The Issue The matters in dispute in this cause concern the attempts by Petitioner to achieve licensure in the State of Florida as a registered land surveyor, pursuant to Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, and through Rule 21HH-3.01, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Respondent asserts that Petitioner has not met the necessary prerequisites in Section 472.013, Florida Statutes, to allow him to stand the licensing examination. Moreover, Respondent has not allowed Petitioner to gain licensure by endorsement as defined in Subsection 472.015 (3) , Florida Statutes. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to licensure by endorsement or in the alternative, to stand the examination, leading to his licensure by testing. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS Petitioner testified in this cause and offered two exhibits which were received. Respondent presented a composite exhibit which is constituted of file materials related to the Petitioner's application for licensure and responses to the application request.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a retiree from the United States Army, having served 22 years, commencing in 1955. During his service, he obtained military occupational specialties related to the field of surveying in the artillery branch. This experience included occupational training given to Petitioner and examinations of his skills following that training; practical surveying work, and instructional work by Petitioner performed for the benefit of other trainees. This work experience included surveying activities in Florida while in the military. Those surveying duties were military assignments. Material related to Petitioner's training and job performance is generally set forth in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2 are further statements related to the Petitioner's military occupational specialties. Petitioner has made application to be licensed as a land surveyor in Florida in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. Through this process, it is Petitioner's desire to be accepted for licensure through the endorsement process or be given the opportunity to sit for the examination. Respondent is unwilling to accent Petitioner as a candidate for licensure by endorsement. In this connection, he did not establish his successful completion of an examination identified in Subsection 472.015(3)(a), Florida Statutes, or that he holds a valid license from another jurisdiction within the meaning of Subsection 472.015(3)(b) , Florida Statutes. After reviewing Petitioner's application, Respondent through correspondence dated September 10, 1982, denied Petitioner's reguest for licensure by examination premised upon the fact that Petitioner's land surveying experience was not verified by a registered land surveyor who had employed or supervised Petitioner's work. In addition, the letter of denial of licensure indicated that the applicant's file was not complete in that it failed to account for work experience following Petitioner's retirement from the armed services in 1976. (In the course of the hearing, it was established that Petitioner has not practiced land surveying following his retirement.) Notwithstanding his considerable experience, Petitioner has failed to submit by application and/or in the course of the final hearing, documentation which would verify that Petitioner has gained his experience in the field of surveying as a sub- ordinate to a land surveyor as defined in Subsection 472.005(3), Florida Statutes. His documentation did not identify that Petitioner's supervisors or commanders were land surveyors as previously defined and Petitioner did not establish in the hearing that his superiors were land surveyors, as defined. As a consequence, Petitioner failed to provide references from land surveyors setting forth the quality and character of his duties and responsibilities while under the land surveyor's supervision. After receiving the letter of denial of the application, Petitioner made a timely request for a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. This matter was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings and received by that Division on October 18, 1982. An initial hearing date was established for December 8, 1982, and was continued to allow for the negotiations between the parties. The case was subsequently reset for final hearing on March 16, 1983, the date the final hearing was conducted.
The Issue Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether there is competent substantial evidence to support certain findings in the Resolution; (2) whether the Commission departed from the essential requirements of the law by incorrectly applying and interpreting the definition of "public buildings"; and (3) whether the Commission denied Hoover "a fair and impartial hearing" by basing its decision "on a plebiscite from a hostile crowd." For the reasons expressed below, the Commission's Resolution is affirmed.
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 [[]].
The Issue The issues in this case are those which arise through the allegations set forth in an Amended Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against the Respondent. In its operative terms, Respondent is said to have committed violations of Sections 472.033(1)(g) and (h) and 472.005(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Factually, Respondent is said to have entered into a contract with Leonard Freed for the performance of land surveying services on a parcel of property which Freed owned. The contract price is said to be $6,000.00. Allegedly the Respondent began and had partially performed the work and had received $3,000.00 from Freed in payment. Respondent is alleged to have been negligent in his performance of the job in that he based an initial survey on a preliminary lot layout in contravention of the requirements of Chapter 21HH-6, Florida Administrative Code. It is further alleged that the contract entered into between the Respondent and Freed was such that the Respondent was called upon to design streets and layouts to include grades and drainage and that this arrangement exceeds the scope of the Respondent's land surveyors license. Finally, some reference is made to the fact that Respondent had previously been disciplined by the Board of Land Surveyors in Case No. 54633 for which he was fined $1,000.00 and ordered to serve 27 months probation, through the terms of a Final Order entered by that Board on October 1, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Those persons who are engaged in the profession of land surveying in the State of Florida are licensed by and subject to the discipline of the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Land Surveyors. This arrangement is in conjunction with the requirements of Chapters 120, 455, and 472, Florida Statutes and rules associated with those statutory provisions. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent, Frederick R. Bolt, was licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor through the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation and held license number LS 0003510. On or about July 31, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with one Leonard Freed to perform land survey services on a parcel of property owned by Freed. Said parcel of property is described in the contract as the Dorcas property. Total contract price was $6,000.00. According to the contract, a copy of which may be found as part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2, part of the work to be done by Respondent related to the Dorcas parcel was "street design & layout to include all grades and drainage." At the point and time where the contract was signed Respondent was paid $1,000.00. Subsequently, on August 18, 1987, a second installment of payment was given to the Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00. As related in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, Respondent had been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Professional Surveyors on a prior occasion. In that instance, the Respondent was found in violation of Sections 472.021 and 472.027, 472.033(1)(a), (g) and (h) and 455.227(1)(b) Florida Statutes, as well as Rules 21HH-2.01 and 21HH-6, Florida Administrative Code. The gravamen of the Administrative Complaint which underlies this prior disciplinary action related to the performance of his land surveying work and the performance of that work through a firm which had utilized a fictitious name and that had not been possessed of a certificate of authorization as required by Chapter 472, Florida Statutes. A $1,000.00 fine was imposed and the Respondent was placed on a period of probation for 27 months from the date of the Final Order, which date is October 1, 1985. During the probationary period Respondent was required to submit 25 surveys over to the Board for its review, representative of his practice and accompanied by field notes and record plat.
The Issue Whether the amendment to the Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners of Wakulla County in Ordinance No. 2002-28 is "in compliance" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Wakulla County Wakulla County sits on the western side of the Big Bend, an area of Florida that joins its panhandle to the state's peninsula separating the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Bounded on the north by Leon County, on the east by Jefferson County, on the west by Franklin and Liberty Counties, and on the south by the Gulf, more than 67 percent of the land area of Wakulla County is in public ownership. The bulk of publicly owned lands is in the Apalachicola National Forest. The land area of the County under public ownership is designated Conservation on the County's Future Land Use Map (the FLUM). Under the County's Comprehensive Plan only publicly- owned lands may be designated Conservation. The publicly-owned land lies mostly in the western portion of the County although it extends into the eastern half at the County's southern edge along the coast. Accordingly, almost all of the land area available for development to serve the population, including the City of Crawfordville, lies within the eastern portion of the County. There are two Urban designations under the County's Comprehensive Plan: Urban-1 and Urban-2. There are three areas in the eastern half of the county that have received Urban designations: Panacea and Shell Point, on the coast, and an area in and around the City of Crawfordville. Viewed on a percentage basis, Wakulla County has emerged recently as one of the fastest growing counties in the state. Professionals and retirees account for some of this growth and have served to increase the demand for new subdivisions with homes larger than traditional homes in the county. Geomorphology One of the most distinctive aspects of the County is its geomorphology. It lies entirely within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic province described by Florida Geological Survey's Bulletin No. 60 as: . . . characterized by generally flat, sandy terrain [that] extends from the coast inland to approximately the 100 foot contour line. In the panhandle of Florida, the east-west trending Cody Scarp forms the boundary between the Gulf Coastal Lowlands and the topographically higher Tallahassee hills to the north. In Wakulla County, the Gulf Coastal Lowlands include the poorly-drained pine flatwoods, swamps, and river basins that extend from the Gulf north into Leon County . . . . [T]he Gulf Coastal Lowlands are locally divided into a series of geomorphic subzones. (Petitioners' Ex. 60, p. 4). A geomorphic subzone that occupies almost all of the eastern half of Wakulla County is the Woodville Karst Plain. The Woodville Karst Plain With extensions into southern Leon County and western Jefferson County, the Woodville Karst Plain takes up almost all of the eastern part of Wakulla County, that is the portion of the county east of the Apalachicola National Forest. It is described by the Florida Geographical Survey, (FGS) an entity within the Department of Environmental Regulation as follows: East of a line drawn roughly north-south through the towns of Crawfordville and Panacea, the topography is comprised of an essentially flat veneer of sand overlying karstic limestone bedrock. Elevations average less that 35 feet above [mean sea level]. * * * The Woodville Karst Plain comprises the entire eastern portion of Wakulla County. Bounded on the west by the Apalachicola Coastal Lowlands, it extends eastward into Jefferson County and north to the Cody Scarp. A surface veneer of generally less than 20 feet of quartz sand lies on the karstic St. Marks Formation and Suwannee Limestone. The result is a topography of low sand dunes and sinkholes sloping gently towards the coast. Vegetation patterns on the plain vary with the degree of drainage. High and well-drained relict sand dunes at the north edge of the plain support a flora of pines, black-jack, and turkey oak trees. In contrast, wetter areas to the south are populated by cypress and bay trees . . . . Id., p. 7. The distinctiveness of the geomorphology of eastern Wakulla County is due to the Woodville Karst Plain's numerous karst features. Karst Features Karst features result when the limestone bedrock has been eroded by acidic rain water. If the erosion is sufficient to dissolve through the limestone sub-strata in a vertical fashion, there occur sinkholes or "Karst windows," a direct connection between the surface water and the aquifer. A wetland may be a karst feature, as well, although geologic tests are necessary to confirm whether a wetland is, in fact, a karst feature. A karst aquifer like the one below the Woodville Karst Plain is a limestone aquifer where extensive dissolution of limestone has occurred as the result of the acidic water interacting with it. If one were to examine the plain from above with the perspective of seeing the holes in the rock that lead to the aquifer, the plain would look like Swiss cheese. Because of the scattering of karst windows, sinkholes, caves and other features that give Karst topography a resemblance to Swiss cheese, Karst topographies like the Woodville Karst Plain are "typically highly vulnerable to contamination." Id. In karst settings where the aquifer is unconfined, as in the case of the Woodville Karst Plain, common contaminants such as fertilizers or household chemicals that reach or are deposited on the land surface are rapidly recharged to the aquifer through percolation or overland flow to a sinkhole. The Woodville Karst Plain's nature as an area of high recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is also promoted by its thin layer of clean sand that overlies the limestone. There are karst features, such as sinkholes, caves, springs and wetlands associated with these features throughout the State of Florida. These features put the state in a "fairly unique position." (Tr. 365). Among the prominent karst features in the Woodville Karst Plain that were the subject of evidence at the hearing are three: Wakulla Springs, the Spring Creek series of submarine spring vents, and Swirling Sink, the sinkhole into which Lost Creek flows at its termination not far from the Property at issue in this proceeding. Wakulla Springs A prominent feature of the Woodville Karst Plain, Wakulla Springs is a system of caves or conduits through which underground water flows before reaching the surface. It is located to the northeast of the Property at issue in this proceeding. Pollutants affecting Wakulla Springs come from the City of Tallahassee upgradient from the Springs. The contamination "stems from storm events, rain events, and runoff from the City of Tallahassee." (Tr. 391). The evidence in this proceeding did not establish that development on the Property will create adverse impacts to Wakulla Springs because the Property is downgradient from Wakulla Springs. There is another set of springs at issue in this proceeding for which the evidence leads to different conclusions: the fresh water springs the waters of which flow from Spring Creek through Karst features to discharge into the salt waters of the Gulf. Spring Creek Springs The Spring Creek submarine group, a series of seven spring vents that discharge fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico, begin at Spring Creek, five or six miles to the southeast of the property. Like Wakulla Springs, water flows through caves and conduits before emerging. Unlike Wakulla Springs in which the water flows only to the surface of land, waters from the Spring Creek group flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Freshwater springs in the state of Florida are estimated to number nearly 600. A first magnitude spring is one that "produce[s] the greatest amount of water." Petitioners' 54, p. 9. Of Florida's 33 first magnitude springs, the Spring Creek submarine group is the largest. The Spring group, therefore, is also the largest spring of the 600 or so in our State, the totality of which "may be the largest concentration of freshwater springs on Earth." Id., at 1. "Florida's Springs, Strategies for Protection and Restoration," prepared for the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Citizens of the State of Florida, by The Florida Springs Task Force in November of 2002, was data available to the County and DCA when the Amendment was considered. It states: A spring is only as healthy as its recharge basin . . . The groundwater that feeds springs is recharged by seepage from the surface through direct conduits such as sinkholes. Because of this, the health of spring systems is directly influenced by activities and land uses within the spring recharge basin. (Petitioners' Ex. 54, p. 11). The Florida Geological Survey is in the Division or Resource Assessment and Management in the Department of Environmental Protection. Its Special Publication No. 47 (the Special Publication), is entitled "The Spring Creek Submarine Group, Wakulla County, Florida," and is dated 2001. It states that "[g]round-water flow in the karst drainage system of the upper Floridan aquifer system of the Woodville Karst Plain is likely controlled in part by the fracture (lineament) pattern in the carbonate bedrock . . . ." Petitioners' No. 61, p. 10. A lineament is a "geologic term for a linear fracture or fault that typically is observed either in the field or through photographic analysis." (Tr. 395). The question "would . . . karst features be part of what caused a geologist to conclude that a lineament was present," elicted this response from Tim Hazlett, Ph.D., an expert in hydrogeology: Yes. The karst features and the lineaments typically coincide in karst environments because the lineaments provide preferential pathways for flows, so you'll get sinkholes, for example, that line up along a lineament. That's very typical in a karst situation. Id. The narrative in the Special Publication refers to Figure 7 which shows the fracture pattern of lineaments that run along Lost Creek and then continues in a southeasterly direction to Spring Creek. The Figure indicates "[p]ossible underground flow from Lost Creek to Spring Creek." Petitioners' No. 61, p. 11. The Special Publication states that "[b]ased on the predominant ground-water pattern of the Woodville Karst Plain, and the trend of the lineaments associated with both Lost Creek and Spring Creek, it is postulated that the upgradient source of groundwater supplying the Spring Creek springs is, at least in part, the surface water from Lost Creek. Lost Creek Originating in the Apalachicola National Forest just north of the county line, Lost Creek flows to the southeast. After crossing the Leon County line, it rambles roughly nine miles through forested lands in Wakulla County. The creek terminates when it turns underground into Swirling Sink, a sinkhole at a point southwest of the center of Crawfordville. As Intervenor Suber states in review of Petitioner Lambou's testimony, "Lost Creek is a surface stream that flows from Leon County, southeast through western Wakulla County to the western edge of the Woodville Karst Plain, where it disappears underground approximately a mile west of Crawfordville at a bridge at U.S. 319." Intervenor's Proposed Recommended Order, Para. 53, p. 15. When Lost Creek floods, waters to the southeast of the point at which the creek "disappears" form a sump or bowl in an area of low elevation that is contained within the bounds of State Road 319, State Road 98 and Rehwinkle Road. Also contained within these bounds and in the midst of the sump is the site of that with which this proceeding is concerned: the Property. The Property The Property is a 266-acre undeveloped tract located in the County off of Rehwinkel Road southeast of the City of Crawfordville. Formerly owned by St. Joe Timber Company, it is now owned by David F. Harvey, Rhonda K. Harvey, and L. F. Young. The timber company had used the Property for silviculture. The owners intend to sell it to Brad Suber for development purposes. The Property is bisected by a bay/cypress wetland. It occupies "on the order of 85 . . . [to] 86 acres" (tr. 580) of the Property. The wetland is described by others including Intervenor Suber as "large" (Suber PRO, p. 4, para. 13). The acreage it occupies on the Property will be referred-to in this order as the "Large Wetland." A report entitled "Environmental Report on Vegetation Communities, Wetlands, Protected Species and Wildlife on Rehwinkel Road Parcel Wakulla County, Florida" was prepared by Florida Environmental & Land Services, Inc., at the request of Intervenor Suber. On page 3 of the report, the Large Wetland is described: AREA 5 - Large bay/cypress wetland through center of parcel. This area comprises approximately 85 acres of the parcel. The swamp characteristics were similar throughout the swamp (except in AREA 9). Dominant tree species include bald cypress, black gum, red maple, sweetbay magnolia, and swamp tupelo. Many of the titi individuals were large enough to consider in the canopy layer. There were few shrubs other than titi and young individuals of the canopy species. There was essentially no groundcover layer because of long inundation periods, the winter sampling and a closed canopy. The trees showed evidence of long periods of inundation such as lichen lines, buttressing, hummocking, and stained trunks. There was heavy inundation within the access roads. No flows were evident. Joint Ex. 2, p. 367, (e.s.) The reference to the acreage of the Large Wetland was not intended to be a "definitive wetland delineation," rather "it was intended to just give an idea of [the] size . . . of the [Large] [W]etland . . . " (Tr. 859). Other evidence of record, however, establishes that the approximation was quite accurate. (See paragraphs 56 and 57, below). The Large Wetland occupies at least 85 acres of the Property. A delineation using an acceptable current methodology could yield a figure significantly more than 85 acres. Portions of the Large Wetland are within the 100-year flood plain and are subject to flooding. The Large Wetland extends roughly from the east side of the Property to the west where it connects with the Lost Creek watershed. The Property also contains a portion of an isolated cypress swamp and numerous small wet depressional areas, each less than two acres in size, on the Northern Portion of the site. The acreage of wetlands in the Northern Parcel is not included in any reference in this order to the acreage of the Large Wetland. The Property does not currently contain any significant residential or non-residential development or structures. Near-by Land Uses The Property is contiguous to land with the following FLUM designations: Urban-1 and Agriculture to the north; Rural- 1 and Rural-2 to the east and southeast; and Agriculture to the southwest and west. Lands located to the north, east and southeast of the Property are developed with scattered low density residential uses or are vacant. These lands include nearby agricultural land and a 1,100-acre tract recently re-designated Rural-1 from Agriculture. Land use bordering the property on the south, southwest and west is Agriculture. There is also a golf course to the south. The designation of use of the land bordering the Property on the southeast is Rural-2. Rural-1, Rural-2, and Agriculture Rural-1, also referred to by the Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) as "Agriculture/Rural Fringe," is a conventional agriculture and low density residential designation. Residential densities in the Rural-1 future land use category are one unit per five acres on paved County or state roadways, or one dwelling unit per ten acre on unpaved roadways. Rural-2, the designation of twenty of the acres of the Property re-designated by the Ordinance, is described in the Plan: Description - This designation provides for development of rural areas near emerging urban areas with a range of agricultural, residential, and supporting limited commercial activities. In addition, this classification includes some existing subdivisions. Specific areas for residential and commercial development in this designation are not shown on the map but are governed by the policies in this section which include criteria for the different kinds of development. (Joint Ex. 3, FLUE-8). The description states that existing rural enclaves, those "isolated from traditional rural or urban services such as central water and sewer service" (id.), are also identified by the Rural-2 designation. Industrial uses are prohibited in Rural-2. Commercial development on arterial and collector roads subject to conditions is permitted. Public land use including schools subject to certain conditions is permitted. Residential development is permitted, as are "[g]eneral agriculture and forestry activities . . . along with accessory activities." Id. The density limitations for residential in Rural-2 are "up to one (1) unit per two (2) acres with central water service or one (1) dwelling unit per five (5) acres without." Id., at FLUE-8 and 9. Actual density permitted, however, is based on access: Where average lot sizes (exclusive of open space in cluster or PUD developments) are less than (5) acres, each lot shall have frontage on a paved public road or on a private road maintained by an owners association and meeting the standards of Traffic Circulation Element Policy 2.3. Where average lot sizes . . . are greater than five (5) acres but less than ten (10) acres, each lot shall have frontage on a public road or on a private road meeting [certain standards]. Where average lot sizes . . . are ten (10) acres or more, access shall be provided. Id., at FLUE-9. The Plan has requirements for calculating residential density in areas that are wetlands or habitats for threatened or endangered species or wetlands. Habitat density is "maintained at the residential land use density for that land use designation." Id. Wetland density is "at an overall density of one (1) unit per twenty (20) acres." Id. Agriculture is also referred to in the Plan as "Primary Agriculture." Description - This designation is designed to address large scale timber industry and/or farming activities on privately owned property, along with limited non- agricultural uses. Joint Ex. 3, p. FLUE-4, Future Land Use Policy 1.2.2.(1). Uses allowed include forestry and agricultural uses and processing activities, including ancillary processing uses such as sawmills, residential uses at a maximum overall density of one unit per 20 acres, and public uses. Id., Policy 1.2.2.(2) and (3). Application for a Map Amendment The process that led to the Ordinance's passage in October of 2002 commenced on December 28, 2001, with the submission of the Owners' application for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The Owners applied for an amendment that changed all 266 acres, the 246 acres of Agriculture and the 20 or Rural- 2, to Urban-1. Urban-1, is also referred to in the Plan as "Urban Fringe." Description - This designation provides for higher density development in rural areas which are near urban areas or which are intended to become urban during the planning period. When full urban services are in place, an area designated for Urban-1 shall be converted to Urban-2 through the plan amendment process. This designation also accommodates existing clusters of development not strictly consistent with the Rural designation. Joint Ex. 3, p. FLUE-10, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.2.5.(1). Permitted uses under Urban 1 include residential and commercial development. Public uses including schools are permitted under certain circumstances. Light industrial and manufacturing uses may be permitted subject to location and compatibility standards. Among the density/intensity limitations in 1.2.5 of the Plan are residential at one unit an acre where no central sewer is available and at two units an acre where soil tests determine suitability for septic tanks and where central water is available. Under the proposed amendment, therefore, the maximum density allowable on 266 acres of Urban-1 would be 524 units. As explained elsewhere in this order, however, only 202 acres were re-designated Urban-1, making 404 units the maximum density pursuant to the re-designation. Transmission to DCA The proposed map amendment and two proposed text amendments were transmitted to DCA for review on May 6, 2002, with copies to various review agencies. Included in the plan amendment transmittal package was a copy of a recorded agreement entered by the property owners and Wakulla County entitled "A Development Agreement Restricting the Density of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment." Joint Ex. 1, p. The agreement restricts development on the 266-acre property "to facilitate the Owner's request" to "residential density maximum of one dwelling unit to the acre of uplands and developed on central sewer and water" Joint Ex. 1, p. 65. The restriction "shall run with the land and permanently restrict the use of the said land." Id. p. 66. Despite the maximum density allowable under the Amendment of 404 units, the Development Agreement restricts maximum density to 202 units. Development Agreements are data. Nonetheless, as explained by Charles Gauthier, the DCA's Chief of the Bureau of Local Planning, The review of future land use map amendments needs to be based on the maximum development potential available through the comprehensive plan. Development agreements, while important information, are outside the plan, so the level of development or other commitments in a development agreement aren't part of the direct plan or review, but its important information to understand the specific development agreement that's occurring. (Tr. 118, 119). This testimony is taken to mean that DCA review of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be conducted on the basis of maximum allowable density under the Amendment even if that density is restricted by the Development Agreement. Other data in the agreement, however, such as data related to provision of public services is relevant to a "compliance" determination. Regional Planning Council Objection On June 13, 2002, the Apalachee Regional Planning Council (RPC) issued its report. The RPC objected to the map amendment proposed by the Owners on four grounds, each followed by a recommendation. The first three objections related to density, commercial use and access. The RPC recommended density of no more than one unit per acre, retention of square footage policies concerning commercial development and provision of additional access. The fourth objection and recommendation concerned wetlands and floodplain areas: Objection 4: Of the 266 acres proposed to be changed to Urban 1, approximately 100-110 acres are wetland and 130-140 acres are within the 100 year floodplain. Recommendation: Do not include the wetland and floodplain areas in the land use change. Joint Ex. 2, p. 204. State Agencies Other Than DCA The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reported its review of the proposed change in a letter dated June 18, 2002. It provided comments and recommendations, also expressing concern about wetland and flood plain area protection: As indicated in the site assessment reports provided, a significant portion of the Rehwinkel Road Parcel is located within Flood Zone A on the Wakulla County Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel #120315 0250 B (1983). The flood plain wetlands at the center of the site contain drainage soils (primarily Lakeland, Otela and Ortega sands). The uplands to the north also contain numerous wet depressional areas - likely karstic sinkhole features. The Department recommends that the proposed residential development be limited to upland areas outside of Flood Zone A and that wetland/floodplain areas be given a conservation designation to prevent encroachment after initial construction. Prior to finalizing infrastructure development plans for the subject parcel, delineation and state verification of the landward extent of wetlands should be obtained, in accordance with the guidelines of Rule 62-340, F.A.C. Because the proposed development would be located on highly- permeable soils adjacent to seasonally inundated areas, we recommend that the