each land use category for each planning district following the implementation of the 2010 overlay. 2. How the Amended Future Land Use Map Series Works The primary component of the future land use map series Map 1, which is a future land use map containing 18 future land use designations. Map 1 projects land uses through buildout of the entire County, or about 70 years. Map 1 was contained in the Plan and was not changed by the Plan Amendments, except for the addition of the 2010 overlay and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation. The Plan Amendments added Maps 16 and 17 to the future land use map series. Maps 16 and 17 constitute the 2010 overlay. Map 16 divides the entire County, including the three municipalities, into 115 planning subdistricts. Map 17 is not a map, but is a series of bar graphs depicting acreages for seven land use categories: residential, commercial, industrial, parks and public, active agriculture, conservation, and vacant and passive agriculture. The regulatory concept of the 2010 overlay is to prohibit, prior to 2010, the issuance of "final development orders or building permits" for any future land use designation once the subdistrict has attained the acreage specified for that type of land use by Map 17. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. This concept is implemented by Policy 1.1.1, which provides: The Future Land Use Map contained in this element is hereby adopted as the pattern for future development and substantial redevelopment within the unincorporated portion of Lee County. <<Maps 16 and 17 are an integral part of the Future Land Use Map series (see Policies 1.7.6 and 2.2.2). They depict the extent of development through the year 2010. No final development orders or building permits will be issued by Lee County which would allow the acreage totals for any land use category on these maps to be exceeded.>> The cities of Fort Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel are depicted on [[this]] <<these>> maps only to indicate the approximate intensities of development permitted under the comprehensive plans of those cities. Residential densities are described in the following policies and summarized in Table l. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the purpose of the 2010 overlay is to make the 70-year future land use map in the Plan "even more useful as a decision-making guide by providing a 20-year horizon in addition to its present longer- term horizon." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 1. The Revised Data and Analysis elaborate: The addition of a 20-year horizon (i.e., to the year 2010) to the map series is an effort to project and monitor land development quantitatively on a small area basis and over a relatively shorter period of time, thus improving the county's ability to coordinate zoning, impact fees, and other development regulations with the planning and programming of public facilities and services. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. Assumptions, Data, and Methodologies Applicable to 2010 Overlay Density Allocations: Assumptions and Data Map 1 and the 2010 overlay are based on the 1987 University of Florida high-range population projections for 2010. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4. Residential projections are based on peak or seasonal populations, which are permanent populations plus 18%. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 4, and County Exhibit 1.B, page V-7. Populations are converted to dwelling units by assuming that 2.01 persons occupy each dwelling unit. Id. The population figures typically include Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel, not merely unincorporated Lee County. 27/ Other important assumptions identified in the Revised Data and Analysis are that there will be no net loss of wetlands, the density allocations will reflect the new Groundwater Resource/Density Reduction designation with a density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres (1:10), the Mid-Point Bridge will be built by 2000, all but one of the transportation projects shown on the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map will be finished by 2010, and the "state road network" will be enhanced by the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. 28/ Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 4-5. Another key assumption involves adjustments to the designated densities authorized in the comprehensive plans of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel. Acknowledging that Lee County lacks planning jurisdiction over these municipalities, the Revised Data and Analysis nonetheless reveal that Lee County made "some adjustments" to their growth trends. In other words, in determining the densities to use for the 2010 population that could be accommodated by the cities' plans, Lee County chose not to rely on the maximum densities indicated by the future land use designations given vacant residential acreage on each city's future land use map. Instead, as it did for the unincorporated County, Lee County reduced the maximum densities in the cities' plans to account for historic buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Density Allocations: Methodology Noting that the 2010 overlay is not a "textbook planning concept," the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that the 2010 overlay required an "innovative methodology," which, due to time constraints, could not be fully documented in the Revised Data and Analysis. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 3. Instead, the Revised Data and Analysis provide only a "brief explanation" of the methodology. Id. Section III of the Revised Data and Analysis for the Future Land Use Element 29/ describes the methodology underlying the County's estimate of the builtout capacity of the land. In this analysis, the County reduces maximum densities permitted under the Amended Plan to reflect anticipated actual densities. This adjustment is intended to reflect the historic buildout factor in Lee County, which generally resulted in involved lower densities in urban areas and higher densities in rural areas than are designated in the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that the Original Data and Analysis used 1981 data and analysis of then-existing vacant land, including platted but vacant lots. The vacant acreage was then tabulated by land uses identified within the Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis add: By adding the 1981 dwelling unit count to a reasonable projection of future housing densities on the "vacant" acreage, an estimate was made of the build-out capacity of the unincorporated area as shown in the Lee Plan's land use map. The process by which vacant acreage was converted to dwelling units is partly described, at least to the extent of several assumptions. The following percentages were deducted from the vacant acreage for the following uses: commercial--8%; major collector and arterial roads--5%; educational facilities- -2%; and community and regional parks--1%. Another 10,000 acres were deducted from the vacant acreage for industrial uses. The percentage reductions for commercial and industrial future land uses were based on studies by the independent planning consultant who was involved in the preparation of Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 6. The deductions for commercial and industrial acreage allotments, as described in this paragraph, are reasonable and supported by data and analysis. 30/ The Revised Data and Analysis, as well as the Original Data and Analysis, mention adjustments that Lee County made to its analysis of the capacity of residential development authorized by the Amended Plan. By these adjustments, the County attempted to show where commercial and industrial uses would preempt residential uses. Although the methodology of the adjustments is not disclosed, they appear to represent a reasonable attempt to avoid the unrealistic land use planning assumption that commercial and industrial uses would be scattered equally throughout the parts of the County where they are authorized under the Amended Plan. The Revised Data and Analysis next break down the acreage of each future land use designation into 15 planning districts and 115 planning subdistricts. Table 1 (III C) beginning on page 8 of Joint Exhibit 10.b provides acreages for each of the 15 planning districts on three tables: one for Lee County in its entirety, one for unincorporated Lee County, and one for the three municipalities. Table 2 (III C) breaks down the acreages by planning subdistrict. The acreages in Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not correspond to the acreages shown in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G). 31/ The differences are not indicative of deficient data and analysis. Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) represent interim stages of the process by which Lee County developed the 2010 overlay and, as such, do not provide acreages on which density allocations may be calculated. However, Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C) do not suggest that the final acreage figures in Map 17 and Table 3 (V G) represent the maximum densities or population allowed in the Amended Plan without reduction for historic densities. To the contrary, the Revised Data and Analysis indicate that the preparation of Table 2 (III C) allowed "the input of expected densities." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. Unlike Table 3 (V G) or Table 1 (III C), Table 2 (III C) contains a column entitled, "Buildout Assumptions." One part of the Buildout Assumptions column is "percent residential." The adjustment for percent residential appears to be based on the above-described deductions for commercial and industrial allotments. In any event, the adjustment represents a reasonable projection as to what portions of land designated residential will necessarily be devoted to other uses, such as commercial and industrial. The other part of the Buildout Assumptions column in Table 2 (III C) is "dwelling units per acre," which appears to represent adjusted projections based on historic buildouts. The maximum densities for each category allowed by the Amended Plan are invariably equal to or (more often) higher than the dwelling units per acre contained in the Buildout Assumptions. 32/ The Revised Data and Analysis revise Section V(G) of the Original Data and Analysis. This section is entitled "Future Land Use Needs for the Year 2010." The new section addresses exclusively residential development. Table 2 (V G) in the new section lists by planning subdistricts the number of dwelling units in 1987, the number of dwelling units projected for 2010, and the number of dwelling units projected at buildout. In introducing Table 3 (V G), the Revised Data and Analysis note that the projected number of dwelling units for 2010 (presumably from Table 2 (V G)) was translated to acreage by "taking the number of acres in each land use category in each district and allocating the residential units projected for 2010 at the density factor (number of units per acre) allowed in the land use category." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 37. However, the acreage allotments in Table 3 (V G), which are the same as those in Map 17, reflect historic density adjustments, rather than unadjusted applications of the maximum densities authorized in the Amended Plan. For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for failing to disclose information necessary to calculate the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan. 33/ For the purpose of calculating density allocation ratios in determining whether the designated densities are supported by data and analysis, there is no justification for reducing the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount to reflect historic buildout densities. The purpose of Map 1 was to depict the land uses in Lee County at buildout, which was estimated to be about 70 years. This 70-year future land use map was to facilitate end-state public facility planning by assisting the County and private utility companies in determining where to locate and how to size public facilities so as to accommodate the builtout population of Lee County. Projecting actual buildouts for end-state public facility planning requires an adjustment based on historic densities. But the present determination is whether the densities authorized by the Amended Plan are supported by data and analysis. This determination requires consideration of the effectiveness of the future land use map series as a regulatory device to assist the Amended Plan in achieving consistency with applicable criteria of the growth management law. To a large extent, any regulatory purpose for Map 1 was frustrated by the fact that, in 1989, it made available for immediate development (subject to concurrency) all of the land that would be needed for various uses by 2060. The 70-year planning timeframe meant that Map 1 designated amounts of land for various uses that were grossly in excess of that which was needed in 1989 or even 2010. To this extent, the 70-year future land use map did not facilitate effective land use planning. The sole purpose of the 2010 overlay is to shorten the planning timeframe of Map 1 from 70 year to 20 years. The shorter planning timeframe is more meaningful for land use planning, as well as facility planning in the interim. Although the 2010 overlay clearly strengthens the future land use map series as a regulatory device, the question still remains whether even the reduced densities designated by the map series are supported by data and analysis. The calculation of a density allocation ratio is part of the determination whether data and analysis support the residential densities in a plan. The analysis misses the point of the process if the maximum densities authorized by a plan are reduced to reflect historic densities. The question is whether the densities authorized by a plan are supported by data and analysis, not whether data and analysis support densities somewhere between the maximum authorized densities and historic densities. Especially where historic densities reflect an inefficient use of land, as is clearly the case in Lee County, analysis of a plan based in part on historic densities invites the repetition of past planning failures. Although there is some flexibility in calculating and interpreting density allocation ratios, the reduction of maximum densities allowed in the Amended Plan by an undisclosed amount and by an incompletely explained methodology frustrates the purpose of comprehensive land use planning. The purpose of the density allocation calculation, as part of the process of determining if the plan is supported by data and analysis, is not to predict the actual density that will occupy the planning jurisdiction at buildout. The purpose of the density allocation calculation is to compare the maximum density allowed by the plan with the projected population and consider the extent of the overallocation in light of other factors in the planning jurisdiction, including plan provisions and relevant data and analysis. The ratio is not required to be 1:1 to satisfy the criterion of supporting data and analysis. But the ratio must be ascertainable in order to determine if the density allocations in a plan, in view of other plan provisions, are supported by data and analysis. By failing to disclose either the maximum population that can be accommodated by the Amended Plan or even the bases upon which such maximum densities could be derived, Lee County has implicitly and--at times--explicitly demanded undue deference to its above-described density analyses. Nothing in the record warrants such deference. Although Lee County has made considerable progress in regulating land uses since first adopting zoning in 1962, sprawling, low-density residential monoliths already occupy much of the landscape in Lee County. Two such areas are Lehigh Acres and Cape Coral, the latter of which has now been incorporated. These inefficient land use patterns, which are a large part of Lee County's historic densities, generally exceed rural densities but do not attain urban densities. Lee County confronts a serious challenge from the massive tracts of prematurely (and in some cases unsuitably) platted lots, as well as the ongoing pressure to continue such inefficient and costly land use practices. The Original Data and Analysis note that "vacant zoning together with platted lands could accommodate over 218,700 units or 518,000 people in the unincorporated area alone" and that the "pace of rezoning, often with speculative intent, has not lessened appreciably since that time." County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page V-1. The Original Data and Analysis observe that Lee County in its entirety contains 480,458 platted lots covering over 153 square miles. Although it is not entirely clear that all of these lots are vacant or preplatted, a considerable number of them are. Most of the lots are in Lehigh Acres (132,512 lots) and Cape Coral (287,869, but deed restrictions require two lots for one homesite.) Only 3768 lots are considered nondevelopable. County Exhibit 1.B, Future Land Use Element Data and Analysis, page I-1. The Revised Data and Analysis argue that Lee County should be accorded greater planning flexibility than should other local governments in Florida due in part to its "large concentrations of pre-platted lands." The other reasons cited to justify special treatment are the presence of three independent municipalities, a multiplicity of private sewer and water systems lacking centralized control, a complicated land and water configuration, a strong wetlands protection program, a large regional airport, existing and future DRI's, and an "historical pattern of decision-making that has created land use expectations which, in the aggregate, are difficult to reverse and require care and sensitivity in so doing." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 2. With the exception of the strong wetlands protection program, if one were to exist, the cited factors at best cut both ways in terms of whether, under the growth management law, a local government facing such challenges requires greater planning flexibility. The pre-platted lands factor militates against greater planning flexibility, as these vacant lots represent a potential liability that threaten the viability of a local government's comprehensive plan. Following the discussion of Tables 1 (III C) and 2 (III C), the Revised Data and Analysis admit: The above analysis helps to explain the inability of Lee County and private sector utility companies to provide infrastructure to all of the future urban areas shown on the future land use map. Those services that involve major expenditures for site-specific capital improvements (such as sewer lines, water lines, and major roadways) are the major components of local governments' expenses in providing for new growth; yet they are the very services which are difficult to provide economically when a large supply of land is provided for development. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 7. The Revised Data and Analysis identify several factors that militate in favor of abandoning the stricter regulatory land-use controls introduced by the 1984 comprehensive plan. 34/ These factors are the presence of numerous private utility suppliers over which Lee County has no regulatory control; the "existing pattern of development within unincorporated Lee County [involving] numerous physically scattered communities of widely varying character," which renders attempts to apply a "single concept" of urban services across a wide spectrum of communities "inappropriate" and "financially infeasible" both as to existing and future development; the unsuccessful implementation of flexible planning strategies in the 1984 plan, such as planned unit developments in which developers and landowners provide a full range of urban infrastructure without expense to Lee County; and, "[p]erhaps the most difficult issue. . . in implementing the 1984 Lee Plan," the "lack of total commitment to the policy of allowing urban-scale development [over 1:1] only where a commitment was actually being made to provide an urban level of infrastructure." Elaborating on the last factor, the Revised Data and Analysis add: "The future land use map has often been seen as just another obstacle rather than as a vehicle towards the creation of desirable development patterns." Joint Exhibit 10.b, pages 30-31. Again, the cited factors do not militate in favor of more relaxed regulatory land-use practices to achieve consistency with the criteria of the growth management law. Addressing the 2010 overlay and the projected population that it is intended to accommodate, the Revised Data and Analysis contend: [DCA] has tried to rigorously defend the concept of enforcing a future land use map having an approximate capacity equal to the projected growth of the county over a given (typically, 20-year) period. This is not possible in Lee County where existing platted and sold lots greatly exceed the 20-year period. In addition, it is also important to know where and how growth will occur well beyond the conventional timeframe of a comprehensive plan. Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 31. However, the Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge the drawbacks of reliance upon a future land use map with a 70-year planning timeframe. The cited disadvantages include the increased likelihood of changes in designations over the intervening 70 years (as compared to shorter periods like 20 years); the premature conversion of agricultural and vacant land to residential uses due to designations that, in 1990, presently permit land uses that will accommodate all projected urbanization through the year 2060; and the possibility that actual population growth will not attain projected population growth, which would result in an even more scattered development pattern that would further increase the cost of servicing the scattered population with required public facilities and services. The Revised Data and Analysis frankly concede that "there is no easy way to exit from the present dilemma." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. A "wholesale rollback" of existing future urban areas, though simple, "would inevitably diminish development rights previously granted by Lee County." The prime examples of previously granted development rights are the "hundreds of thousands of [already-sold] platted lots" and "numerous large-scale developments which have recently been approved based on the existing Lee Plan . . .." Id. Acknowledging the obvious, the Revised Data and Analysis admit that the preceding analysis "indicates clearly that the development potential shown on the Future Land Use Map is greater than the projected population for the year 2010." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis list five steps that Lee County has taken to "bridge the gap between the adopted [70- year] future land use map and the desirability of a 20-year map." Joint Exhibit 10.b, page 32. These steps are reserving about one-third of the Future Urban Areas for privately funded infrastructure; substantially reducing the total acreage of land, including coastal ares designated urban in the 1984 plan; adopting impact fees for fire protection and emergency medical services; adopting the 2010 overlay; and adopting the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to reduce densities in sensitive areas to 1:10. As noted above, the encouragement of privately funded infrastructure has not enjoyed much success in Lee County. As noted below, the adoption of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation with a low density of 1:10 over thousands of acres of the County allows a real separation of urban and rural uses. But, as noted in this section of the recommended order, data and analysis do not support the density designations in the 2010 overlay and thus the question remains open whether even the reduced densities authorized by the 2010 overlay are supported by data and analysis. Baseline and Updated Existing Land Use Data: Data, Assumptions, and Methodology Lee County possesses the baseline data for existing land uses by each land use category for each subdistrict. Lee County's Growth Management Director William Spikowski testified that the County possessed sufficient, baseline existing land use data, broken down by land use category and subdistrict, as of 1987. Tr., page 122. There is no basis in the record for discrediting the 1987 baseline data, 35/ but, for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the criterion of supporting data and analysis requires in this instance that such crucial baseline data be included in the Data and Analysis (or the Amended Plan, if the County prefers). For the faster-growing subdistricts, these baseline data were updated to 1990, which is when the 2010 overlay was adopted. Id. The record does not support the finding that, to the exclusion of fair debate, any problems exist with respect to the one-time 1990 update of the baseline data, which may have been produced by the independent consultant who prepared the commercial and industrial studies and initiated Map 1 and the 2010 overlay. The point at which the 2010 overlay finds no support from the data and analysis is in the updating of the existing land use data from the 1987 (or 1990, where applicable) baseline data. The 115 planning subdistricts in Map 16 are formed out of over 800 traffic analysis zones. Part of the reason for using the traffic analysis zones was the detailed data available for small areas of the County. When confronted with the necessity of calculating exactly how much land remains in a specific subdistrict for a specific use, the County has a very poorly defined process whose results are unreliable. The updating process does not involve tracking actual land areas authorized for development in a specific land use under the 2010 overlay. Instead, the County reverts to traffic data, employs undisclosed conversion factors, and reaches a result that may or may not measure the extent of the development that it has authorized in the subdistrict under the 2010 overlay. The conversion process is unreliable and, even if it were reliable, may be measuring merely actual uses, but not already-authorized uses not yet in existence. The unreliability of the updating process by which authorized development under the 2010 overlay is measured was disclosed in the testimony of Mr. Spikowski. The relevant portion of the transcript reads: Q: Okay. Where would I find the--just the vacant acreage that you're proposing to allow to be developed? A: The exact inventory is what I discussed as what we want to have--be able to take off the property appraiser's records for each parcel so that we can have a constantly updated figure. We don't have that available. . . . Tr., page 1294. After discussing a recent rezoning request that evidently involved commercial uses, possibly as part of a mixed- use project, Mr. Spikowski explained that the County elected to do a manual count of existing land uses rather than rely on the traffic data and use a conversion factor. Mr. Spikowski testified in relevant part: A: . . . instead of using the information we used, which is the 1987 inventory done for the traffic model where we had to use conversion factors to take employees back to acres, the right thing to do in that case was to do a manual count, to do what we want to do on the computer. And maybe week after next we're going to have the capability to do that. It had to be done manually. Because we had base projections in here based on the inventory for the '87 traffic model, but it was calculated for commercial based on number of employees, because that's what the traffic model wanted. For us to use it in the overlay we had to convert that back to acres using standard conversion factors, which introduces an element of error. So before you would use this overlay as a regulation of telling somebody they cannot use their land, you really would need to manually check it. Whether that goes to the property appraiser records for those sections or estimate of aerial photography with the Plan amendment, or either way would work. We tried both methods. Q: I really can't do--take the documents that are in evidence and do this calculation because I can't tell what is existing? A: You would have to--If you take the documents in evidence, I believe you'd have to assume that the conversion factors that are county-wide averages are correct for that subdistrict. And again, for general planning purposes we were comfortable doing that, also knowing that we were getting this new system to do it automatically. This is one of the regulatory flaws of the 2010 overlay and that's why it's become so hated in the development community. They say, if you can't give us the exact amount, how can you expect us to live with it? Tr, pages 1294-97. The record is otherwise devoid of evidence describing the methodology by which the acreage allotments by subdistrict will be updated. The role of Map 17, as described by Policy 1.1.1, is to ensure that the County will not authorize development that would exceed relevant acreage totals. There are absolutely no data or analysis supporting the crucial updating process. Nothing in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis prevents the County from, if it so chooses, using traffic data (which may possibly ignore authorized uses that have not yet placed vehicles on the road), converting employees to acres by some undisclosed formula (or perhaps residents to acres through the undisclosed historic density adjustment), and determining that the development would not exceed the acreage allotment. It is to the County's credit that, in the rezoning application described by Mr. Spikowski, it manually determined existing land uses in the affected subdistrict to determine if additional acreage were available. This is the "right thing to do" for using the 2010 overlay "as a regulation." But the 2010 overlay is unsupported by data and analysis unless the County restricts itself to a reliable updating process. The alternative updating process, which is based on converted traffic data, cannot be found, on basis of this record, to be any more reliable than reading owls' entrails. The Amended Plan or Data and Analysis must assure that the County will adhere to more reliable means of measuring interim increases in land uses authorized under the 2010 overlay. Even if the County implements a computer- assisted reading of updated property appraiser records, questions remain concerning, for instance, the accuracy of such records as measurements of the extent of development authorized by the County pursuant to the 2010 overlay and the frequency with which these measurements must be updated in order to ensure that acreage allotments are not exceeded. These matters must be described either in the Amended Plan or the Data and Analysis for the designations contained in the 2010 overlay to find support in the data and analysis. As to Issues 3 and 4, for the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Maps 1, 16 and 17 of the amended future land use map series are not supported by data and analysis. Transportation (Issues 8 and 9) With five exceptions not material to this case, Policy 21.1.1 adopts the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) 2010 Financially Feasible Map as the Interim Traffic Circulation Plan Map. This color map is Map 3 in the Amended Plan. Policy 21.1.5 explains that the future traffic circulation map series consists of Map 3, the MPO 2010 Needs Plan (Map 4), and a map of ports, airlines, and rail lines (Map 13). The Plan Amendments completely revised Policies 21.1.1 and 70.1.3.6, which adopt minimum peak hour/peak season level of service standards 36/ for roads in Lee County. The adopted level of service standard is D for freeways, such as I-75, and principal arterials under state jurisdiction other than US 41. The Amended Plan assigns a level of service E to all other roads, which are County arterials and collectors, and state minor arterials and others, as well as US 41. Concerning constrained roads, Policy 22.1.3 provides: <<Due to scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, and right-of-way characteristics and considerations, Lee County has determined that certain roadway segments will not be widened. Therefore, reduced peak hour levels of service will be accepted on those constrained roads as a trade-off for the preservation of the scenic, historic, environmental, and aesthetic character of the community. These constrained roads are defined in Table 2(b). Growth on those constrained roads will be permitted only within the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios established in this plan and only if consistent with the Operational Improvement Program for those constrained roads.