applicant consider a full range of planning strategies to buffer wetlands/floodplain, limit impervious surfaces and treat stormwater to protect groundwater and nearby surface water resources. The proposed central water and sewer systems will reduce potential water quantity and quality impacts from potable water well withdrawals and septic tank system contamination. Early coordination of project plans with the Department's Northwest District Branch Office in Tallahassee is recommended to facilitate infrastructure design and prevent future permitting problems. Joint Ex. 2, p. 205. The Department of State reported that an archaeological site is recorded as a "general vicinity" site adjacent to the Property and that "aboriginal 'house' sites" are reported throughout the area. Id., p. 192. It stressed the "county's responsibility to ensure its historic sites and properties are considered when land use changes occur" and recommended "that the county sponsor a systematic survey of this parcel before allowing any changes in land use which will increase its density or intensity." Id. The Department of Transportation (DOT) had no objections, comments or recommendations as of its June 4, 2002, communication by letter with DCA. The communications from the RPC, DEP, Department of State, and DOT were reviewed by DCA prior to its issuance of an ORC Report. ORC Report Issuance of an "Objections, Recommendations and Comments" Report (an ORC) by the Department of Community Affairs is done whenever DCA has problems with a comprehensive plan amendment that could lead to a finding that the amendment was not in compliance if left unresolved. An ORC was issued to Wakulla County for the proposed FLUM amendment. The ORC, under cover of a letter to the Chairman of the Wakulla County Board of Commissioner dated July 18, 2002, stated the following: Objections, Proposed Amendment 3: The proposed map amendment does not demonstrate the suitability of this site for development considering the extensive wetlands and floodplains in the areas that are proposed for conversion to the Urban-1 Future Land Use Category. The proximity to the water table to the land surface, existing karst sinkhole features, extensive wetlands and 100 year floodplain indicate a high potential for water quality degradation and ground water contamination. Development of the southwestern portion of the site would require constructing road access through extensive wetlands and would place the singe access road within the 100 year floodplain. Potential isolation of this site during floods creates the potential for public safety, emergency management and evacuation problems. The proposed amendment is not consistent with Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b)1. and (2)(e), FAC, concerning site suitability; Rule 9J-5.-- 6(3)(b)4, requiring protection of natural resources; Chapter 163.3178(d)(d) concerning public evacuation during natural disasters; and Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) and Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) concerning need analysis. Recommendations: The land use change should be limited to the northern parcel with road access. The large, contiguous areas of wetlands and floodplain areas and the southern isolated parcel should not be included in this proposed land use change to the Urban-1 Future land Use Category at this time. Designation of the wetland areas as Urban on the FLUM implies a development potential. Wetlands and floodplains should be designated appropriately on the FLUM to prevent encroachment from incompatible land uses. Currently, the Conservation Future Land Use Category as written in the County's comprehensive plan is intended only for publically [sic] owned lands. This category could be amended to also afford protection to environmentally sensitive, privately owned land. A needs analysis of the Urban 1 and 2 areas of Crawfordville should be done to support the need for the proposed land change. Consistency with Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the following provisions of Chapter 187, FS: !87.201(10), FS, [sic] concerning the protection of ecological systems such as wetlands. 187.201(16), FS, concerning direction development to areas that can accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner and the separation of urban and rural uses. By addressing the objections noted in Section I., these inconsistencies with Chapter 187, FS, can be addressed. Joint Ex. 2, p. 223-4. An ORC Report provides an opportunity for DCA to raise questions about a proposed plan amendment and seek additional information. If the local government rejects DCA's recommendation, that does not necessarily mean that a plan amendment will be found not in compliance. Response to the ORC In response to the ORC, the County left 64 acres of the Large Wetland under the Agriculture designation. It did so after determining the Large Wetland to constitute 63.8399 acres of the Property. In computing the size of the Large Wetland, the County did not follow DEP's recommendation that it use the delineation methodology prescribed by Rule 63-340, Florida Administrative Code. Instead, the County used a Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System map, (the FLUCCS), the source of which was "FDEP," that shows the Large Wetland to be "63.8399 acres," (Joint Ex. 2, p. 196, 197), or slightly less than 64 acres. No data other than the FLUCCS was used by the County in determining the size of the wetland. The 64 or so acres identified on the FLUCCS was omitted from the proposed land use change and was left under the pre-amendment Agriculture designation as suggested by DCA in its ORC. Other available data, existing at the time of the Amendment, such as an orthoquad aerial depiction, demonstrate that the Large Wetland is significantly larger than 64 acres. Using soil maps and a planimeter, as explained by Petitioners' witness Craig Diamond: . . . generated large[] numbers. The flood plain is far greater than the wetlands on site, and the soils maps . . ., includes some . . . soils that are saturated or that exhibit moderate constraints with regard to drainfields. You . . . end up with number greater than 85 acres . . ., it's up in the hundred acre-plus range. (Id.) The decision of the County to leave only 64 acres of the Large Wetland was not based on the best available data. Use of available data existing at the time of the Amendment and that is better than the FLUCCS, such as aerial photography, soil maps, topographical maps and floodzone maps would have yielded a much higher number of acres than 64, just as did the approximation submitted with the proposed plan amendment by Mr. Suber. The size of the Large Wetland is at least 85 to 86 acres, and may be significantly greater. The Future Land Use Map Amendment On October 21, 2002, Wakulla County amended its Future Land Use Map (the FLUM). The Amendment was accomplished with the passage of Ordinance Number 2002-28, (the Ordinance) by the Board of County Commissioners of Wakulla County. The Amendment is described in the body of the Ordinance in technical terms: Future Land Use Map: Herein adopts the FLU Map revision as shown on the FLU Map dated October 21, 2002, consisting of: A revision or modification resulting from the adoption of the proposed County FLU Map Amendment Application Number CP01-05 of Amendment Cycle 2002-02, as cited in the ORC report by the Department of Community Affairs, from Agriculture and Rural-2 to Urban-1 Land Use Designation; Joint Ex. 1, Ordinance Number 2002-28, Amendment Ordinance, Page Three, Section 2. In essence, the Amendment changed to Urban-1, two FLUM designations of the Property in Eastern Wakulla County. The designations were changed from Rural-2 as to 20 acres of the Property and from Agriculture as to 182 acres of the Property. The 64 acres of the property not re-designated as Urban-1 remained designated as Agriculture. Given the configuration of the 64 acres of the Property left under the Agriculture designation, there are three separate parcels in the Property that were re-designated Urban- One is a portion on the Property north of the parcel (the Northern Parcel) that contained the 20 acres that had been Rural-2, as well as acres that had been agriculture. The second is a small portion to the northwest of the property (the Sliver) that is surrounded, for the most part by the Large Wetland. The third is a portion on the Property south of the Large Wetland (the Southern Parcel). Transmission to DCA, Review and an "In Compliance" Determination The Map Amendment was transmitted to DCA for review on November 1, 2002. On December 11, 2002, DCA issued its Notice of Intent to find the adopted Map Amendment in compliance. On January 30, 2002, the Apalachee Regional Planning Council approved a recommendation from its staff that the Amendment was consistent with the Apalachee Strategic Regional Policy Plan. In the meantime, on January 2, 2003, DCA received the petition for formal administrative hearing that initiated this proceeding. The Parties Petitioners Robert Alessi, Ronald Capron, Chad Hanson, Victor Lambou, and David Westmark are all residents of Wakulla County and owners of property in the county. Alessi and Capron live adjacent to the site of the FLUM Amendment that is the subject of this proceeding. All five of the Petitioners submitted written or oral comments to Wakulla County during the period of time between transmittal of the Amendment to the Department for review and final adoption of the Amendment by Wakulla County. Wakulla County (the County) is a local government subject to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The County adopted the Amendment found "in compliance" by DCA that is the subject of this proceeding. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA or the Department) is the state land planning agency. It has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (the Growth Management Act). Among its responsibilities is the review of local government comprehensive plans and amendments pursuant to the Growth Management Act. The Department's Notice of Intent to find the contested Amendment "in compliance" is the agency action that is at issue in this proceeding. Intervenor Brad Suber is a resident of Wakulla County. He is the developer and contract vendee of the property that is the subject of this proceeding. Mr. Suber's contract with the Property's Owners obligates him to pursue the Amendment, zoning and permits for development of the property at his sole expense. Mr. Suber hired experts necessary to prepare and process the plan amendment application. Like the Petitioners, he also submitted written and oral comments to the County during the period of time between transmittal of the Amendment to DCA and final adoption of the Amendment by Wakulla County. The parties agree that the Petitioners and Intervenor Suber are affected persons as defined by the Growth Management Act with standing to participate in this proceeding. Petitioners' Challenge Petitioners raise issues that fall into seven categories: (1) failure to protect wetlands and other environmental resources; (2) lack of water and sewer; (3) flooding (4) lack of supporting data and analysis; (5) urban sprawl (6) lack of need for the amendment; and, (7) internal inconsistency with the existing Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan. Wetlands and Environmental Resources The County requires protection of the 100-year flood plain, prohibits disturbance of wetlands except to avoid a taking, requires that predevelopment water quality of wetlands be maintained, and requires that the water quality of Wakulla County's groundwater resources be maintained at or above state standards. Development is allowed in flood plains under the County's Plan, and flood plains are common throughout the eastern part of the County. The Comprehensive Plan's Objectives and Policies mitigate the impacts of a future land use map amendment. They do not excuse, however, an FLUM amendment that is based on data that is convincingly incorrect. The DRASTIC Maps referred to in Infrastructure Element Policy 1.3.1(2), show that all of eastern Wakulla County is in one of the environmentally sensitive categories. The Plan allows the use of septic tanks in these areas because if septic tanks were prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas, the limitation on development in eastern Wakulla County would be severe. The applicant submitted an environmental assessment of the property with the original plan amendment application. Figure 3 in the environmental report identifies the soil types and soil distribution on the property based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Survey of Wakulla County, Florida, the data source referenced in Future Land Use Element Policy 5.12. Table 8 in the Soil Survey indicates whether the various soil types have slight, moderate, or severe constraints for the use of septic tanks for various types of buildings. The southern parcel is comprised of Lakeland sand and Otela fine sand. Both are considered upland soil types with only slight constraints for the use of septic tanks for dwellings without basements. The northern parcel consists of several soil types with the following constraints for use of septic tanks for dwellings without basements: 21 Lakeland Sand (predominant type) slight 17 Ortega fine sand slight 14 Ridgewood fine sand moderate 7 Otela fine sand slight 35 Rutledge severe Each of the above soil types is considered to be an upland soil, except for Rutledge soil located in the flood plain portion of the northern parcel. In addition, Plummer soil with severe constraints for use of septic tanks are located on the small area to the west of the northern parcel. These are not large areas compared to the remaining property and are not proposed for development in Mr. Suber's conceptual site plan. Soils with severe constraints are subject to state and local permitting standards at the development stage to insure that groundwater is not adversely affected. The Urban-1 future land use category authorizes residential uses at a density of two units per acre where soil tests determine suitability for septic tanks and where central water is available. The use of septic tanks on the property could adversely affect water quality by increasing the level of nitrates in the groundwater. The Wakulla County Comprehensive Plan contains the following objectives and policies related to septic tanks and water quality: OBJECTIVE 5: Development activities shall ensure the protection of natural and historic resources, and shall be limited where severe topographical and/or soil conditions exist. The land development codes shall be revised to implement this objective and the following policies: Policy 5.12: Proposed development in areas of severe soil limitations or topographic conditions, as identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Wakulla County, Florida (dated March 1991), shall be subject to density limitations and performance standards. The land development regulations shall establish these limitations and standards, including, but not limited to, the requirement that all development not served by sewer systems meet Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) standards for septic systems, Rule 10D-6, F.A.C., and requirements that certification of soil suitability be submitted for the technical review process prior to permitting of commercial buildings. Policy 7.5: All development in areas without central sewer services shall be governed by the provisions of section 381.0065, F.S., regulating on-site sewage disposal systems, and Chapter 64E-6, F.A.C., which regulates the installation of individual sewerage disposal facilities, unless otherwise specified. (Joint Ex. 3, pp. FLUE-23, 26, 28, Future Land Use Element.) OBJECTIVE 1.3: The County will implement mandatory requirements for inspections, operations and maintenance of on-site wastewater treatment systems. Policy 1.3.1: Use of on-site wastewater treatment systems shall be limited to the following conditions: * * * (2) Use of septic tank systems or alternative systems for new development will be allowed subject to modification in areas that are environmentally sensitive based on FDEP's "DRASTIC" map and other sources deemed appropriate. Policy 1.3.3: Issuance of all development orders or permits will be conditioned upon demonstration of compliance with applicable federal, state and local permit requirements for on-site wastewater treatment systems. (Joint Ex. 3, pp. IE-3, 4, Infrastructure Element.) Findings related to Wetlands and Natural Resources are in paragraphs 6-26 and 28-33, above. Sewer and Water Currently, there