>> Table 2(b) identifies nine state and County road segments that are constrained. Policy 22.1.9 sets a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.85:1 and prohibits the issuance of additional permits for development affecting the constrained segment once that ratio has been reached. Policy 22.1.10 establishes an Operational Improvement Program for each constrained segment. There is no evidence that Lee County has identified as constrained road segments roadways for which capacity-enhancing projects are not appropriately limited by scenic, historic, environmental, aesthetic, or right- of-way factors. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the treatment of constrained roads in the Amended Plan is inconsistent with any of the criteria of the growth management law. Table 2(a) identifies 26 state and County road segments that are backlogged. The treatment of backlogged roads in the Amended Plan is much more elaborate. Even though these road segments do not, by definition, meet the minimum level of service standards otherwise adopted in the Amended Plan for roads of their functional classifications, the Amended Plan requires neither the addition of greater transportation capacity in the affected area nor the cessation of development impacting the affected area. Instead, the Amended Plan offers a two-part alternative. Under the Traffic District Program, a backlogged road segment may be viewed in the context of a much larger area. Pursuant to the Interim/Operational Improvement Program, interim operational improvements may be undertaken, but are not required to restore the subject road segment to its otherwise applicable level of service standard. As to Issue 8, the Traffic District Program in particular has a clear impact on the consistency of the Amended Plan and Plan Amendments with the criteria of setting level of service standards for roads, ensuring concurrency for roads, and correcting infrastructure deficiencies regarding roads. Policy 22.1.2 states: <<The minimum acceptable levels of service specified in Policy 22.1.1 shall not apply on an interim basis to the backlogged roads identified in Table 2(a). It is the County's intent that those segments will be improved to the identified standard in the shortest period possible, but no later than December 31, 1999. During that interim period, however, growth on those backlogged roads may be permitted if it is consistent with the Traffic District Program (Policy 22.1.5) and Interim/Operational Improvements Program (Policy 22.1.6).>> Policy 22.1.5 provides: <<A Traffic District Program is hereby established for purposes of determining allowable development affecting backlogged roads. On at least an annual basis, Lee County shall estimate the service volumes for all City, County and State collectors, arterials and freeways within each traffic district, and shall determine the district- wide service volume surplus or deficiency. Development permits that affect a backlogged road may still be approved provided that the surplus service volume resulting from the existing surplus service volume, any service volume increases due to committed roadway improvements, and any service volume increases due to interim improvements (reported as a percent of existing service volume on a district basis) is equal to or exceeds the annual percent increase in traffic on a traffic district basis. However, such permits will be issued only if mitigation is provided in accordance with Policy 22.1.13. In the event that the percent service volume growth identified above on a traffic district basis is less than the percent traffic growth in that district, no permits will be issued by Lee County for development that affects the backlogged segment. Such development will be permitted only if capacity enhancement and/or operational improvements are programmed for implementation within the specific District so that the total service volume growth for the District will again be equal to or greater than the District traffic growth. Growth on non-backlogged roads will not be affected. Development that does not affect the backlogged segment will still be allowed. For purposes of calculating service volumes for the Traffic District Program, the following rules apply: Constrained roads (see Table 2(b)) will not be included in the determination of traffic growth and percent service volumes. Percent traffic growth will be based on the last full year of traffic count information. Committed roadway improvements for purposes of this calculation are those improvements under a current construction contract.>> Policy 22.1.6 states: <<For the identified backlogged roads (see Table 2(a)), and as any additional backlogged roads may emerge over time, an Interim/ Operational Improvement Program will be established. The Interim/Operational Improvement Program will include the following types of improvements: Phased improvements, representing a staged implementation of the eventual improvement that is needed to return the backlogged road to the minimum acceptable level of service. Operational improvements, representing short-term measures to improve traffic operations and expand capacity prior to the eventual roadway improvement.>> <<The initial Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads is identified in Table 2(c).>> <<On an annual basis, a minimum of five backlogged roads will be studied in detail by Lee County with specific interim/operational improvements identified. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be incorporated into the County's Capital Improvements Program. Initially, six backlogged roads have been studied in detail including portions of US 41 South, US 41 North, McGregor Boulevard, Gladiolus Drive, San Carlos Boulevard, and Metro Parkway. The selection of specific interim/operational improvements to be constructed in any given year may be adjusted as deemed necessary by Lee County to reflect developer funding opportunities, adjustments to construction schedules, other agency improvement projects and schedules, and alternative improvements of a comparable nature. Specific interim/ operational improvements shall be included in all following updates of the County's Capital Improvements Program to ensure the expeditious construction of those improvements.>> Policy 22.1.8 assures that, "[a]fter December 31, 1999, Lee County shall measure concurrency on all roads on a roadway segment-by-segment basis rather than using the Traffic District Program contained in this plan." Policy 22.1.13 provides: <<All proposed development activity, as part of the concurrency management process, will be reviewed against the Traffic District Program, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads and the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads. Development activity affecting backlogged and constrained roads will be required to mitigate its traffic impacts: For that development activity determined not to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation will consist of payment of Roads Impact Fees and needed intersection improvements at the site entrance(s). For development activity determined to affect a backlogged and/or constrained road segment, traffic mitigation may include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: Advanced, lump sum payment of Roads Impact Fees to Lee County; Developer construction or financing, with Lee County approval, of one or more of the interim or operational improvements identified in the Interim/Operational Improvement Program for backlogged roads or the Operational Improvement Program for constrained roads; Developer prepares, with Lee County approval, a detailed Interim/Operational Improvement Program for the affected road(s) and funds one or more of the needed interim or operational improvements; and Developer funding of needed road improvements.>> <<Lee County's Concurrency Management Ordinance shall be amended prior to the end of 1990 to specify the impact mitigation procedure and threshold measurements for mitigation purposes.>> The establishment of the Traffic Districts for backlogged roads is left to the Revised Data and Analysis. At page VI-7 of Joint Exhibit 10.a is a map dividing Lee County into nine traffic districts. Six districts cover the entire mainland. The districts approximate the preexisting districts created by Lee County in the implementation of its traffic impact fee program. The service/traffic formula does not operate in isolation. As noted above, the Interim/Operational Improvement Program also requires developer- provided mitigation. However, the required mitigation does not require the developer to restore the road segment to its otherwise applicable adopted level of service standard and may not even affect the road segment impacted by the proposed development. More importantly, the service/traffic formula requires little of the County in addressing the problem of backlogged roads before 2000. A graph on p. VI-10 of Joint Exhibit 10.a provides the necessary data to calculate the service/traffic formula to determine if, under this formula, Lee County would likely be precluded from issuing final development orders due to the presence of backlogged roads. A sample calculation on p. VI-6 of Joint Exhibit 10.a illustrates the calculation. As noted on the graph, the service/traffic formula is inapplicable to two of the island traffic districts, which contain only constrained roads. The service/traffic formula, as a practical matter, eliminates the possibility of concurrency-imposed limitations on development due to the enforcement of level of service standards on nonconstrained roads in any of the six mainland districts. The reason is the vast difference--in each district-- between existing service volume and traffic volume. But this difference bears no relationship to the fact that many road segments are already operating below their otherwise applicable level of service standards and that, under the Traffic District Program, many more road segments, not presently backlogged, will also operate below their otherwise applicable level of service standard prior to 2000. Assuming the same annual increase in traffic volume as presently exists for each mainland district, the service/traffic formula would not require Lee County to build or commit to build any road improvements for over 10 years in Districts 1, 2, 5, and 8, six years in District 4, and seven years in District 3. In other words, the service/traffic formula allows Lee County to continue to issue final development orders impacting backlogged road segments and causing more road segments to become backlogged for at least six years anywhere on the mainland and over 10 years for most of the mainland--even in the absence of any capacity- enhancing transportation improvements. The combination of the service/traffic formula and the vast areas covered by the mainland districts allow the perpetuation of congested conditions on nonconstrained roads in Lee County. The Traffic District Program, including the service/traffic formula, renders completely meaningless the adopted level of service standards for nonconstrained roads and concurrency as it applies to nonconstrained roads. The formula and program also relieve Lee County of any obligation to correct transportation infrastructure deficiencies, or even address such deficiencies. The above-stated findings apply even if Table 2(a) and other provisions of the Amended Plan effectively limited the number and length of backlogged road segments to those listed on Table 2(a). Even worse, however, the Amended Plan does not so limit backlogged roads, and Table 2(a) is merely descriptive of road segments that were backlogged when the Plan Amendments were adopted. As contemplated by the first clause of Policy 22.1.6, "additional backlogged roads may emerge over time." This possibility is repeated in the Revised Data and Analysis, which concede that "backlogged and constrained roads may be added to the list over time." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VIII-5. By effectively ignoring existing backlogged roads and allowing more roads to become backlogged, Lee County has deferred the adoption of level of service standards and postponed concurrency until the year 2000 when the Traffic District Program ends. When a road segment falls below its otherwise applicable standard, the effect of the Traffic District Program and Interim/Operational Improvement Program is to override concurrency by allowing development impacting the affected road segment to proceed without regard to the availability of capacity-enhancing transportation improvements sufficient to restore the affected roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. The short-term prospects for roads in Lee County are discussed in the Revised Data and Analysis. In its discussion of existing roads, the Revised Data and Analysis note: The rapid growth in Lee County's population during the past several years has been accompanied by even more rapid growth in traffic volumes on Lee County roads. According to the [FDOT] . . ., traffic volumes (daily vehicle miles traveled) in Lee County increased by 126 percent from 1979 to 1987, the second highest rate of growth in the State of Florida. This rapid growth in traffic is expected to continue. . . . Generally, historic road construction has not kept pace with traffic growth. However, Lee County has recently embarked on an ambitious roadway improvement program and the pace of construction has accelerated in recent years. Joint Exhibit 10.a, page IV-1. The discussion of the existing road network adds that the existing plus committed roadway network includes major roadway improvements programmed by State and local governments for construction through 1994. Addressing backlogged roads, the Revised Data and Analysis state: Despite the accelerated roadway construction activity in Lee County, many road segments are becoming increasingly congested. Several already meet or exceed the level of service standards established in the Lee Plan. . . . Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-1. The Revised Data and Analysis describe two exhibits displaying information about traffic volumes. Exhibit V-1 analyzes 1989 traffic volumes with the existing road network. Exhibit V-3 analyzes 1994 traffic volumes with the existing plus committed road network, which reveals that several backlogged segments from Exhibit V-1 have been eliminated and several new backlogged segments have been added. The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Exhibit V- 7, which lists all of the backlogged roads on Table 2(a), shows which backlogged roads will be "relieved to some extent by committed improvements." Joint Exhibit 10.a, page V-3. The Revised Data and Analysis acknowledge that "there are no major improvements programmed for several backlogged roads in Lee County." Id. Exhibit V-1 shows that, for 1989, there were 26 backlogged road segments for a total of 27.3 miles. 37/ Of these, 18 segments for 18.2 miles were under state jurisdiction, rather than County jurisdiction. Exhibit V-3 shows that, for 1994, based on the existing plus committed road network, there will be 28 backlogged road segments for a total of 34.2 miles. The total for state backlogged roads is projected to rise even more rapidly: 22 road segments for a total of 29.4 miles. As indicated by the text, Exhibit V-7 shows that several backlogged roads listed in Table 2(a) are not scheduled to receive committed improvements (presumably through 1994). Recommended improvements to eliminate backlogged conditions (Joint Exhibit 10.a, page VII-4) are shown on Exhibit VII-7. However, nothing in the Amended Plan commits the County to undertaking these projects. The purpose of Exhibit VII-7 is to show the work needed over a ten-year period to restore backlogged roads to their otherwise applicable level of service standards. Some of the projects would be outside of the five-year period covered by the schedule of capital improvements on page VII-21 of the Amended Plan. But, in addition to the fact that Lee County does not commit itself in the Amended Plan to undertaking this work, nothing in Exhibit VII-7 addresses those road segments that become backlogged at a later date. As to Issue 8, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that, as to all nonconstrained roads not under the jurisdiction of any municipality, the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of setting level of service standards, ensuring concurrency, and correcting existing infrastructure deficiencies. As to Issue 9, Petitioner argues that the Plan Amendments regarding transportation are not financially feasible because the capital improvement schedule does not identify a current source of funding for all of the road improvements described in the Plan Amendments as "necessary or desirable." It is not entirely clear what Petitioner means by road improvements that are described as "necessary or desirable." These words correspond to the MPO Needs Plan and MPO Financially Feasible Plan. Of course, these plans, which are adopted in the Amended Plan as Maps 4 and 3 respectively, pertain to the year 2010, and the five-year capital improvements schedule properly pertains only to 1995. Petitioner may mean by "necessary and desirable" that the road projects do not adequately address backlogged roads, so as to allow the Traffic District Program to attain consistency. This issue has been addressed in connection with Issue 8. Except to the extent that the financial feasibility of transportation improvements has been addressed in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the transportation capital projects are inconsistent with the criterion of financial feasibility. Miscellaneous Minimum Criteria (Issues 1, 10, and 12) As to Issue 1, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses directly the issue of private potable water suppliers. The Plan Amendments create a new future land use category, Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource. The Revised Data and Analysis discuss four studies or reports focusing on the aquifers in Lee County and aquifer recharge areas. But the focus of these material is general and on hydrogeologic supplies, rather than on the specific entities presently involved in producing potable water. As to Issue 10, nothing in the Plan Amendments or Revised Data and Analysis addresses coordination between Lee County and its Amended Plan and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, the separate issue whether the Plan Amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is addressed below. As to Issue 12, the only provisions amended by the Plan Amendments are Policies 2.2.2 (primarily third factor and flush language), 15.2.2, 38.1.6, 38.4.1, and 38.4.3, as well as the 2010 overlay. The remaining objectives and policies were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Policy 2.2.2 states: Map 1 of Tthe Future Land Use Map <<series>> indicates the uses and density ranges that will ultimately be permitted on a given parcel. However, it is not a guarantee that such densities or uses are immediately appropriate, as the map provides for the county's growth over the coming 70 years. During the rezoning process the Board of County Commissioners will balance the overall standards and policies of this plan with [[two]] <<three>> additional factors: --whether a given proposal would further burden already overwhelmed existing and committed public facilities such that the approval should be delayed until the facilities can be constructed; <<or>> <<--whether a given proposal is for land so far beyond existing development or adequate public facilities that approval should be delayed in an effort to encourage compact and efficient growth patterns.; or>> <<--whether a given proposal would result in unreasonable development expectations which may not be achievable because of acreage limitations on the "Year 2010 Overlay" (see Policy 1.7.6 and Maps 16 and 17).>> <<In all cases where rezoning is approved, such approval does not constitute a determination that the minimum acceptable levels of service (see Policy 70.1.3) will be available concurrent with the impacts of the proposed development. Such a determination must be made prior to the issuance of additional development permits, based on conditions which exist at that time, as required by Lee County's concurrency management system.>> The 2010 overlay designates the proposed location of various future land uses in Lee County. Map 1 shows where certain land uses may generally be located for the next 70 years. Maps 16 and 17 limit these land uses for the next 20 years and, to some extent, show where these land uses may be permitted during that timeframe. Although the specific locations of land uses prior to 2010 are not disclosed by Maps 16 and 17, the generalized locations are. There is nothing vague or ambiguous in Policy 2.2.2. Misciting Policy 2.1.2 as Policy 2.2.2, Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that certain language is vague, but she did not plead Policy 2.1.2, which, in any event, was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Objective 15.2 provides: COMMUNITY FACILITIES. Within funding constraints, the county shall attempt, during 1989, 1990, and 1991, to incorporate the following recommendations of the ad-hoc Bonita Study Group into the planning process for public facilities. Policy 15.2.2 states: <<IRRIGATION WELLS. Bonita Springs (as defined in this plan) is hereby declared a critical area for future potable water supply, based on evidence that withdrawals from the main potable aquifer, the lower Tamiami aquifer, are approaching or exceeding the maximum safe yield. In response to this designation, the county shall amend current regulations to provide that new irrigation well permits in Bonita Springs may not utilize the main potable water source. (Also see Policy 32.1.9 for new permit requirements for wells in Lehigh Acres, and Policy 2.4.3 for special requirements for amendments to the Future Land Use Map.)>> Policy 15.2.2 is not vague, nor does Petitioner argue grounds for vagueness as to Policy 15.2.2 in her proposed recommended order. Policy 38.1.6 provides: <<Within one year after the adoption of this policy, Lee County shall amend its land development regulations to require that proper stormwater management systems be installed when land is being redeveloped. Appropriate exemptions shall be provided to this requirement for individual residential structures and for historic districts. The regulations may also provide modified stormwater management standards for publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas (as defined by Chapter 163, Part III, Florida Statutes). However, this policy shall not be interpreted so as to waive any concurrency level-of-service standards.>> Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the words "proper," "appropriate," and "modified" lack sufficient definition so as to render Policy 38.1.6 vague and ineffective. The terms are sufficiently definite to provide enforceable guidance to the County in the adoption of implementing land development regulations. The word "proper" incorporates the stormwater level of service standards stated at Policy 38.3.1. The word "appropriate" applies to reasonable exceptions to the stormwater level of service standards for individual residences and historic districts. The word "modified" creates a reasonable exception to the stormwater level of service standards for publicly sponsored community redevelopment areas. There are communities in Lee County, such as Harlem Heights, where the housing is seriously substandard and the community is eligible for publicly sponsored redevelopment, as well as interim assistance through such projects as Habitat for Humanity. Evidently due to relatively low elevations, at least when the housing is compared to adjacent roadways, the Harlem Heights community also suffers from a seriously inadequate (and possibly nonexistent) stormwater management system. Ideally, all areas within Lee County should be subject to, and receive the benefits of, effective stormwater management. However, communities desperately in need of publicly funded redevelopment, such as Harlem Heights, present a special challenge. As a practical matter, the treatment of publicly sponsored projects within community redevelopment areas by Policy 38.1.6 represents a fair accommodation of competing policy demands in providing stormwater management and decent, affordable housing. Objective 38.4 states: <<CRITICAL AREAS. The Six Mile Cypress Basin (as defined in Ordinance #83-5 as amended) and the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category are both identified as "critical areas for surface water management." By December 31, 1990, the county shall adopt additional regulations to protect the unique environmental and water resource values of these areas.>> The policy cluster under Objective 38.4 provide: <<Policy 38.4.1: The county shall amend the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to reduce or eliminate the exemptions allowable in the ordinance.>> <<Policy 38.4.2: The county shall conduct public hearings to consider amending the boundaries of the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance to include all land within the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> <<Policy 38.4.3: The county shall amend the Wetlands Protection Ordinance (#86-31), the Tree Protection Ordinance (#86-34), and the Development Standards Ordinance (#82-42 as amended) to reduce or eliminate the exemptions for agricultural uses and small subdivisions within the "critical areas for surface water management" and shall subject these uses to an appropriate review process.>> The Revised Data and Analysis explain that Lee County has adopted over the years various environmental ordinances, including the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, Wetlands Protection Ordinance, Tree Protection Ordinance, and Development Standards Ordinance. The Revised Data and Analysis note that exemptions have been adopted that can reduce the effectiveness of these ordinances in "'critical areas for surface water management.'" Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-2. Reviewing the exemptions to the Six Mile Cypress Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis observe that the exemptions should be revised so that, under the ordinance, the County must "consider all impacts to surface water flow." Joint Exhibit 10.c, page VI-3. As for the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the Revised Data and Analysis conclude that its expansion "is probably necessary to limit the impact of clearing of wetlands for agricultural purposes." Id. The Revised Data and Analysis observe that amending the Tree Protection Ordinance would reduce incentives to remove trees and understory vegetation, which assist in water quality and quantity considerations in stormwater management. The Revised Data and Analysis note that the Development Standards Ordinance exempts small subdivisions, whose impervious surfaces alter surface water flow. Petitioner correctly argues in her proposed recommended order that the reduction or elimination of exemptions by an unstated amount or without regard to a stated objective is vague and ineffective. However, the assurances involve only land development regulations that, in the context of a limited plan- amendment challenge, do not play a significant role in the outcome of the case. The vagueness is thus harmless. Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, the 2010 overlay is not confusing, nor does it fail to depict the general distribution, extent, and location of the required land use categories. Although more conventional future land use maps are more precise in rendering the location of future land uses, the imprecision of the 2010 overlay is not inconsistent with the criteria of the growth management law. As noted above, the shortcomings of the 2010 overlay result from the lack of crucial supporting data and analysis. Internal Consistency (Issue 13) Issue 13 alleges that the Amended Plan is internally inconsistent. Petitioner argues that the Traffic Circulation Element and transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements are inconsistent. She also argues that Goal 2, which requires financial feasibility, and the Traffic Circulation Element, including the financially feasible transportation map, are inconsistent. She asserts the same grounds as she does in connection with Issue 9, which has been discussed above. Based on the findings set forth in connection with Issue 9, and subject to the findings set forth in connection with Issue 8, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate any inconsistency between the Traffic Circulation Element and Goal 2 or the transportation improvements contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. As noted above, Policy 1.7.6 requires that final development orders and building permits be consistent with the 2010 overlay, including Map 17. Policy 1.7.6 does not impose this requirement upon rezonings. Petitioner asserts that Policy 1.7.6--particularly its omission of rezonings--is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2 because of the emphasis on zoning in the two objectives. The objectives state: DEVELOPMENT LOCATION. Contiguous and compact growth patterns shall be promoted through the rezoning process to contain sprawl, minimize energy costs, conserve land, water and natural resources, minimize the cost of services, and reverse typical development patters where large tracts of land are bypassed in favor of development more distant from services and existing communities. DEVELOPMENT TIMING. Direct new growth through the rezoning process to those portions of the Future Urban Areas where adequate public facilities exist or are assured and where compact and contiguous development patterns can be created. Goal 12 is: "To ensure that appropriate water, sewer, traffic, and environmental review standards are considered in reviewing rezoning applications and are met prior to issuance of a county development order." Section XIII(a) of the Amended Plan adds in part: "Upon adoption of this amended plan, all development and all actions taken in regard to development orders shall be consistent with the plan as adopted." Given the subordinate role of zoning to the designations contained in the Amended Plan and future land use map series, the conflicts perceived by Petitioner either do not exist or, if they exist, are harmless. The Amended Plan governs. Zoning is of such inferior importance that any conflict will be resolved in favor of the Amended Plan. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 1.7.6 is inconsistent with Objectives 2.1 and 2.2, Goal 12, and Section XIII(a). Petitioner asserts that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. As noted above, Policy 2.2.2 identifies the factors that will govern rezonings. This policy explicitly subjects rezoning to the concurrency requirements of the Amended Plan. Nothing in this policy attempts to allow rezoning to override the acreage allotments contained in the 2010 overlay and implemented by Policy 1.1.1. Although it would have been preferable for Policy 2.2.2 to acknowledge the acreage allotments as limitations upon land uses that can be authorized, the subordinate role of zoning, as compared to land use designations in the comprehensive plan, emerges clearly from the Amended Plan as a whole. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 2.2.2 and Section XIII(a) are inconsistent. Petitioner alleges that the amended future land use map is inconsistent with Goals 71, 75, 77, and 79; Objectives 2.3, 74.1, 75.1, 77.3, 77.4, 79.1, and 87.1; and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, 77.11.5, and 83.1.4. Goal 71 is to: "To protect the public from the effects of natural and technological hazards through county emergency plans and programs." Objective 74.l provides: ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS. By 1990, land within coastal area environmentally critical areas, including present Resource Protection Areas and Transition Zones and Rare and Unique upland habitats, shall be regulated and managed so as to conserve and enhance the natural functions of these critical areas. Goal 75 is: "To protect human life and developed property from natural disasters." Objective 75.l adds: DEVELOPMENT IN HAZARD AREAS. Development (other than minor structures) within the V Zones shall not be allowed seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it exists in 1988; new development on barrier islands shall be limited to densities that meet required evacuation standards; new development requiring seawalls for protection from coastal erosion shall not be permitted; and allowable densities for undeveloped areas within A Zone areas will be considered for reduction. Goal 77, Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, and Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 77.11.5 have been set forth above. 38/ Goal 79 is: "To provide evacuation and shelter capabilities adequate to safeguard the public against the effects of hurricanes and tropical storms." Objective 79.l adds: EVACUATION. By 1995, evacuation times will be restored to 1987 levels using the 1987 Southwest Florida Regional Hurricane Plan Update as guidance; and by 2010, the clearance time portion of evacuation time will not exceed 18 hours. Policy 83.1.4 provides: Lee County shall protect and conserve the following environmentally sensitive coastal areas: wetlands, estuaries, mangrove stands, undeveloped barrier islands, beach and dune systems, aquatic preserves and wildlife refuges, undeveloped tidal creeks and inlets, critical wildlife habitats, benthic communities, and marine grass beds. Objective 87.1 states: WATER SUPPLIES. Insure water supplies of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment, based on the capacity of the natural systems. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the future land use map series is inconsistent with Goals 71 and 75 because the Amended Plan increases densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone in the North Bonita Springs area and fails to coordinate land use designations with evacuation times and shelter space capacities. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goals 71 and 75. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 74.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to "conserve and enhance the natural functions" of environmentally critical areas in the coastal area. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 74.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 75.1, which requires the County to consider reducing allowable densities in the hurricane vulnerability zone. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 75.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Goal 77, which requires the County to manage the County's wetland and upland ecosystems so as to maintain and enhance native habitats, floral and faunal diversity, water quality, and natural surface water characteristics. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Goal 77, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Goal 77. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, which require the County to "maintain and enhance" current fish and wildlife diversity and existing populations and distributions of listed species. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objectives 77.3 and 77.4, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objectives 77.3 and 77.4. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policies 77.2.2, 77.4.4, and 83.1.4, which call for the protection of unique or important natural plant communities, protection of critical habitats for the preservation of listed species, and protection of critical wildlife habitats in the coastal area, respectively. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with these policies, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by these policies. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Policy 77.11.5, which provides in part: "Corridors for regulatory and public acquisition purposes shall be designated in [black bear and Florida panther] use areas." Added by the Plan Amendments, Policy 77.11.5 is not inconsistent with the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series. The orientation of Policy 77.11.5 is prospective and does not require immediate implementation through amendment of the future land use map series to show corridors that are subject to additional regulatory controls or are eligible for public acquisition. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 79.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to restore evacuation times to 1987 levels by 1995 and to ensure a maximum clearance time of 18 hours by 2010. The Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 79.1. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the amended future land use map series is inconsistent with Objective 87.1, which requires the County, by 1990, to ensure sufficient quantity and quality of water to meet present and projected demands of all consumers and the environment. Except for the creation of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which is entirely consistent with Objective 87.1, the Plan Amendments concerning the future land use map series do not directly involve the issues addressed by Objective 74.1. Consistency with Charlotte Harbor Management Plan (Issue 14) The Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, which was adopted June 5, 1981, is a resource management plan prepared and adopted pursuant to Section 380.045, Florida Statutes. Lee County is within the jurisdiction of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Under "regulatory actions," there are 12 objectives in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Beneath each objective are implementation actions that pertain to specified federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Twenty-two implementation actions apply to local governments, such as Lee County. Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Future development in floodplain areas is to occur only in a manner consistent with the function of floodplains." In her proposed recommended order, Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan lacks specific provisions identifying the functions of floodplains and requiring new development to be consistent with floodplain functions. Petitioner also argues that the Amended Plan fails to coordinate densities and intensities with tidal floodplains. Except for the stormwater level of service standard, which is discussed below in connection with Objective 5, nothing in the Amended Plan directly addresses floodplains. The floodplain map--Map 9--was part of the future land use map series in the Plan and was unchanged by the Plan Amendments. In general, Petitioner argues only that the Amended Plan fails to deal effectively with floodplain issues. The Plan Amendments substantially change designated land uses by applying the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres in the County. The correspondingly reduced densities and restricted intensities, especially as compared to previously authorized land uses, are much more consistent with floodplain functions. Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan requires: "The stormwater and drainage systems of the Charlotte Harbor area are to function in a manner that protects and preserves the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system." The second implementation action under Objective 5 requires local governments to: establish plans and regulations requiring post development runoff conditions to approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin. The summary of the problem addressed by Objective 5 states: Improperly designed and maintained stormwater/ drainage systems have affected the quality and quantity of freshwater flowing into area water bodies. These systems have transported various pollutants, including nutrients, sediments, pesticides, heavy metals, and animal waste to local waters. While some of these waters have recognized water quality problems, most of the area's valuable water resources are still of good quality. However, with an expected doubling of population in the next twenty years, preventative action is necessary to prevent further degradation. In addition to the quality of freshwater inflows, the sufficient quantities of freshwater corresponding with the natural hydroperiod are necessary to maintain the productivity of the estuaries. While the flows necessary to meet estuarine needs are unknown, continued development of stormwater/ drainage systems which alter the rate and hydroperiod of runoff may adversely impact estuarine productivity. Petitioner Exhibit 2, page 5. Objective 38.3 of the Amended Plan is to "[r]evise by 1994 the surface water management level-of-service standards for basins and sub-basins identified in the Surface Water Management Master Plan." The Surface Water Management Master Plan was to have begun in 1989, according to Policy 38.1.1. Policy 38.3.1 of the Amended Plan provides: As an interim measure, the following surface water management standards are adopted as minimum acceptable levels of service for unincorporated Lee County . . .: <<Existing>> [[Public]] Infrastructure The [[public stormwater]] <<existing>> [[trunk]] <<surface water>> management system <<in any basin>> in the unincorporated areas of the county, [[including drainage districts]] shall be sufficient to prevent the flooding of <<designated evacuation routes (see Map 15) from the 25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>> [[the public roads to a depth of 12 inches or greater]] for more than [[3 consecutive days]] <<24 hours>>. Regulation of Private <<and Public>> Development Surface water management systems in <<new>> private <<and public>> developments <<(excluding widening of existing roads)>> shall <<be designed to detain or retain excess stormwater to match the predevelopment discharge rate for>> [[meet or exceed]] the <<25-year, 3-day storm event (rainfall)>>. [[minimum standards of the South Florida Water Management District as set forth in the Permit Information Manual, Volume IV, Management and Storage of Surface Water (West Palm Beach, 1986), as may be amended from time to time, and shall meet local regulations in order]] <<This standard is designed>> to minimize <<increases of>> discharges to public water management infrastructure (or to evapotranspiration) that exceed historic <<rates>> [[natural volumes]], to minimize change to the historic [[natural]] hydroperiod of receiving waters, to maintain the quality of receiving waters, [[at or above the applicable minimum standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code ("Water Quality Standards," Florida DER)]], and to eliminate the disruption of wetlands and flow-ways, [[the]] <<whose>> preservation [[of which]] is deemed in the public interest. The implementation action requiring local governments to require that postdevelopment runoff approximate the natural surface water flow in terms of rate, quality, hydroperiod, and basin is the only implementation action involving local governments that imposes specific performance standards. The analysis contained in the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan clearly links the health of the estuarine system to preservation of natural rates and hydroperiods of runoff. Obviously, degraded water quality or alteration of drainage basin also impacts the estuarine system. Policy 38.3.1.B, which underwent substantial revisions by the Plan Amendments, imposes a single requirement upon development in terms of runoff: postdevelopment rate must match predevelopment rate for the 25-year, 3-day storm event. It is irrelevant that this is an interim level of service standard. The stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B deviates from Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan in three important respects. First, it fails to incorporate water quality, basin, and hydroperiod into the performance standards of the level of service standard. Second, it qualifies even the rate standard by a specified storm event of specified duration, even though Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan is not so limited. Regardless of the storm, Objective 5 imposes the requirement that postdevelopment conditions as to these four crucial factors approximate natural conditions. Obviously, natural conditions probably involve considerable flooding during and after the 100-year, 3-day storm; but the effect of the limitation in Policy 38.3.1.B is to allow postdevelopment conditions to exceed natural conditions once the specified storm has been exceeded. Third, the stormwater level of service standard contained in Policy 38.3.1.B ignores redevelopment, including but not limited to road-widening projects. When addressing redevelopment in particular, the postdevelopment conditions must match natural conditions, not merely predevelopment conditions. Lee County argues that Policy 38.3.1.B addresses factors in addition to runoff rate. The second sentence of Policy 38.3.1.B imposes no additional requirements; it merely explains the intent of the County in imposing the rate requirement. By regulating the runoff rate, Policy 38.3.1.B may partly address water quality and hydroperiod issues; retained or detained postdevelopment stormwater may be of higher quality and may more closely approximate natural hydroperiods than unretained or undetained postdevelopment stormwater runoff. But these are indirect benefits of a performance standard addressing exclusively postdevelopment runoff rate. The County's stormwater standard may reduce change to hydroperiods and improve water quality--over undetained or unrestrained postdevelopment stormwater--but it does not impose the performance standards of unaltered hydroperiod, water quality, and basin. Nor, more importantly, will the County's stormwater standard assist in meeting the crucial objective of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan to regulate stormwater and drainage to protect and preserve the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, which is the primary focus of the resource management plan. Petitioner has thus proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B is inconsistent with Objective 5 and the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, construed as a whole. 