are no water or sewer services at the site of the Property. Subject to amendment of the City of Sopchoppy's Comprehensive Plan, water to the Property can be provided by City of Sopchoppy Water, as stated in the plan amendment application and as relayed to the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners by Mr. Suber's engineer. County sewer lines are located within one or two miles of the Property in two locations. Although the provision of sewer services to the Property is the responsibility of Wakulla County, any sewer lines run to the Property will be constructed at the expense of the owners or developer. The lines will be conveyed to the County. Joe Richey, the County's Director of Community Development, testified that Wakulla County is the sewer provider, and that capacity is available to serve development of the subject property. Capacity is a term that relates to the size of the sewer plant. The existence of "capacity" does not mean the County has a plan or intends to provide sewer lines. Department staff recommended that DCA not find the amendment in compliance in part because there was no corresponding amendment to the capital improvements schedule setting out the time frame for when public facilities would occur, who was going to pay for them and who was responsible for maintaining them. While the County may not have a plan, the developer would be responsible for running sewer lines to the property and would turn the lines over to the County under the Development Agreement between the County and the property owners. The agreement reflects the commitment of both that the subject property be served by central sewer. There is no requirement that a local government have a future conditions map for water and sewer facilities. At some time before development on the subject property occurs, the County's Plan should be amended to reflect the provision of sewer services to the property if it is developed on sewer. It is not necessary, however, that Wakulla County amend its Capital Improvement Element of its Plan to reflect the provision of sewer service to the property concurrent with the subject future land use map amendment. The plan amendment application, the Development Agreement and the testimony at hearing reflect that the Property will be developed with central water and sewer. Flooding Department staff testified there was not enough information provided by the County on flooding problems associated with the Amendment: great deal of Wakulla County is in various hurricane evacuation zones . . . because of the limitations of the site being in a hundred-year flood plain and in a wetlands system, . . . if a hurricane or a storm event came through and the property was flooded, there would be difficulty evacuating the residents from that property. [DCA Staff] felt like the County had not provided us information to refute that. (Tr. 91, 92). But Joe Blanchard, Director of Wakulla County Emergency Management, testified that there is adequate road capacity on Rehwinkel Road to evacuate residents of 404 units, the maximum allowed under the Amendment. Director Blanchard also testified that if 404 units were built on the Property and were to be evacuated in the event of flooding, that there is not currently capacity to shelter them but that there is hope to have adequate shelter soon: We probably do not [have adequate shelter for 404 new units at the Property] . . . [T]hrough a grant hopefully we will have the Shadeville School very soon approved. It is now approved as a shelter, it just doesn't have the shutters in place. Once the Shadeville School is complete, we will have a surplus of shelter space. (Tr. 1089). He was not asked a question about current capacity to shelter residents of the 202 units to which the Property is restricted by the Development Agreement. "Storm surge is the abnormal rise in water level caused by the wind and pressure forces of a hurricane or tropical storm. Storm surge produces most of the flood damage and drownings associated with storms that make landfall or that closely approach a coastline." Petitioners' Ex. 21, Introduction. Most of the Property would be inundated by storm surge during a Category 2 Hurricane, a hurricane with less force and storm surge than a Category 3. (See Petitioners' Ex. 21, Plate No. 5. Petitioners offered no evidence at hearing, other than Mr. Blanchard's reference to evacuation in the event of a Category 3 hurricane, of the contents of an applicable county or regional hurricane evacuation plan. Data and Analysis Following the staff recommendation, DCA determined that "the data was somewhat weak and the analysis was weak, but . . . relevant, and given the nature of the amendment, ultimately appropriate." (Tr. 117). The data concerning the size of the Large Wetland was not merely weak. It was incorrect. It was also determined above the staff level at DCA that "there was a lack of adequate issues . . . adverse impacts to find the amendment not in compliance . . . essentially . . . there was a lot of smoke but no real fire with the amendment . . . [because] the staff recommendation was more based on the incomplete analysis." (Tr. 120, 121). From this record, it appears that with regard to wetlands incorrect data was used by the County. This data was not corrected when DCA conducted its review that led to its finding of "in compliance." Furthermore, the analysis conducted after the staff recommendation did not include available data and analysis that indicate adverse impacts to natural resources related to the Large Wetland. It must be recognized that each future land use category in the County's Plan that allows residential use contemplates that wetlands will be included in the category and limits densities in those wetlands. Furthermore, there is no express statutory or rule prohibition against including wetlands in a land use category that authorizes development, and the County's Plan, which does just that, has been found in compliance. That is not to condone, however, an amendment that is founded on incorrect data or incomplete analysis. This record demonstrates that the amendment designated at least 21 acres of the Large Wetland as Urban-1 and that the designation poses a potential for pollution to groundwater and surface waters. The amendment is not supported by available data and analysis concerning the wetlands and the impact development could have on natural resources. The County did not react to available data with regard to the wetlands and natural resources in an appropriate way when it designated 202 acres of the Property Urban-1. Need Both Intervenor's expert land use planner and the County's Director of Community Development testified that there is a need for the map amendment. The opinion of Intervenor's expert is generally based upon the location of the property adjacent to the urbanizing Crawfordville area; the fact that the number of units potentially authorized by the map amendment is largely offset by urban lands acquired by the state and federal governments in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) that are no longer available for urban development; continuing state acquisition efforts in environmentally sensitive areas; the relatively few future land use map amendments for residential uses that have occurred since Plan adoption; and an analysis of population projections compared to the residential development potential of the various future land use categories under the County's Comprehensive Plan. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b) provides: (2) Land Use 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. * * * An analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant and undeveloped land in order to determine its suitability for use, including, where available: 1. Gross vacant or undeveloped land area . . . . Wakulla County has not tracked development and does not have information available on undeveloped land. Since Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b)1. expressly requires an analysis of vacant or undeveloped land area only if the data is available, the amendment cannot be found not "in compliance" for failure to comply with Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b)1. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c) requires: An analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate the projected population, including: The categories of land use and their densities or intensities of use; The estimated gross acreage needed by category; and A description of the methodology used. The Property is located immediately adjacent to the City of Crawfordville urban area and other lands designated Urban-1 on the County's Future Land Use Map. The Courthouse in Crawfordville is the center of the County and is approximately 1.2 miles from the property. Crawfordville is the County seat where public buildings and services are located. It is the County's employment center, with banks, grocery stores, beauty salons, and other businesses, all within a few miles of the property. The only other areas of the County designated for urban development are in Panacea and Shell Point. Both of these areas are within the CHHA. The County's Comprehensive Plan contains policies to discourage high-density growth in the CHHA, direct population concentrations away from the CHHA, and limit public expenditures that subsidize development in the CHHA. It is more appropriate to encourage development adjacent to the growing Crawfordville area than in the CHHA or other areas of the County. In 1999, the State of Florida acquired 41 acres in the CHHA in Panacea for conservation and recreation land uses. This land is designated Urban-2 on the County's Future Land Use Map. The maximum potential residential density on the 41 acres acquired by the State was 164 dwelling units. In 2001, the federal government acquired 90+ acres near Shell Point for a wildlife refuge. This property is also in the CHHA and is designated Urban-1 on the County's Future Land Use Map. The maximum potential residential density on this 90+ acre acquisition is at least 180 dwelling units. Wakulla County is in the process of preparing a plan amendment to change the use of land for all government acquisitions of land that have occurred in the County. Based on the Future Land Use Map, all such acquisitions are redesignated to the Conservation future land use category, which is consistent with the public purposes for which the lands are acquired. The Amendment at issue in this case will result in a maximum potential increase of 375 residential units on the property, based strictly on the density limitations in the future land use categories. The combined maximum potential density on the properties acquired by the State and federal governments is 344 residential units. If the maximum development potential on the subject property is offset by the maximum development potential of the recently acquired public lands, the Amendment will increase the overall maximum potential residential density in Wakulla County by only 31 dwelling units. The analysis of Intervenor's expert contained a number of computational errors. These errors did not affect the offset of the loss of residential land purchased by government. Urban Sprawl When taken as a whole, the Amendment does not contribute to urban sprawl. The property abuts urban areas near the "downtown" section of Crawfordville. It is within a development corridor for the County. It is a relatively small parcel of land. Internal Inconsistency Petitioners contend that the Amendment produces an internal inconsistency because policies of the conservation element relied upon for protection against adverse impacts to wetlands and natural resources have not been implemented by the County through the adoption of land development regulations. The Department responded with an explanation of its scope of review of amendments to comprehensive plans: [DCA's] assumption and . . . review [is] based on the policies in the plan, and [the] premise that these polices were followed through on. The Department does not have any direct purview over land development regulations or development permits . . . [I]f third parties believe the County had not put land development regulations in place or had in place inconsistent regulations or was issuing inconsistent development permits, Chapter 163 offers different challenge mechanisms for those matters. [DCA] review is . . . based on the corners of the plan and the policies of the plan . . . (Tr. 178, 179).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the amendment to the Future Land Use Map of Wakulla County's Comprehensive Plan passed by Ordinance 2002-28 of the Board of Commissioners of Wakulla County be determined to be not "in compliance." DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Colleen M. Castille, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Jordan, Acting General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 3205 Brentwood Way Tallahassee, Florida 32308-2705 Debra A. Swim, Esquire 1323 Diamond Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna Biggins, Esquire 515 North Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig Varn, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Offices of Robert C. Apgar, P.A. 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondents failed to abide by various minimal technical standards applicable to the practice of surveying and mapping, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J- and 5J-17.052, or were guilty of negligence in the practice of surveying and mapping, all in violation of section 472.0351, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of land surveying and mapping, pursuant to chapter 472, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Mr. Haas was licensed as a professional surveyor and mapper in the state of Florida, with license number LS3708. Mr. Haas was employed by Exacta, which holds license number LB7337. A complaint was filed with the Department on January 27, 2014, by Mr. Charles B. Hatcher of Associated Surveyors, Inc., alleging numerous minimum technical standards errors on a survey prepared by Mr. Haas on September 25, 2012. Petitioner has failed to prosecute Mr. Haas or Exacta for the violations alleged in the complaint made by Mr. Hatcher, on January 27, 2014. Administrative complaints alleging identical counts were filed against Mr. Haas and Exacta. Count I alleges that some of the field data was not dated. Count I also alleges that the coordinates are not on the same datum as the survey, and thus, the survey map cannot be substantiated. Page 12 of Exhibit P-1, a page of computation notes, does not contain the date the information was observed and collected. Further, it is clear that page 12 is not simply a continuation of pages 10 and 11 (which are two halves of the same document) but is instead a separate document that is undated. Data shown in the raw data file and coordinates list differed from that reflected on the survey map. It appeared, however, that the data had been rotated and translated. Rotation and translation is an accepted survey technique which allows modern instrumentation to record data based upon an assumed initial point and bearing, and then calculate all further points and bearings relative to that initial measurement. This information recorded by the instrument must then be rotated and translated back to match the actual points and bearings on a parcel. The Department failed to show that the survey map could not be substantiated. As Mr. Gloer testified during cross examination: Q. My question is, wasn't it clear to you that the assumed bearing that Mr. Blackmon made, our party chief, on page 4 in his instrument-–in his data collector between Points 1 and 2 of a bearing of north zero degrees, or an azimuth of north zero degrees--isn't it clear to you that then in order for it to make sense on this drawing and all the other lines too, that you would have to rotate that to get on the same bearing basis? Doesn't that jump out to you as an expert, having done over 2,000 surveys? A. At the time two years-–well, it's been a year. A year ago when I did this original review, I based it on the data that was supplied to me. Now that you have explained it to me and I see that there is a note here that said they rotated it, yes, it's clear to me now, yes. Count II alleges that the field notes that are dated show a date of 9/24/12, while the survey drawing shows a field work date of 9/25/12. The parties stipulated as to the different dates shown on these documents.2/ The dated field notes show that field work was performed on September 24, 2012. The clear and convincing evidence is that the date of