39/ Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "The barrier islands and beaches of the Charlotte Harbor area should be managed as a whole, recognizing that any developmental activity potentially affects the processes of the entire barrier beach, barrier island, and pass systems." The second implementation action under Objective 8 is for the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to discourage the dredging of new channels and addition of more passes to the existing pass maintenance program. This implementation action does not apply to local governments. Petitioner has therefore failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan Amendments are inconsistent with Objective 8 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Objective 10 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: Future land development decisions by local government should be in accord with the goals and objectives of the Charlotte Harbor Committee, and existing platted areas should also be encouraged to develop in accord with these goals and objectives. The third implementation action under Objective 10 requires local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation to ensure that: "Highway corridor planning for undeveloped areas . . . consider[s] suitability of adjacent land for urbanization and directing [sic] construction away from environmentally sensitive areas." Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Polices 27.2.1 and 27.2.2 of the Amended Plan are insufficient in terms of implementing the cited portion of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. However, these provisions were in the Plan and were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. For the reasons set forth in connection with Petitioner's challenge based on Objective 4 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, nothing in the Plan Amendments addresses this aspect of transportation. Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan provides: "Mitigation and prevention of development impacts should be initiated during site planning and site alteration processes." The second implementation action requires local governments to: require site development plans, provide for the maintenance of habitats for wildlife species, as listed by the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, tree protection [sic], and prevent the introduction or spread of noxious vegetation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that Policy 77.4.1 of the Amended Plan, which was substantially amended by the Plan Amendments, fails to coordinate with the implementation action under Objective Petitioner asserts that Policy 77.4.1 is deficient because it refers only to the habitats of protected species listed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and not those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There is no evidence of any material divergence between the state and federal lists of protected wildlife species. Specific objectives in the Amended Plan address loggerhead sea turtles, southern bald eagles, West Indian manatees, gopher tortoises, red-cockaded woodpeckers, wood storks, Florida panthers, and black bears. Without a showing of some discrepancy between the state and federal wildlife lists, especially in the face of numerous provisions in the Amended Plan explicitly addressing specific wildlife species, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Objective 11 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan. Consistency with Regional Plan (Issue 15) The Southwest Florida Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which covers Lee County, discusses at length the problem of platted lands. Map 3 depicts vast areas of platted lands in the Lehigh Acres area of unincorporated Lee County and Cape Coral. In relevant part, the discussion states: Southwest Florida has approximately 1.1 million existing platted lots . . .. Most of these platted and subdivided lots, although undeveloped, have been sold to individual owners who have expectations of building. Regretfully, these platted areas often have not reflected the most efficient use of land. Also, due to their location, the provision of infrastructure access and service will be prohibitively costly. Further, aging of most of these subdivisions has resulted in deterioration and dilapidation of existing roads and drainage systems. Finally, many needed urban uses are not adequately provided for within these extensive plats. * * * . . . effective concentration of development activities and providing incentives for contiguous development are alternative methods of planning which continue to be discussed and debated within the Region. Although these techniques would have a positive effect on land use patterns, they conflict with development desires of lot owners who purchased property previously reviewed and approved by the local government. Efforts have been made to ensure that development is compatible with available and planned infrastructure services. Still, the problems of previously subdivided, yet still undeveloped, land remain; such problems are particularly severe for planning activities that must meet the 1985 Growth Management Act requirements, since these developments generally do not meet current regulations. As growth continues, Southwest Florida will be under greater pressure to provide services to new homes, businesses, and service centers. These platted areas will be popular, affordable home sites. Providing services to these lots, however, will become an increasing burden. Additionally, the Region will have to consider providing alternative land use choices to current lot owners where development would not be desireable or cannot have services provided at the ultimate buildout densities. Joint Exhibit 11.b, pages 16-8 to 16-9. Regional Plan Goal 16 states: By 2010, the number of vacant platted lots in areas without adequate infrastructure or in areas not designated for urban development in Southwest Florida will be reduced by 30%. Goal 16 is an integral part of the Regional Plan. Effective land use planning may be impossible without addressing the problems presented by thousands of acres of vacant, prematurely platted lands. There is evidence that Lee County is addressing the problem. It has utilized vacant, preplatted lots to some extent in an affordable housing program. Lehigh Corporation, which is evidently a major developer in the Lehigh Acres area, has bought back some lots and/or exchanged better lots for more outlying and less developable lots. However, at the same time, Lehigh Corporation is subdividing more property in the Lehigh Acres area. It is unclear whether Lee County will find itself with more or less vacant, preplatted lots by 2010. More likely, it will be less for a variety of reasons, but how much less is left entirely to conjecture based on the present record. Petitioner's argument in her proposed recommended order is based on the acreage remaining vacant in 2010 in planning subdistricts 601- 11, 704, and 706, which constitute much if not all of Lehigh Acres. However, the record does not establish how much of this acreage is already platted or how much of the vacant acreage remaining in 2010 will by then have been platted. For these reasons, as to Issue 15, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the Regional Plan. Consistency with State Plan (Issue 16) Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 and 12, (10)(b)10, (16)(b)2, and (18)(b)3. Section 187.201(8)(b)2 is to: "Identify and protect the functions of water recharge areas and provide incentives for their conservation. Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the Amended Plan does not protect the functions of water recharge areas. She asserts that Policies 85.1.2 and 87.1.1, which generally require the protection of surface and groundwater quality and natural recharge systems, are vague and ineffective. The Plan Amendments did not modify Policies 85.1.2 or 87.1.1. The Plan Amendments added the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land, together with Policy 1.4.3, which states: <<The Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource areas include upland areas that provide substantial recharge to aquifers most suitable for future well field development. These areas also are the most favorable locations for physical withdrawal of water from those aquifers. Only minimal public facilities exist or are programmed. Land uses in these areas must be compatible with maintaining surface and groundwater levels at their historic levels. Permitted land uses include agriculture, mineral and limerock extraction, conservation uses, and residential uses at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per ten acres (1 du/10 acres). Individual residential parcels may contain up to two acres of resource protection areas and transition zones without losing the right to have a dwelling unit, provided that no alterations are made to those wetland areas.>> The Plan Amendments also added Policy 39.1.4, which provides: <<The county's Surface Water Management Master Plan shall place particular emphasis on 1) routing surface water runoff from areas of excess to areas where additional subsurface storage is available; and 2) maintaining and increasing historic surface and groundwater levels in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category.>> The Plan Amendments revised Policy 41.2.2, which states: <<A new land use category, called the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource category, shall be applied to protect the County's groundwater resources and principal recharge areas. Land use controls in the category shall be as described in Policy 1.4.3.>> Policies 15.2.2 and 32.1.9, which were added by the Plan Amendments, impose special land use restrictions in the Bonita Springs and Lehigh Acres areas, based on potable groundwater considerations. Policy 2.4.2, which was also added by the Plan Amendments, concludes by offering additional protection to these areas and all areas designated Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource: <<All proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map in critical areas for future potable water supply (Bonita Springs as described in Policy 15.2.2; Lehigh Acres as described in Policy 32.1.9; and all land in the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource land use category) shall be subject to a special review by the staff of Lee County and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). This review will analyze the proposed land uses to determine the short- term and long-term availability of irrigation and domestic water sources, and will assess whether the proposed land uses would cause any significant impact on present or future water resources. If the Board of County Commissioners wishes to approve any such changes to the Future Land Use Map, it must make a formal finding that no significant impacts on present or future water resources will result from the change. (SFWMD's recommendations or findings under this policy shall not be construed to restrict or otherwise encumber their authority to issue or deny water-use permits as may be required by law.)>> The Revised Data and Analysis survey recent hydrologic investigations for all relevant aquifers. The investigations amply support the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designations. The Data and Analysis provide no basis for questioning the consistency of the provisions of the Amended Plan in protecting the functions of water recharge areas with similar provisions in the State Plan. Largely due to the adoption of the Plan Amendments, especially the new Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2. Section 187.201(8)(b)12 is to: "Eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." This is an integral part of the State Plan and is linked to the protection of surface waters including estuaries, drainage and floodplains, and various other natural resources. For reasons already discussed in connection with Objective 5 of the Charlotte Harbor Management Plan, Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that Policy 38.3.1.B, which sets an interim stormwater level of service standard, is inconsistent with Section 187.201(8)(b)2 with respect to the omission of hydroperiod, basin, and quality performance standards; the addition of a qualifying storm event; and the exclusion of redevelopment. 40/ A level of service standard is a vital provision in a comprehensive plan because the standard is typically clear and easily enforceable. The stormwater management provisions in the State Plan play a crucial role in attaining consistency with numerous provisions of the State Plan. For these reasons, Policy 38.3.1.B represents an inconsistency with the State Plan construed as a whole. The inconsistency between Policy 38.3.1.B and the State Plan is limited to the failure of Policy 38.3.1.B: 1) to set a stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County requiring postdevelopment conditions to be equal to or better than natural conditions in terms of water quality, hydroperiod, and basin, as well as rate; 2) to impose the stormwater level of service standard throughout Lee County regardless of the storm event; and 3) to impose the stormwater level of service standard on all development and redevelopment in Lee County. 41/ Petitioner argues in her proposed recommended order that the inconsistency with the State Plan extends to the failure of the Amended Plan to fund fully the stormwater management plan. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that consistency with Section 187.201(8)(b)12 and the State Plan requires the above-described funding. Section 187.201(10)(b)10 is to: "Emphasize the acquisition and maintenance of ecologically intact systems in all land and water planning, management, and regulation." Petitioner argues that the Amended Plan is not consistent with the State Plan due to the failure of the future land use map series to designate rare and unique habitats for densities and intensities that are suitable for the vegetative and habitat values of certain areas, especially the North Bonita Springs area. As noted above in connection with the discussion of the 2010 overlay, the Plan Amendments do not directly reintroduce the issue of land use suitability. A timing device, the 2010 overlay is quantitatively oriented. With the exception of the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation, which tends to enhance suitability, nothing in the Plan Amendments directly raises the suitability issue. Provisions contained in the Plan Amendments enhancing the coordination of future land use designations with valuable vegetative communities and, particularly, wildlife habitat are Objectives 77.10 and 77.11 and their policy clusters. These provisions have already been discussed. 42/ Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with Section 187.201(10)(b)10. Section 187.201(18)(b)3 is to: "Allocate the costs of new public facilities on the basis of the benefits received by existing and future residents." Petitioner objects in her proposed recommended order to the sufficiency of Objective 70.3, which requires that "new development pays at least 80% of the capital costs of public infrastructure directly attributable to that new development." Petitioner argues that Policy 2.3.2 is also insufficient because it merely requires that the "cost for the provision and expansion of services and facilities that benefit new development shall be borne primarily by those who benefit." Objective 70.3 and Policy 2.3.2 were unchanged by the Plan Amendments. Section 187.201(16)(b)2 is to: "Develop a system of incentives and disincentives which encourages a separation of urban and rural land uses while protecting water supplies, resource development, and fish and wildlife habitats." The Amended Plan is no model of urban containment. Choosing a less regulatory approach to land use planning, although involving considerably more intervention than has traditionally prevailed, Lee County has repeatedly and unconvincingly argued in the Revised Data and Analysis that various conventional planning strategies are unsuitable for Lee County. Some planning alternatives proffered by Lee County have failed to achieve consistency with the growth management law. Some planning alternatives have achieved consistency, and some planning alternatives have been spared review by the focus of the present recommended order on the Plan Amendments and Revised Data and Analysis and the focus of the recommended order in DOAH Case No. 89-1843GM on the settlement agreement. It would be a daunting task to try to determine the effect of the Amended Plan upon urban sprawl. Without the density allocation ratio, it is an impossible task. If the ratio were relatively high, provisions of the Amended Plan would have to bear a greater burden in ensuring efficiency in the use of land and provision of public facilities and the protection of natural resources and agriculture. Without a density allocation ratio, relevant provisions of the Amended Plan cannot be adequately evaluated in terms of their relationship to urban sprawl. It suffices for the purpose of determining consistency with the State Plan that the Plan Amendments assigned the Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource designation to thousands of acres of land in Lee County and, by so doing, achieved a significant separation between urban and rural uses. For this reason, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Amended Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan in terms of separating urban and rural uses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9)(b), Florida Statutes, the Department of Community Affairs submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that the Plan Amendments are not in compliance for the reasons set forth above. ENTERED on January 27, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 27, 1993. NOTE: In the ACCESS document, language added to the policy is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]].
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, Theodore C. Boldt, was a professional land surveyor registered by the State of Florida under license Number LS002387, granted after examination on July 9, 1976, with an expiration date of January 31, 1989. The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors, (Board), was and is the state agency charged with the regulation of land surveying in this state. On August 5, 1985, the Board entered a Final Order in which it concluded Respondent had violated various sections of the Florida Statutes and Rules. The Board suspended Respondent's license to practice land surveying for six months and, inter alia, required him to submit twenty-five surveys representative of his land surveying practice, accompanied by field notes and record plats for review by the Board. Respondent has submitted fifteen of the surveys, the first ten of which were accepted by the Board. Survey eleven through fifteen, however, were determined to be unsatisfactory. On the basis of that Board determination, an Administrative Complaint was filed in this case alleging that the five surveys failed to meet minimum acceptable standards and thereby constituted a violation of Florida Statutes. The surveys in question were evaluated by Walter A. Paxton, Jr., a registered land surveyor for fifteen years, who has spent a total of thirty-five years in the surveying field. During the course of his career, he has done several thousand surveys and has never had a complaint filed against him. As a part of his practice, he keeps up with the Rules and Standards of the profession by review of agency bulletins and letters and by taking continuing education seminars. Mr. Paxton graded these surveys utilizing a Minimum Standards Probation Report Checklist which identified numerous items for evaluation and grading. Grades available included violation; acceptable, which means that the answer meets the requirements of the rules; not applicable, which means that the subject matter does not pertain to the case under consideration; and marginally acceptable, which refers to an error of a minor nature, such as a typographical error, which is not a true violation of the Rule setting forth minimum standards. With regard to the first survey evaluated, Survey Exhibit 11, Mr. Paxton found one violation. Under the pertinent rule, each survey must fall into a descriptive category to be designated on the drawing. In this case, Respondent described the survey as a "Boundary" survey when, in fact, it should have been described as "As Built." A "Boundary" survey is generally utilized only for raw acreage and this property had a structure built on it. Mr. Paxton also found one marginally acceptable item in that the survey did not reflect the relevant Rule under which the survey was conducted. As to Survey Exhibit 12, Mr. Paxton found two violations. Again, the type of survey described was wrong and the survey failed to show the lot dimensions on the West side of the final drawing. The field notes reflected 81 feet for the West side of the lot. Of the four marginally acceptable issues, the first dealt with the completeness of the survey and relates to the Respondent's failure to put in the total dimensions as described above. In the second, the drawing failed to show the bearings on the finished product. The third relates to Respondent's failure to indicate the adjoining lot and block number on the South side of the drawing. The fourth pertains to Respondent's failure to reflect the Rule number in his certification. This last was a deficiency in each of the five surveys in question. As to survey Number 13, Mr. Paxton found one violation which again related to Respondent's use of the term "Boundary" survey instead of "As Built" on a survey of a lot on which a structure has been erected. Two marginally acceptable items related to the failure to show the Rule in the certification and Respondent's failure to list both lot and block when identifying lots adjacent to the property under survey. This, too, is a repeat deficiency. In the fourth survey, Number 14, Mr. Paxton found three violations and three marginally acceptables. The violations related to the Respondent's failure to show a Block identification on the survey and his showing only of the lot number. The second was that Respondent's field notes did not indicate a closure on elevation, but instead, showed only the elevation from the benchmark to a point on the ground. Respondent admitted this was a violation. The third related to Respondent's failure to indicate the original benchmark on the drawing but only the site benchmark. In this case, Respondent admits to this but indicates he could not find the original benchmark because of the distance from the site of the survey. He described the search therefor as being "hard" to do. The marginally acceptable items on this survey again relate to Respondent's failure to show the Rule number in the certification portion of the survey; his failure to include the Block number in addition to the Lot number on the sketch; and his failure to identify adjoining property Lot and Block numbers on the drawing. The fifth survey contained two violations and four marginally acceptable items. The violations were, again, the failure to properly describe the survey as "As Built", and the failure to indicate angles on the field notes. The four marginally acceptables relate to the Respondent's failure to refer to the Rule in his certification; his failure to indicate the block number as well as the lot number on the sketch; the failure to maintain acceptable quality field notes (the failure to list the angles as required); and the failure to reflect on the second sketch of this property a revision date indicating the first sketch was changed. Based on the above identified violations and marginally acceptable items, Mr. Paxton concluded that the surveys in question here do not meet the acceptable standards of the State of Florida for surveys and it is so found. Respondent does not deny that the actions alleged as violations or marginally acceptable areas occurred. He objects, however, to the fact that they were described as violations. Mr. Boldt has been in the surveying profession for 49 years, having started with his father at the age of 10. It is his practice not to put the Block number on a survey unless Lots beside or behind the Lot being surveyed are in a different Block. This practice has been accepted by various banks and the county since he has been doing it and certainly since 1983, when the subject was made a matter of Rule. By the same token, banks and the county have also for years accepted without question his use of the descriptive term, "Boundary" for the type of survey. Accepted use is irrelevant, however, if the rules in question prescribe otherwise. From his testimony it can only be gathered that Respondent complies with the Rules "when he can." When Mr. Paxton pointed out that the requirements identified here appear in the Rules of the Board, Respondent pointed out that the Rules were "new Rules". This approach to the profession of land surveying, while satisfactory to him, is not acceptable when measured against the Board rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered land surveyor in Florida be suspended for 18 months with such suspension to be stayed for a probation period of 18 months under such terms and conditions as the Board of Professional Land Surveyors may specify. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Theodore C. Boldt 5424 Hayden Blvd. Sarasota, Florida 33582 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director DPR, Board of Professional Land Surveyors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Comprehensive Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by the County on September 24, 1996, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact have been determined: Background The parties Respondent, Sumter County (County), is a local government subject to the comprehensive land use planning requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing comprehensive land use plans and amendments made thereto pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners, T. D. Farnsworth, Russell E. Weir, Jack Burchill, Linda Latham, and Terry Forsman, own property and reside within Sumter County. Petitioner, Sumter Citizens Against Irresponsible Development, Inc. (SCAID), is an organization founded by a small group of citizens for the purposes of preserving the "rural lifestyle" of the county, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring "that development will not be a burden to the taxpayers" of the County. Farnsworth is president of the group. By stipulation of the parties, Petitioners are affected persons within the meaning of the law and have standing to bring this action. Intervenor, Pringle Communities, Inc. (Pringle), is a Florida corporation and the potential developer of the subject property of this proceeding. Pringle submitted oral and written comments during the plan amendment review and adoption proceeding and thus has standing as an affected person to participate in this proceeding. The amendment On May 13, 1996, the County adopted plan amendment 96A01 by Ordinance No. 96-17. On November 7, 1996, the DCA published a Notice of Intent to find the amendment in compliance. Amendment 96A01 amended the Sumter County Comprehensive Plan's (the Plan) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to revise the land use designations on approximately 510 acres of land. Specifically, the plan amendment converted the land use designation for the Pringle parcel from an Agricultural to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) land use, limited to 499 residential units. The plan amendment also revised the FLUM by extending the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel and an adjacent parcel immediately to the north of the Pringle parcel, which had apparently been inadvertently omitted from the Urban Expansion Area in the final draft of the Plan. The data and analysis accompanying the amendment included a compatibility and land use suitability analysis, a soils analysis, an evaluation of urban sprawl related to issues, a preliminary environmental assessment, a population and housing analysis, a concurrency analysis, building permit information and analysis, and an analysis to ensure that the amendment was consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The data and analysis submitted up until the time the DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find amendment 96A01 in compliance, and at the final hearing, collectively demonstrate that the amendment is appropriate for the designated area. Is the Plan Amendment in Compliance? Petitioners have alleged the amendment is not in compliance for the following reasons: (a) the amendment fails to protect agricultural lands; (b) the amendment encourages urban sprawl; (c) the future land use map fails to reflect the goals, objectives, and policies of the Plan; (d) there is no demonstrated need for 510 acres of PUD land use; (e) the amendment does not demonstrate compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses; (f) the amendment does not provide for concurrency for adopted levels of services pursuant to the Plan; (g) the amendment does not comply with stormwater and drainage requirements of the Plan; (h) the amendment fails to satisfy the capital improvements element of the Plan; and (i) affordable housing needs are not met. These contentions will be discussed separately below. Protection of agricultural lands Under the amendment, 510 acres of land designated on the FLUM as agricultural land use will be converted to urban type uses. Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to protect agricultural land as required by Plan Objective 7.1.2 and Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code. The cited objective "establishes agriculture as the primary use outside of the urban expansion area" and "insure(s) retention of agricultural activities." If the plan amendment fails to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas, the cited rule considers this failure to be one of the thirteen primary indicators that the amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The rule and objective do not prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. Indeed, Plan Objective 7.1.2 and the corresponding policies allow for the conversion of suitable agricultural lands as the need for additional urban land is demonstrated. The policies also require that the conversion be done in a well planned, orderly, and logical fashion based on need and suitability. The agricultural lands being converted to urban land uses as a result of the plan amendment are appropriate for conversion. The Plan designates the Pringle parcel as an area appropriate for urban development. This determination was based on an extensive analysis of various factors including soil suitability, environmental constraints, and other planning criteria such as proximity to existing urbanized areas. In fact, the Plan contains a series of maps which specifically locate agricultural areas appropriate for conversion to urban uses, and the Pringle parcel is located within such designated areas. The evidence establishes that the conversion of agricultural land contemplated by the plan amendment was justifiable because of the extent of urban development already existing in the area and the requirement within the Plan that infrastructure be in place concurrent with development. In addition, future populations will be directed away from the remaining agricultural lands throughout the County and to the development proposed by the plan amendment. The open space required by the PUD will also serve to buffer and ensure compatibility of land covered by the plan amendment and the adjacent agricultural and rural lands. Because Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g)5., Florida Administrative Code, deals exclusively with "adjacent" agricultural land, the conversion of any agricultural uses on the Pringle parcel is not relevant to the cited rule. The Plan requires the County to retain a minimum of ninety percent of its land area in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use. The County has no "mining" zoning or land use designation, but includes mining as an agricultural use. Including the land covered by mining permits in the County, more than ninety percent of the County's land area is maintained in rural (agriculture, timberland, and vacant) and conservation land use, even after the adoption of the amendment. In view of the above, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment fails to protect agricultural land, either on or adjacent to the Pringle parcel. Urban sprawl In the same vein, Petitioners contend that the amendment fails to discourage urban sprawl because it converts 510 acres of agricultural land to urban uses. In support of this contention, they cite a number of provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, all dealing with urban sprawl, which have allegedly been violated. Petitioners also allege the multiplier for the plan amendment is in excess of 1.25, which is an indicator of urban sprawl, and no future public facilities and services are planned for the lands covered by the amendment prior to its adoption. The plan amendment includes an evaluation of urban sprawl. That evaluation references Plan Policy 7.1.2.5(a), which was adopted by the County specifically as a mechanism for discouraging urban sprawl. A review of that policy indicates that, for a PUD to be allowed in an agricultural land use area, it must score at least 50 points, applying a point system based on factors including, but not limited to, proximity to the urban expansion area, proximity to urban services, including water, sewer, and roads, and proximity to other services such as fire protection and emergency medical services. If a proposed amendment or PUD fails to score 50 points, it is deemed to encourage urban sprawl and would not be approved by the County. Amendment 96A01 scored 100 points, well in excess of the 50-point threshold. While the point system does not apply directly because the amendment alters the Urban Expansion Area to include the Pringle parcel, it is evidence that the amendment does not fail to discourage urban sprawl. In addition to satisfying Plan Policy 7.1.2.5.(a), the plan amendment is consistent with Future Land Use maps VII-18a and VII-18c, which are the future land use constrained area overlay and urban sprawl evaluation overlay, respectively. As the Plan data and analysis indicate, these maps were prepared for the purpose of directing urban development into areas most suitable for such development. Map VII-18a demonstrates that the land included in the plan amendment has only slight limitations in regard to urban sprawl. If the amendment allows a strip development, this is another of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment may fail to discourage urban sprawl. The evidence shows, however, that the subject property is not a strip development because it is not a linear development that runs parallel to a highway. Finally, the PUD mixed land use category adopted by the plan amendment is a planning method specifically recognized by Rule 9J-5.006(5)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as a method of discouraging urban sprawl. Indeed, the rule provides in part that: mixed use development . . . will be recognized as [a method] of discouraging urban sprawl and will be determined consistent with the provisions of the state comprehensive plan, regional policy plans, Chapter 163, Part II, and this chapter regarding discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Because the PUD adopted by the amendment is designed to provide a mix of land uses, the amendment does not fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. Given the above, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment encourages urban sprawl. Demonstrated need and adequate data Petitioners allege the plan amendment "fails to provide demonstrated need" as required by various provisions within Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. They further allege amendment 96A01 "is not based upon adequate surveys, studies, or data regarding the amount of land needed to accommodate anticipated growth." Initially, it is noted that the data and analysis in the plan are not subject to the compliance review process. Section 163.3177(10)(e), Florida Statutes, authorizes the DCA in a compliance review to determine only if the plan or plan amendment is based on appropriate data and analysis and whether the data was collected in a professionally acceptable manner. Planning methodologies used in analysis of the data, such as the calculation of a multiplier, must also be prepared in a professionally acceptable manner. Demonstrated need is only a subset of one of the thirteen primary indicators that an amendment or plan may fail to discourage urban sprawl. Rule RJ-5.006(5)(g)1, Florida Administrative Code, lists as one of the thirteen indicators whether the amendment: [p]romotes, allows or designates for development substantial areas of the jurisdiction to develop as low-intensity, low-density, or single-use development or uses in excess of demonstrated need. (Emphasis added) The thirteen primary indicators are evaluated as a whole, not as a "one strike and you're out" list, to determine one aspect of compliance -- whether the amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. "Multipliers" are a planning tool generally utilized by professional planners to aid in determining the need for additional allowable densities. Multipliers are generally expressed as a percentage or ratio of the estimated population in a given time period compared with the total residential units allowed by the comprehensive plan. For example, a multiplier of 2.0 would mean that, over the particular planning time frame, there existed twice as many residential units allocated as the population projections estimated would be utilized. At hearing, Petitioners raised issues concerning the methodology used in calculating the County's residential land use allocation multiplier and contended (a) seasonal population and planned federal prison expansions contained within the approved Plan were in error and therefore should not be used to support the amendment; (b) the agricultural land use acreage should be included in the multiplier calculation; and (c) the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre should be used to calculate the multiplier rather than the approved density of just under one unit per acre. The preparation of the multiplier in issue came as a result of the DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report and preparation for the hearing in this matter. The ORC report recommended that the County provide data and analysis which demonstrated that the land use change requested in the plan amendment was based on the amount of additional land needed to accommodate the projected population. Based on historic data, the County utilized a multiplier which had been calculated in 1995 in Case No. 94-6974GM, judicial recognition of which was taken in this hearing. In that case, the multiplier depicted the allocation of residential land countywide. The multiplier was 1.87, which means that the County allocated residential land uses approximately eighty-seven percent above its demonstrated need for the planning period. The evidence shows that, in order to allow some degree of development flexibility, a local government will routinely allocate more land than is actually needed. Indeed, a multiplier of 1.87 is low when compared to the other multipliers found in compliance in adjacent local governments as well as in other local governments statewide. In an effort to provide a more accurate multiplier, prior to the hearing, utilizing data available when the amendment was adopted, the County recalculated the multiplier and determined the updated multiplier to be 1.3. The County's calculation of a multiplier excludes agricultural land from consideration, in order to protect agricultural lands as required by the Plan. In some rapidly urbanizing jurisdictions vacant land labeled agricultural or rural on a future land use map may simply be future development land. However, the County has as one of its primary land use goals to protect agricultural land. To include agricultural land use acreage in the multiplier calculation could lead to an under- allocation of density which would jeopardize agricultural land by encouraging development in the very areas the plan is designed to protect. The DCA has utilized multiplier calculations in other counties that do not include agricultural lands. Therefore, because of the unique situation of the County and its land use plan's emphasis on protecting agricultural land, in this case it is professionally acceptable to exclude agricultural land from the multiplier calculation. In the County, PUD is a land use category rather than merely a zoning category as in many other jurisdictions. The effect of that designation is to limit the density of the development by land use designation to 499 units. Any increase in the density or intensity of the development would require a land use plan amendment. Consequently, when calculating the multiplier, the density approved for this PUD (499 units) should be utilized rather than the PUD maximum allowable density of eight units per acre. Petitioners developed a multiplier of their own of 4.1. However, they failed to show that the County's multiplier was not developed in a professionally acceptable manner. Intervenor's marketing scheme for its residential developments is directed at persons moving to Florida from other states. Intervenor plans to use the same marketing scheme for the Pringle parcel, and most residents are not expected to be from the County. The proposed development, along with the Villages development in the northeast section of the County, which is subject to age restrictions which limit its availability to families, is a new type of development for the County. This new population was not taken into account in the original comprehensive plan which also had a low multiplier. Therefore, the need for residential allocation for this new population was not addressed. Between 1992 and 1996, the federal prison facility located near the Pringle property hired new employees, many of whom relocated from outside the area. However, the vast majority of these immigrants located outside of the County because of a lack of available appropriate housing. The federal prison facility is to be expanded in the near future, with the next phase to employ approximately 250 new employees. This expansion has already been funded by the federal government. Although the federal prison and its expansions were contemplated as part of the Plan adoption process, the impact of the federal prison and its expansions were not included in the population projections as calculated in the Plan. The seasonal population of the County was not included in the Plan's population projection. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires both resident and seasonal population estimates be used to determine population estimates for plan and plan amendment purposes. Therefore, the seasonal population estimate and the impact of the federal prison should be included in determining need. Given these considerations, Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment was not based on a demonstrated need, or was not adequately supported by data and analysis. Compatibility with adjacent agricultural lands Petitioners have also alleged the County has not demonstrated compatibility with adjacent agricultural and rural residential land uses. The Plan allows for the well planned conversion of agricultural lands in the County. One of the requirements of the Plan's PUD provisions is that PUD development be buffered from adjacent lands and contain open space. The purpose of this provision is to ensure compatibility. A review of the PUD application and Master Development Plan, both incorporated into the plan amendment, shows that the Pringle development will provide approximately 225 acres of open space. Much of this open space, as required by the Plan, will act as a buffer between the development and the adjacent agricultural and rural land uses. The project will also cluster its development, which serves to separate the more urban development from the adjacent agricultural and rural uses. In view of these considerations, it is found that Petitioners have not shown to the exclusion of fair debate that the plan amendment is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses. Level of services In their Petition, Petitioners assert that amendment 96A01 violates Plan Objective 7.1.6, Policy 7.1.6.1, Objective 8.1.1, and Policy 8.1.1.1, Rules 9J-5.005(3), 9J-5.011(2)c., and 9J-5.015(3)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, and Section 187.201(16)(b)6., Florida Statutes, pertaining specifically or generally to levels of service for recreational facilities, schools, fire protection, emergency medical services, stormwater, and flooding. The stated policies and rules require adoption and adherence to specific levels of service prior to development of land. The amount of facilities required is based on population. Under the Plan, the County must take the necessary steps to insure the availability of these facilities. The development order in this case also requires the developer to provide for adequate public facilities. Petitioners offered no testimony, exhibits, or evidence regarding the following: Plan Objective 7.16, as alleged in paragraph 15.F. of their petition; Objectives 4.4.1, 4.5.1, and 4.5.2, and Policies 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.1.3, 4.5.1.2, and 4.5.2.1, as alleged in paragraph 15.G of their petition; Objective 8.1.1, as alleged in paragraph 15H of their petition; and Objective 1.3.5, as alleged in paragraph 15.I of their petition. Petitioners also specifically stated they are not contesting any issues regarding flooding. In view of this lack of presentation of evidence, Petitioners have failed to show to the exclusion of reasonable debate that the plan amendment is inconsistent with any of the above Plan Objectives and Policies.
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 Plan Amendment 96-2 adopted by Sumter County by Ordinance Number 96-17 on September 24, 1996, to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Jane M. Gordon Environmental and Land Use Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 T. Daniel Farnsworth 12364 County Road 223 Oxford, Florida 34484 Kathleen R. Fowler, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Felix M. Adams, Esquire 236 North Main Street Bushnell, Florida 33513-5928 Jimmy D. Crawford, Esquire Post Office Box 492460 Leesburg, Florida 34749-2460 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