data acquisition was September 24, 2012, while the date on the survey drawing is September 25, 2012. Count III notes that the survey shows a found 3/4" iron rod at the point of beginning, notes that this appears to be the same corner shown on the coordinate list as point number 8, and states that the field notes do not show the setting or locating of the corner. The complaint concludes that this corner is not supported by accurate survey measurements. The notation "P.O.B." is found at the lowest corner of the property on the survey map, and underneath the corner is found the note "3/4 FIR NO ID." According to the Surveyor's Legend found on page 2, this indicates that the point of beginning is marked by a 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification, as Mr. Gloer testified. While page 12 shows a point marked as "set #8 @ DEED Dist/Dist frm 5 & 152" on the lot corner, it indicates this monument was set, and does not indicate a found iron rod. Point "6" has no notation at all on page 12 and does not appear to be aligned on the southeast property line, but point 6 is reflected in the raw data file and the coordinates list. The measurements to point 6, and description of it, are consistent with and support the property corner marked as the P.O.B. on the survey map. Count IV alleges that bearings shown on the survey as measured are not substantiated by the survey measurements in the raw data or coordinate list. Mr. Gloer testified that he inversed the data from the coordinates and that the bearings were different. However, as he admitted, he did not consider that the recorded survey measurements might reflect an assumed initial location and bearing and that they would therefore need to be rotated and translated to substantiate the bearings shown on the survey map. The Department failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the bearings shown on the survey were not substantiated by measurements. Count V alleges that the three points used to locate the improvements, monumentation, and control for the survey are not part of a closed traverse and are not based on redundant measurements. As Mr. Gloer testified, the distance between points 1 and 2 was verified by redundant measurements: once measuring the distance from point 1 to point 2, and once measuring the distance from point 2 back to point 1. However, the angle created between points 2, 1, and 150 was not similarly measured on more than one occasion or from the opposite direction. Respondents argue that use of an instrument such as the robotic total station used here, which takes numerous measurements very quickly and then averages them, is, by definition, taking redundant measurements. However, Mr. Gloer testified that in his expert opinion, "redundant" measurement has a more specific meaning. It requires that an "independent check" be made. He noted that if a rodman had the rod on his toe, all of the measurements almost instantaneously taken and averaged by an instrument would reflect the same incorrect information and so these multiple readings would not serve the purpose of revealing the mistake and preventing the error. Only an independent measure, like shooting the distance backwards, would likely reveal the error and thus meet the purpose of a "redundant" measurement. The angle created between points 2, 1, and 150 was not verified by redundant measurements. Count VI alleges that the survey is based on found monumentation on the parcel being surveyed. No attempt was shown to find the point of commencement or boundary monumentation along the boundary of Beauclerc Gardens Replat, both of which are called for in the description. The legal description provides in part, "commence at an iron pipe located in the northeasterly line of Section 40, Township and Range aforementioned, at a point where said line is intersected by the line dividing Sections 31 and 32." Mr. Gloer testified that to ensure that the position of the boundary of real property was determined in complete accord with this real property description, an attempt to find the point of commencement and the boundary of Beauclerc Gardens Replat was required, and that there was no evidence that this was done. However, no evidence was presented to indicate that the survey as conducted was not in complete accord with the property description as attached to the survey map. Count VII alleges that the survey does not tie to an established identifiable real property corner. As Mr. Gloer testified, the parcel being surveyed was described by metes and bounds. Nothing on the survey tied into any identified corner of Beauclerc Gardens. The survey did not tie into a real property corner of either lot 1 or 2 of Beauclerc Gardens, which were the closest lots. Instead, the survey was tied to a monument on the line south of Beauclerc Terrace on that right-of-way, identified on page 12 as point "151." That point was not an established identifiable real property corner of Beauclerc Gardens. As Mr. Gloer testified, the survey did not tie to an established identifiable real property corner. Count VIII alleges that the field notes and raw data do not show either the fence corner or the water meter that supposedly made the two nearby corners inaccessible. The computation notes at page 12 and the survey map on page 1 do not show a monument set at the most easterly corner of the lot, but they do show an offset point and reasonably indicate that a water meter is at the corner. Similarly, neither the computation notes nor survey map show a monument set at the most westerly corner of the lot, but the survey map shows an offset monument and has an indication that there is a fence post at the corner. Mr. Gloer noted that neither the water meter nor the fence post, if they existed, had been positively located on the field notes or raw data as being at the corners.3/ Mr. Gloer noted that the coordinates list indicated that the location of the water meter was calculated. Count IX alleges that there is a monument shown in the field notes, point number 6, but not shown on the survey. As discussed earlier in connection with Count III, the field computation notes appear to show two monuments in fairly close proximity to the southernmost corner of the property. The survey map at page 1 shows only one monument at this corner, labeled "P.O.B." and described as "3/4 FIR NO ID" which, as noted above, refers to a 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification. This descriptive information appears to correlate with the side shot of point 6 found on page 6 of the raw data file and page 9 of the coordinates list. While the field notes are confusing, the Department did not show by clear and convincing evidence that point number 6 was not shown on the survey. Count X alleges that all the monuments were tied by side shots without a redundancy of the measurements. The raw data at page 4 indicate that the 1/2 inch found iron pipe and cap marked with "R. Miller," which is shown as the easternmost monument on the survey, was located by a side shot, a single measurement, and that Mr. Blackmon only turned one angle and one distance to that point. Similarly, the data at page 5 show that the 1/2 inch found iron pipe with no identification which is shown as the northernmost monument on the survey was located by a single side shot. Again, the data on page 6 show that the 3/4 inch found iron rod without identification which is shown as the southernmost monument and point of beginning on the survey was located by a side shot. The data sheets show no other ties to these points taken from another position, or otherwise demonstrate that redundant measurements were taken. Count XI alleges that the survey dated September 25, 2012, was negligently prepared. On this point, the Transcript records: Q. And then one final question, Mr. Gloer. In your professional opinion, expert opinion, do you believe that these ten MTS violations that you have discovered, taken as a whole constitutes-–of the minimum technical standards, taken as a whole, constitutes negligence in the practice of surveying and mapping in the State of Florida? A. I do. This question and answer, predicated on considering ten other violations as a whole, offers no insight as to whether a fewer number of violations might constitute negligence, or whether some of the violations are so serious, or are of such a nature, that they might do so even standing alone. No evidence was introduced at hearing to indicate that Mr. Haas' professional license has been previously disciplined. Exacta was the subject of five earlier administrative complaints alleging violations of Minimal Technical Standards, which were the subject of a Settlement Stipulation. Given the terms of the stipulation, there is no competent evidence showing that Exacta committed prior offenses. However, the Corrected Final Order Approving Settlement Stipulation constitutes prior disciplinary action against Exacta.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Board of Professional Surveyors and Mappers: Finding Wesley Brian Haas and Exacta Land Surveyors, Inc., in violation of section 742.0351(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for failing to conduct surveying and mapping in accordance with the minimum technical standards prescribed by Florida Administrative Code Rules 5J-17.051(2)(b)3., 5J-17.051(3)(b)3., 5J-17.051(3)(b)15.b.(II), 5J-17.052(2)(a)8., and 5J- 17.052(2)(b)7.; imposing an administrative fine of $1500.00 on Wesley Brian Haas; and imposing an administrative fine of $4000.00 on Exacta Land Surveyors, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations involved in this administrative hearing, the Respondent, Dennis Heasley, was a licensed land surveyor having been issued license number LS 3466 by the State of Florida. In January 1981 Respondent was an employee of James Bushouse and Associates, a land surveying firm. On January 31, 1981, MidSouth Engineering (MidSouth), a licensed land surveying company, entered into a contract with Figg and Muller Engineers, Inc., and the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, to provide engineering and land surveying services for the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge project. On June 10, 1981, MidSouth entered into a contract with Bushouse for Respondent, Heasley, and other Bushouse employees to perform some of the land survey services called for in the contract MidSouth had with the Department of Transportation. Thereafter, MidSouth entered into an agreement with Respondent Heasley and one Jorge R. Saniz providing that, for a fee of $200,000.00 Heasley and Sainz would provide land surveying and consulting services to MidSouth for its work under its state contract. On or about June 26, 1981, Heasley and Sainz began their work under the agreement with MidSouth, and the work called for by the agreement was satisfactorily completed by July 31, 1981. Thereafter, Heasley billed MidSouth for the unpaid remainder of the contract price and was paid. The contract between MidSouth and the State of Florida provided for payment by the State based on crew day rates wherein the State would pay so much money per crew day expended. The work in issue here was to take no more than 85 crew days with an upper limit on payment to be approximately $300,000.00. Respondent actually completed the work in 34 days. His speedy completion of the job resulted in MidSouth receiving less under its contract than anticipated. Shortly after completion, he became an employee of MidSouth. In the course of his continuing employment, he worked on some other aspects of the bridge project that were awarded to MidSouth. Respondent's lump-sum contract with MidSouth called for payment to him of $200,000.00. Out of that sum he was supposed to pay all his and Sainz' job expenses which included the salary, housing, and feeding of the employees he hired to perform the actual surveying work. His understanding with MidSouth called for him to utilize approximately 12 to 16 crew members. During the time the work was being performed, Respondent and Mr. Sainz rented a house near the work-site in which crew members were provided a place to live. Food paid for by Respondent Sainz was provided as were laundry facilities. The sums paid for these items as well as the transportation of the workers and the worker's salaries were to come from the $200,000.00 fee paid by MidSouth. Payments were made on the basis of periodic draws. Either Heasley or Sainz would contact MidSouth and state that some money was required for expenses and a sum was furnished. As this sum was expended Respondent would ask for more. He indicates that the relationship was like a game in that he asked for as much as he thought he could get and MidSouth would pay as little as it thought it could get away with. In any event, no actual per diem monies were paid by Respondent to the employees who were working on the survey crew. Respondent admits that during the 34 days this arrangement was in effect, he kept very few records and receipts. He relied on MidSouth to keep all the expense records and whatever receipts he received for money spent, he sent in to MidSouth which made up the payroll for Heasley and Sainz' crew members from the times he called in. Several months after the subcontract between Heasley, Sainz, and MidSouth was completed, Heasley was called by Tom Heinly, Executive Vice- President of MidSouth and his immediate supervisor, with a request that he, Heasley, prepare, sign and submit a list of per diem expenses for the crew which worked on the contract referenced above. In the course of the conversation, Heinly asked that it be prepared a certain way. In response, Respondent told Heinly that he could not do that because he had not paid the money as per diem payments but had provided payment in kind in the form of food, lodging, and laundry. Heinly advised Respondent to think about it and later called back again asking that Heasley prepare and sign a statement indicating per diem money paid. Heinly argued that MidSouth was entitled to the money and asked that Heasley do this as a favor. Again, Heasley refused. The third time Heinly called Heasley, he indicated that the list would be strictly a memorandum between Heasley and MidSouth to account for some of the money advanced by MidSouth and that the list had nothing to do with the State. Heinly assured Heasley that the improper, inaccurate list would not go to the State since this was one of Heasley's concerns. Heinly indicated that he had talked with representatives of the State and had been assured that it was legitimate to file an invoice such as this. Heasley was led to believe that the State would not reimburse MidSouth for advances made for in-kind payments but would reimburse for actual per diem expenses. Ultimately, since Heasley was convinced by Heinly that MidSouth was entitled to be reimbursed for these monies and since, to the best of his recollection, he, Heasley, had paid out in in-kind expense a sum similar to that claimed on the per diem list, it would be all right to so certify. Therefore, he agreed to sign the list after the third request. The list which Heasley signed was prepared by MidSouth personnel, not Heasley, and was brought to Heasley by Mr. Duffer, MidSouth's chief accountant. Respondent does not recall going over the list at the time he signed it and verified neither the names nor the amounts set out thereon. When he checked it over much later, he found that some of the names on the list should not have been there. Respondent admits signing the document and admits that the document as signed was false. When investigators from the State Attorney's Office initially talked with Mr. Heasley about this incident he was less than forthright. Though they had advised him they were investigating the relationship between MidSouth and the Department of Transportation, the tenor of their questions indicated to him that they were investigating him and his answers were evasive and, in fact, erroneous. However, when he subsequently found out the nature of the investigation, he attempted to get word to the investigators that he would like to continue the discussion. He was unable to do so, however, and was not interviewed by these officials again. He was, however, subsequently interviewed by Mr. Cartwright who, in mid to late 1981, was conducting an investigation into the MidSouth, Heasley and Sainz relationship with the Skyway Bridge project. An engineer with the State had expressed some concern regarding invoices submitted by MidSouth and the preliminary inquiry showed some cause for concern. As a result, a full investigation was begun which revealed that MidSouth had little if any documentation to cover invoices submitted to the State. It also showed that the company's accounting procedures and internal control were almost nonexistent. As a part of the investigation Cartwright interviewed Heasley who admitted that he had signed the documents referred to above regarding per diem payments. Heasley also admitted that in some cases the payees did not receive the money claimed but in his opinion, the bottom line balanced out and MidSouth was entitled to the total sum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Dennis Heasley's license as a land surveyor in the State of Florida, be placed on probation for a period of two years, under such terms and conditions as shall be established by the Board of Land Surveyors, and that he be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January 1985 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 16th day of January 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. C. Deeno Kitchen, Esquire Melissa Fletcher Allaman Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are taken from the parties’ joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. The Property The Petitioners’ property is located at 475 Brown Drive, Ramrod Key, in Monroe County. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, the size of the site is 0.95 acres. The property is vacant and contains disturbed and undisturbed wetland habitat. The property’s immediate vicinity is described as residential development of single-family units to the west and south, environmentally sensitive lands to the south and east, and open water to the north. The property is legally described as “being a portion of Tract ‘A’, Ramrod Shores Third Addition, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida” having real estate number 00209971-004600. The property’s current Land Use Map Zoning Districts are Improved Subdivision (IS) and Native Area (NA). The property’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations are Residential Medium (RM) and Residential Conservation (RC). The Tier Designation is Tier III Infill Area. Relevant Prior County Actions On December 19, 1972, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) passed Resolution No. 146-1972 approving the Plat of Ramrod Shores Third Addition and filed for record in Plat Book 6 at Page 108 of the Public Records of Monroe County. The landowner was James M. Brown, as Trustee. The subject property is within Tract A of this plat. In 1986, Monroe County adopted a revised set of zoning regulations via Ordinance No. 33-1986. Ordinance No. 33-1986 also approved a revised series of zoning maps (also known as the Pattison Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county by reference. With the adoption of the 1986 Land Development Regulations and zoning maps, most of the Petitioners’ property was designated as IS zoning with a small portion as NA. In 1992, a revised series of zoning maps were approved (also known as the Craig Maps) for all areas of the unincorporated county. With the adoption of the revised (Craig) zoning maps, the Petitioners’ property remained designated as IS with a small portion as NA. In 1993, the County adopted a set of FLUM maps pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. BOCC Ordinance No. 016-1993 memorialized the approval. The FLUM maps took effect in 1997 after approval from the state land planning agency. With the adoption of the FLUM maps, the Petitioners’ property was designated as RM and a small portion as RC. On March 23, 2015, the Petitioners were provided a Letter of Current Site Conditions for the subject property. The letter summarized the environmental habitats on the property and the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The letter stated the KEYWEP score for disturbed portions of the wetland was 4.45. The score of 4.45 means the property was buildable, disturbed wetlands. The undisturbed wetlands consist of tidal mangroves and were by definition “red flag” wetlands. Disturbed wetlands may be developed under section 118-10, Monroe County Code. Development is not permitted in undisturbed wetlands where 100 percent open space is required. On November 24, 2015, the Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a single-family detached residential dwelling unit. On December 4, 2015, the County’s Planning and Environmental Resources Department (the Department) sent the Petitioners a notice that the Department denied their building permit application number 15106233. The notice informed the Petitioners that the Department’s decision may be appealed within 30 calendar days. No appeal was filed to challenge the propriety of the Department’s decision. The Department’s December 4, 2015, notice stated that the Ramrod Shores Third Addition Plat shows that the Petitioners’ property is located within Tract A. Although Tract A was subdivided into seven parcels, this was never shown as lots on an approved and duly recorded plat. The Department determined that the property did not meet the definition of “lot” in section 101-1, Monroe County Code, and did not meet the residential density requirements of the IS Land Use District in order to allow the proposed development of a dwelling unit. See § 130-157, Monroe Cnty. Code. On December 7, 2016, the Department received the agent’s BUD Application, File No. 2016-202. On December 22, 2016, the Department sent the agent a Notice of Deficiencies pursuant to section 102-105, Monroe County Code, after the application was reviewed by staff to determine if the application was complete and included the materials and information listed in section 102-105(b). On January 6, 2017, the Department received additional materials and information from the agent. On January 27, 2017, the Department notified the agent that the application was determined to be sufficient. On March 28, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD application to DOAH for adjudication. After the Petitioners sought to amend their application with a new basis for relief, DOAH relinquished its jurisdiction. On June 12, 2017, the Petitioners submitted an Amended BUD Application to the Department. After sending a second Notice of Deficiencies and receiving additional materials and information from the agent, the Department determined that the application was sufficient. The Amended BUD Application was suspended for 60 days, pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 214-2017, as a temporary emergency measure after Hurricane Irma made landfall in the Florida Keys on September 10, 2017. On November 9, 2017, the Department forwarded the BUD Application to DOAH for adjudication. Petitioners’ Actions The Petitioners purchased the subject property on April 23, 1990. Between 1990 and 1991, the Petitioners submitted an application to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for an on-site aerobic septic system. At first, the HRS denied the application based on lot size issues. The HRS Variance Review Board recommended disapproval of the septic system application on June 7, 1991, on the grounds of insufficient lot size and an illegal canal. After the Petitioners failed to obtain HRS approval in 1991, they took no further steps to develop the property until they submitted an application for a Letter of Current Site Conditions on January 30, 2015, and an application for a single- family residence on November 24, 2015. Mr. Olynger testified that the Petitioners purchased the property because of the ocean view and expected to build a house on the property. He testified that after the HRS denials in the early 1990s, he started the process of trying to develop the property again in 2014 because central sewer was now available. IS Land Use District Due to the density requirements for the IS Land Use District of one dwelling unit per lot, the Petitioners are unable to construct a single-family home, which is an as-of- right use in the IS Land Use District. The IS Land Use District permits other as-of-right and conditional uses. While Mr. Olynger disputed the economic productivity of some of these uses, it was not disputed that the property could potentially be used for (a) recreational purposes; (b) a community park; (c) beekeeping; (d) wastewater system; (e) Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) points or transferable development rights (TDRs); or (f) sold to a neighbor for open space, yard expansion or an accessory use, such as a pool. Mr. Bond testified that that the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Code allow landowners competing for the limited number of building allocations in the point-based ROGO to buy and donate vacant parcels such as the subject property to increase their ROGO scores. The subject property qualifies as a ROGO Lot and there is an active secondary market of people buying and trading ROGO Lots in Monroe County. Mr. Bond also testified that the Petitioners could apply for Future Land Use Map and Land Use (Zoning) District Map amendments to a category that would allow for the construction of a single-family dwelling based upon an adopted acreage density standard. The Petitioners have not made any such applications. There was no direct evidence on the fair market value of the property, as encumbered by the regulation.2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Petitioners’ application for relief under section 102-104, Monroe County Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state land planning agency and is statutorily charged with the duty to review amendments to local comprehensive plans and to determine whether the amendments are “in compliance,” pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted a local comprehensive plan that the County amends from time to time. 1000 Friends is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that maintains its headquarters in Tallahassee, Florida. Its corporate purpose is to ensure the fair and effective implementation of the Growth Management Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, through education, lobbying, research and litigation. 1000 Friends has approximately 3,500 members, 174 of whom live in the County. NPCA is a foreign, not-for-profit corporation that is registered to do business in Florida. Its headquarters are in Washington, D.C. It has a branch office in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida. NPCA’s purpose is to protect and preserve national parks, including Everglades National Park. NPCA has approximately 340,000 members, 1,000 of whom live in the County. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. Lowe’s is a for-profit corporation that owns and operates a business in the County. David Brown, along with his father and brother, is a co-applicant for the Brown amendment. For the purpose of this Recommended Order, the Department and the Intervenors aligned with the Department will be referred to, collectively, as Petitioners. Standing Lowe’s filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-44 (Lowe’s Amendment). Lowe’s submitted comments to the County concerning the Lowe’s Amendment during the period of time from the County’s transmittal of the amendment to the County’s adoption of the amendment. Brown filed the application with the County that resulted in Ordinance No. 08-45 (Brown Amendment). Brown resides in the County. Brown is a manager/member of BDG Kendall 172, LLC, which has a contract to purchase the larger of the two parcels on the application site. Brown is also a manager/member of BDG Kendall 162, LLC, which owns and operates a business in Miami-Dade County. Brown submitted comments to the County at the transmittal and adoption hearings. 1000 Friends submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. 1000 Friends presented its comments to the County on behalf of its members who reside in the County. 1000 Friends does not own property or maintain an office in the County. 1000 Friends does not pay local business taxes in the County and did not show that it is licensed to conduct a business in the County. 1000 Friends has engaged in fundraising, lobbying, and litigation in the County. Its activities include efforts to promote growth management, affordable housing, and Everglades restoration. 1000 Friends did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. NPCA submitted comments to the County during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. NPCA presented its comments to the County on behalf of NPCA members who reside in the County. NPCA does not own property or maintain an office in the County. No evidence was presented to show that NPCA pays business taxes in the County or that it is licensed to conduct business in the County. NPCA did not show that its activities in the County subject it to the provisions of the CDMP. Barry White and Karen Esty are residents of the County. They submitted comments to the County regarding the amendments during the period of time from the transmittal of the amendments to their adoption. The Amendment Adoption Process The applications which resulted in the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments were submitted to the County during the April 2007 plan amendment cycle. The County’s review process for comprehensive plan amendments includes a public hearing before the community council which has jurisdiction over the area of the County where the affected lands are located. Following the public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the community councils recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments. The County’s Planning Advisory Board also reviews proposed amendments before the transmittal and adoption hearings. Following public hearings on the proposed Lowe’s and Brown Amendments, the Planning Advisory Board recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments for transmittal and for adoption. The County planning staff recommended that the proposed amendments be denied and not transmitted to the Department. The principal objection of the planning staff was that the expansion of the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), an aspect of both proposed amendments, was unjustified. In November 2007, the Board of County Commissioners voted to transmit the amendments to the Department. The Department reviewed the proposed amendments and issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on February 26, 2008. In the ORC Report, the Department stated that expanding the UDB would be internally inconsistent with the CDMP because the need for the expansion had not been demonstrated. In addition the Department determined that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of wetlands, and the Brown Amendment was inconsistent with CDMP policies regarding the protection of agricultural lands. When the amendments came before the Board of County Commissioners after the ORC Report in March 2008, the County planning staff recommended that the amendments be denied, repeating its belief that the expansion of the UDB would be inconsistent with the CDMP. Under the County’s Code of Ordinances, an expansion of the UDB requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners. The County adopted the amendments through Ordinances No. 08-44 and 08-45 on April 24, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Mayor Carlos Alvarez vetoed the ordinances, citing inconsistencies with the UDB policies of the CDMP. His veto was overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Board of County Commissioners on May 6, 2008. On July 18, 2008, the Department issued its Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Amendments Not in Compliance. The Lowe’s Amendment The Lowe’s Amendment site consists of two parcels located in close proximity to the intersection of Southwest 8th Street, also known as Tamiami Trail, and Northwest 137th Avenue. The easternmost parcel, Parcel A, is 21.6 acres. The adjacent parcel to the west, Parcel B, is 30.1 acres. Neither parcel is currently being used. About 50 percent of both Parcels A and B are covered by wetlands. The wetlands are partially drained and show encroachment by exotic vegetation, including Melaleuca and Australian pine. The Lowe’s site is located within the Bird Trail Canal Basin, which the CDMP characterizes as containing “heavily impacted, partially drained wetlands.” Both Parcels A and B are currently designated Open Land under the CDMP, with a more specific designation as Open Land Subarea 3 (Tamiami-Bird Canal Basins), and can be used for residences at densities of up to one unit per five acres, compatible institutional uses, public facilities, utility and communications facilities, certain agricultural uses, recreational uses, limestone quarrying, and ancillary uses. East of the Lowe’s site is another parcel owned by Lowe’s that is designated Business and Office and is within the UDB. North and west of the Lowe’s site is Open Land. The Lowe’s site is bordered on the south by Tamiami Trail, a six- lane road. Across Tamiami Trail is land designated Business and Office. The Lowe’s amendment would reclassify Parcel A as Business and Office and Parcel B as Institution, Utilities, and Communications. The Lowe’s Amendment would also extend the UDB westward to encompass Parcels A and B. The Business and Office designation allows for a wide range of sales and service activities, as well as compatible residential uses. However, the Lowe’s amendment includes a restrictive covenant that prohibits residential development. The Institution, Utilities, and Communications land use designation allows for “the full range of institution, communications and utilities,” as well as offices and some small businesses. Parcel A is subject to another restrictive covenant that provides that Lowe’s shall not seek building permits for the construction of any buildings on Parcel A without having first submitted for a building permit for the construction of a home improvement store. The use of Parcel B is restricted to a school, which can be a charter school. If a charter school is not developed on Parcel B, the parcel will be offered to the Miami-Dade County School Board. If the School Board does not purchase Parcel B within 120 days, then neither Lowe’s nor its successors of assigns have any further obligations to develop a school on Parcel B. The Brown Amendment The Brown Amendment involves four changes to the CDMP: a future land use re-designation from “Agriculture” to “Business and Office”; an expansion of the UDB to encompass the Brown site; a prohibition of residential uses on the site; and a requirement that the owner build an extension of SW 172nd Avenue through the site. The Agriculture designation allows agricultural uses and single family residences at a density of one unit per five acres. The proposed Business and Office land use designation allows a wide range of commercial uses, including retail, professional services, and office. Residential uses are also allowed, but the Declaration of Restrictions adopted by the County with the Brown Amendment prohibits residential development. The Brown Amendment site is 42 acres. Some of the site is leased to a tenant farmer who grows row crops. The balance is vacant and not in use. The Brown site has a triangular shape. Along the sloping northern/eastern boundary is Kendall Drive. Kendall Drive is a major arterial roadway, a planned urban corridor, and part of the state highway system. On the site's western boundary is other agricultural land. There is commercial development to the east. Along the southern boundary is the 1200-unit Vizcaya Traditional Neighborhood Development, which is within the UDB. The entirety of the Brown site has been altered by farming activities. In the southwest portion of the site is a four-acre, degraded wetland that is part of a larger 28-acre wetland located offsite. The wetland is not connected to any state waters and the Army Corps of Engineers has not asserted jurisdiction over it. The wetland is not on the map of “Future Wetlands and CERP Water Management Areas” in the Land Use Element of the CDMP. The dominant plants in the wetland are exotic species. There is no evidence that any portion of the site is used by any threatened or endangered species. The Urban Development Boundary and Urban Expansion Area The principal dispute in this case involves the application of Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP regarding the expansion of the UDB. Policy LU-8F directs that adequate supplies of residential and nonresidential lands be maintained in the UDB. If the supply of lands becomes inadequate, Policy LU-8G addresses where the expansion of the UDB should occur. The UDB is described in the Land Use Element: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is included on the LUP map to distinguish the area where urban development may occur through the year 2015 from areas where it should not occur. Development orders permitting urban development will generally be approved within the UDB at some time through the year 2015 provided that level- of-service standards for necessary public facilities will be met. Adequate countywide development capacity will be maintained within the UDB by increasing development densities or intensities inside the UDB, or by expanding the UDB, when the need for such change is determined to be necessary through the Plan review and amendment process. The UDB promotes several planning purposes. It provides for the orderly and efficient construction of infrastructure, encourages urban infill and redevelopment, discourages urban sprawl, and helps to conserve agricultural and environmentally-sensitive lands. The County only accepts applications for amendments seeking to expand the UDB once every two years, unless they are directly related to a development of regional impact. In contrast, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, allows two amendment cycles in a calendar year, Amendments that would expand the UDB must be approved by at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Board of County Commissioners. Other types of amendments only require a majority vote of the quorum. Outside the UDB are County lands within the relatively small Urban Expansion Area (UEA), which is described in the CDMP as “the area where current projections indicate that further urban development beyond the 2015 UDB is likely to be warranted some time between the year 2015 and 2025.” The UEA consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall be avoided” when the County is considering adding land to the UDB. They are (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The “future” wetlands on this list are existing wetland areas delineated by the County on Figure 14 of the Land Use Element. A far larger area of the County, mostly west of the UDB and UEA, consists of lands that the CDMP directs “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. These are water conservation areas, lands associated with Everglades National Park, the Redland agricultural area, and wellfield protection areas. Policy LU-8F Policy LU-8F of the Land Use Element provides: The Urban Development Boundary (UDB) should contain developable land having capacity to sustain projected countywide residential demand for a period of 10 years after adoption of the most recent Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) plus a 5-year surplus (a total 15-year Countywide supply beyond the date of EAR adoption). The estimation of this capacity shall include the capacity to develop and redevelop around transit stations at the densities recommended in policy LU-7F. The adequacy of non- residential land supplies shall be determined on the basis of land supplies in subareas of the County appropriate to the type of use, as well as the Countywide supply within the UDB. The adequacy of land supplies for neighborhood- and community- oriented business and office uses shall be determined on the basis of localized subarea geography such as Census Tracts, Minor Statistical Areas (MSAs) and combinations thereof. Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof shall be considered along with the Countywide supply when evaluating the adequacy of land supplies for regional commercial and industrial activities. There is no further guidance in the CDMP for determining the “adequacy of land supplies” with respect to nonresidential land uses. Neither Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, nor Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 requires that local governments use a particular methodology to determine the adequacy of nonresidential land supplies. The County’s usual methodology for determining need is described in the Planning Considerations Report that the County planning staff prepared for the 2007 amendment cycle. A report like this one is prepared by the staff for each amendment cycle to evaluate the adequacy of the CDMP to accommodate growth and to evaluate pending amendment applications. The County compares a proposed use to its immediate surroundings and the broader area of the County in which the proposed use is located. The basic geographic unit used in the County’s need analysis is the Minor Statistical Area (MSA). Larger planning areas, called Tiers, are groupings of MSAs. The County is divided into 32 MSAs and four Tiers. The Lowe’s Amendment site is in MSA 3.2, but it is on the border with MSA 6.1, so the two MSAs were consolidated for the County’s need analysis regarding the Lowe’s Amendment, even though MSA 3.2 is in the North Central Tier and MSA 6.1 is in the South Central Tier. The Brown Amendment is in MSA 6.2, but it is close to MSA 6.1, so the County combined the two MSAs for its need analysis for the Brown Amendment. Both MSAs are in the South Central Tier. The Planning Considerations Report contains a 2007 inventory of commercial land. The only vacant land used in the analysis of available commercial land supply was land zoned for business, professional office, office park, or designated Business and Office on the Land Use Map. Although it is stated in the Planning Considerations Report that lands zoned or designated for industrial uses are often used for commercial purposes, this situation was not factored into the calculation of the available supply of commercial lands. The County also excluded any supply that could be gained from the redevelopment of existing sites. Petitioners contend, therefore, that the County’s need for commercial land is less than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report. On the other hand, Respondents contend that the County’s need for commercial land is greater than the planning staff calculated in the Planning Considerations Report because the County planning staff did not apply a “market factor” for commercial lands as it does for residential lands. A market factor is considered by some professional planners to be appropriate for commercial land uses to account for physical constraints and other factors that limit the utilization of some vacant parcels, and to prevent situations where the diminished supply of useable parcels causes their prices to rise steeply. The CDMP recognizes the problem in stating that: impediments can arise to the maximum utilization of all lands within the boundaries [of the UDB]. In some urbanized areas, it may be difficult to acquire sufficiently large parcels of land. In other areas, neighborhood opposition to proposed developments could alter the assumed density and character of a particular area. The County used a market factor of 1.5 (50 percent surplus) to determine the need for residential land. The County did not use a market factor in its analysis of the need for commercial land. The Department’s expert planning witness, Mike McDaniel, testified that the Department generally supports use of a 1.25 allocation (25 percent surplus). The County’s most recent UDB expansions for nonresidential uses (other than Lowe’s and Brown) were the Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland amendments in 2002. The Beacon Lakes and Shoppyland UDB expansions were approved despite the fact that the County did not project a need for more industrial land within the planning horizon. The need determinations for these amendments were not based on the use of a market factor, but on a percieved2`` need for the particular land uses proposed – warehouses and related industrial uses on large parcels to serve the Miami International Airport and the Port of Miami. The evidence indicates that the County’s exclusion from its analysis of industrial lands that can be used for commercial purposes, and additional commercial opportunities that could be derived from the redevelopment of existing sites, is offset by the County’s exclusion of a market factor. If the supply of commercial land had been increased 25 percent to account for industrial lands and redevelopment, it would have been offset by a 1.25 market factor on the demand side. The calculations made by the County in its Planning Considerations Report would not have been materially different. The Planning Considerations Report analyzes commercial demand (in acres) through the years 2015 and 2025, and calculates a “depletion year” by MSA, Tier, and countywide. A depletion year is the year in which the supply of vacant land is projected to be exhausted. If the depletion year occurs before 2015 (the planning horizon for the UDB), that is an indication that additional lands for commercial uses might be needed. The County planning staff projected a countywide depletion year of 2023, which indicates there are sufficient commercial lands in the County through the planning horizon of 2015. The County then projected the need for commercial land by MSA and Tier. MSA 3.2, where the Lowe’s site is located, has a depletion year of 2025, but when averaged with MSA 6.1’s depletion years of 2011, results in an average depletion year of 2018. The North Central Tier, in which the Lowe’s Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2023. The County’s depletion year analysis at all three levels, MSA, Tier, and countywide, indicates no need for more commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a depletion year of 2017, but when combined with MSA 6.1’s depletion of 2011, results in an average depletion year for the two MSAs is 2014. The South Central Tier, in which the Brown Amendment site is located, has a depletion year of 2014. Therefore, the County’s depletion year analysis, at the MSA and Tier levels, indicates a need for more commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County also analyzed the ratio of commercial acres per 1,000 persons by MSA, Tier, and county-wide. The countywide ratio is not a goal that the County is seeking to achieve for all Tiers and MSAs. However, if a Tier or MSA shows a ratio substantially lower than the countywide ratio, that MSA or Tier might need more commercial lands. The countywide ratio of commercial lands per 1,000 persons is projected to be 6.1 acres per 1,000 persons in 2015. MSA 3.2, in which the Lowe’s site is located, has a ratio of 11.3 acres per 1,000 persons. MSA 6.1 has a ratio of 2.6 acres. The average for the two MSAs is 6.95 acres. The ratio for all of the North Central Tier is 6.3 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison of the countywide ratio with the MSAs and Tier where the Lowe’s site is located indicates there is no need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Lowe’s site. MSA 6.2, where the Brown site is located, has a ratio of 4.1 acres per 1,000 persons. When combined with MSA 6.1’s ratio of 2.6 acres, the average for the two MSAs is 3.35 acres. The ratio for all of the South Central Tier is 4.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, a comparison with the countywide ratio of 6.1 acres indicates a need for additional commercial lands in the area of the Brown site. The County’s need analysis treated the Kendall Town Center as vacant (i.e., available) commercial land, but the Kendall Town Center is approved and under construction. If the Kendall Town Center had been excluded, the County’s projected future need for commercial land in the area of the Brown site would have been greater. The Planning Considerations Report does not discuss parcel size in its commercial need analysis. Lowe’s contends that the County should have considered whether there is a need for larger “community commercial” uses in the area of the Lowe’s site. Policy LU-8F refers only to the need to consider (by “Tiers, Half-Tiers and combinations thereof”) the adequacy of land supplies for “regional commercial activities.” Lowe’s planning expert testified that there are few undeveloped commercial parcels in MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that are ten acres or more, or could be aggregated with contiguous vacant parcels to create a parcel bigger than ten acres. Lowe’s submitted two market analyses for home improvement stores, which conclude that there is a need for another home improvement store in the area of the Lowe’s site. The market analyses offered by Lowe’s differ from the County’s methodology, which focuses, not on the market for a particular use, but on the availability of commercial lands in appropriate proportion to the population. Even when it is reasonable for the County to consider the need for a unique use, the County’s focus is on serving a general public need, rather than on whether a particular commercial use could be profitable in a particular location. Some of the assumptions used in the market analyses offered by Lowe’s were unreasonable and biased the results toward a finding of need for a home improvement store in the study area. The more persuasive evidence shows that there is no need for more commercial land, and no need for a home improvement store, in the area of the Lowe’s site. Lowe’s Parcel B is proposed for use as a school. The elementary, middle and high schools serving the area are over- capacity. Lowe’s expects the site to be used as a charter high school. Using an inventory of lands that was prepared by the County staff, Lowe’s planning expert investigated each parcel of land located within MSAs 3.2 and 6.1 that was over seven acres2 and determined that no parcel within either MSA was suitable for development as a high school. The record is unclear about how the Lowe’s Amendment fits into the plans of the County School Board. The proposition that there are no other potential school sites in the area was not firmly established by the testimony presented by Lowe’s. The need shown for the school site on Parcel B does not overcome the absence of demonstrated need for the Business and Office land use on Parcel A. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8F. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8F is fairly debatable. Policy LU-8G Policy LU-8GA(i) identifies lands outside the UDB that “shall not be considered for inclusion in the UDB. Policy LU- 8G(ii) identifies other lands that “shall be avoided,” including (1) future wetlands, (2) lands designated Agriculture, (3) hurricane evacuation areas, and (4) lands that are part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. A peculiarity of the UEA is that it is composed entirely of lands that “shall be avoided” when the County considers adding lands to the UDB. The Department contends that “shall be avoided” means, in this context, that the County must make “a compelling showing that every other option has been exhausted” before the UDB can be expanded. However, the CDMP does not express that specific intent. The CDMP does not provide any direct guidance about how compelling the demonstration must be to expand the UDB. Policies LU-8F and LU-8G appear to call for a balancing approach, where the extent of the need for a particular expansion must be balanced against the associated impacts to UEA lands and related CDMP policies. The greater the needs for an expansion of the UDB, the greater are the impacts that can be tolerated. The smaller the need, the smaller are the tolerable impacts. Because the need for the Lowe’s Amendment was not shown, the application of the locational criteria in Policy LU- 8G is moot. However, the evidence presented by Lowe’s is addressed here. Within the meaning of Policy LU-8G(ii)(a), the wetlands that “shall be avoided” are those wetlands that are depicted on the Future Wetlands Map part of the Land Use Element of the CDMP. About 50 percent of the Lowes site is covered by wetlands that are on the Future Wetlands Map. Petitioners speculated that the construction of a Lowe’s home improvement store and school on the Lowe’s site could not be accomplished without harm to the wetlands on the site, but they presented no competent evidence to support that proposition. The wetland protections afforded under the environmental permitting statutes would not be affected by the Lowe’s Amendment. Nevertheless, this is a planning case, not a wetland permitting case. It is a well-recognized planning principle that lands which have a high proportion of wetlands are generally not suitable for land use designations that allow for intense uses. The Lowe’s Amendment runs counter to this principle. Policy LU-8F(iii) identifies areas that “shall be given priority” for inclusion in the UDB: Land within Planning Analysis Tiers having the earliest projected supply depletion year; Lands contiguous to the UDB; Locations within one mile of a planned urban center or extraordinary transit service; and Lands having projected surplus service capacity where necessary services can be readily extended. The Lowe’s site satisfies all but the first criterion. The Lowe’s site is in the Tier with the latest projected supply depletion year. It is beyond fair debate that that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy LU-8G. Because a reasonable showing of need for the Brown Amendment was shown, it is appropriate to apply the locational criteria of Policy LU-8G. The Brown Amendment would expand the UDB into an area of the UEA that is designated Agriculture. The single goal of the CDMP’s Land Use Element refers to the preservation of the County’s “unique agricultural lands.” The CDMP refers elsewhere to the importance of protecting “viable agriculture.” Brown argued that these provisions indicate that the County did not intend to treat all agricultural lands similarly, and that agricultural activities like those on the Brown site, that are neither unique nor viable, were not intended to be preserved. Petitioners disagreed. The County made the Redland agricultural area one of the areas that “shall not be considered” for inclusion in the UDB. Therefore, the County knew how to preserve “unique” agricultural lands and prevent them from being re-designated and placed in the UDB. The only evidence in the record about the economic “viability” of the current agricultural activities on the Brown site shows they are marginally profitable, at best. The Brown site is relatively small, has a triangular shape, and is wedged between a major residential development and an arterial roadway, which detracts from its suitability for agricultural operations. These factors also diminish the precedent that the re-designation of the Brown site would have for future applications to expand the UDB. The Brown site satisfies all of the criteria in Policy LU-8G(iii) to be given priority for inclusion in the UDB. The County’s determination that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Policy LU-8G is fairly debatable. Policy EDU-2A Policy EDU-2A of the CDMP states that the County shall not purchase school sites outside the UDB. It is not clear why this part of the policy was cited by Petitioners, since the Lowe’s Amendment would place Parcel B inside the UDB. Policy EDU-2A also states that new elementary schools “should” be located at 1/4 mile inside the UDB, new middle schools “should” be located at least 1/2 mile inside the UDB, and new high schools “should” be located at least one mile inside the UDB. The policy states further that, “in substantially developed areas,” where conforming sites are not available, schools should be placed as far as practical from the UDB. Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policy EDU-2A because Parcel B, the school site in the Lowe’s Amendment, would be contiguous to the UDB if the Lowe’s Amendment were approved. However, when a policy identifies circumstances that allow for an exception to a stated preference, it is necessary for challengers to show that the exceptional circumstances do not exist. It was Petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that there were conforming school sites farther from the UDB in the area of the Lowe’s site. Petitioners did meet their burden. The County’s determination that the Lowe’s Amendment is consistent with Policy EDU-2A is fairly debatable. Urban Sprawl 1000 Friends and NPCA allege that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments would encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. The Department did not raise urban sprawl as an “in compliance” issue. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(g) identifies 13 “primary indicators” of urban sprawl. The presence and potential effects of multiple indicators is to be considered to determine “whether they collectively reflect a failure to discourage urban sprawl.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J- 5.006(5)(d). Indicator 1 is designating 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.” It was found, above, that the County had a reasonable basis to determine there was a need for the Brown Amendment, but not for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, this indicator is triggered only by the Lowe’s Amendment. Indicator 2 is designating significant amounts of urban development that leaps over undeveloped lands. The facts do not show that undeveloped lands were leaped over for either of the amendments. Indicator 3 is designating urban development “in radial, strip, isolated, or ribbon patterns.” The Lowe’s and Brown Amendments do not involve radial or isolated development patterns. What would constitute a “ribbon” pattern was not explained. Not every extension of existing commercial uses constitutes strip sprawl Other factors need to be considered. For example, both the Lowe’s and Brown sites are at major intersections where more intense land uses are commonly located. Under the circumstances shown in this record, this indicator is not triggered for either amendment. Indicator 4 is premature development of rural land that fails to adequately protect and conserve natural resources. This indicator is frequently cited by challengers when an amendment site contains wetlands or other natural resources, without regard to whether the potential impact to these resources has anything to do with sprawl. In the area of the Lowe’s site, the UDB generally divides urbanized areas from substantial wetlands areas that continue west to the Everglades. The Lowe’s Amendment intrudes into an area dominated by wetlands and, therefore, its potential to affect wetlands is an indication of sprawl. In the area of the Brown Amendment, the UDB generally separates urbanized areas from agricultural lands that already have been substantially altered from their natural state. The Brown Amendment invades an agricultural area, not an area of natural resources. Therefore, the potential impacts of the Brown Amendment on the small area of degraded wetlands on the Brown site do not indicate sprawl. Indicator 5 is failing to adequately protect adjacent agricultural areas and activities. Because this indicator focuses on “adjacent” agricultural areas, it is not obvious that it includes consideration of effects on the amendment site itself. If this indicator applies to the cessation of agricultural activities on the Brown site, then the Brown Amendment triggers this primary indicator. If the indicator applies only to agricultural activities adjacent to the Brown site, the evidence was insufficient to show that this indicator is triggered. Indicators 6, 7, and 8 are related to the orderly and efficient provision of public services and facilities. Urban sprawl is generally indicated when new public facilities must be created to serve the proposed use. Petitioners did not show that new public facilities must be created to serve the Lowe’s or Brown sites. The proposed amendments would maximize the use of existing water and sewer facilities. Petitioners did not show that the amendments would cause disproportionate increases in the costs of facilities and services. Indicator 9 is failing to provide a clear separation between rural and urban uses. The Lowe’s Amendment would create an irregular and less clear separation between urban and rural uses in the area and, therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment triggers this indicator. The Brown Amendment does not trigger this indicator because of it is situated between the large Vizcaya development and Kendall Drive, a major arterial roadway. The Brown Amendment would create a more regular separation between urban and rural uses in the area. Indicator 10 is discouraging infill or redevelopment. The CDMP delineates an Urban Infill Area (UIA) that is generally located east of the Palmetto Expressway and NW/SW 77th Avenue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Brown and Lowe’s Amendments discourage infill within the UIA. Petitioners did not show how any particular infill opportunities elsewhere in the UDB are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive for infill. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. The CDMP promotes redevelopment of buildings that are substandard or underdeveloped. Petitioners did not show how any particular redevelopment opportunities are impaired by the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments. However, the expansion of the UDB would diminish, at least to a small degree, the incentive to redevelop existing properties. This indicator, therefore, is triggered to a small degree by both amendments. Indicator 11 is failing to encourage or attract a functional mix of uses. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that this primary indicator is triggered. Indicator 12 is poor accessibility among linked or related uses. No evidence was presented to show that this indicator would be triggered. Indicator 13 is the loss of “significant” amounts of open space. These amendments do not result in the loss of significant amounts of open space, whether measured by acres, by the percentage of County open lands converted to other uses, or by any specific circumstances in the area of the amendment sites. Evaluating the Lowe’s Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment fails to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Evaluating the Brown Amendment using the primary indicators of urban sprawl and the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(h) through (j), it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment does not fail to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Land Use Analysis The Department claims that the Lowe’s and Brown Amendments are inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), which requires that the land use element of a comprehensive plan be based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to accommodate projected population. The Department believes the analyses of need presented by Lowe’s and Brown’s consultants were not professionally acceptable. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there was no need for the Lowe’s Amendment. Therefore, the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c). A preponderance of competent, substantial, and professionally acceptable evidence of need, in conformance with and including the methodology used by the County planning staff, demonstrated that the Brown Amendment is consistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c).3 Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5 - Natural Resources Petitioners contend the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, which require that the land use element of every comprehensive plan contain a goal to protect natural resources, and that every conservation element contain goals, objectives, and policies for the protection of vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, endangered and threatened species, and wetlands. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the CDMP does not contain these required goals, objectives, and policies. Therefore, Petitioners failed to prove that the Lowe’s amendment is inconsistent with these provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5.4 The State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners contend that the Lowe’s and Brown amendments are inconsistent with several provisions of the State Comprehensive Plan. Goal (9)(a) of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies address the protection of natural systems. Petitioners contend that only the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its policies. Goal (15)(a) and its associated policies address land use, especially development in areas where public services and facilities are available. Policy (15)(b)2. is to encourage a separation of urban and rural uses. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and policy. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies Goal (16)(a) and its associated policies address urban and downtown revitalization. Although the expansion of the UDB diminishes the incentive to infill or redevelop, Petitioners did not show this effect, when considered in the context of the CDMP as a whole and the State Comprehensive Plan as a whole, impairs the achievement of this goal and its associated policies to an extent that the proposed amendments are inconsistent with this goal of the State Comprehensive Plan and its associated policies. Goal (17)(a) and its associated policies address the planning and financing of and public facilities. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the proposed amendments is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (22)(a) addresses agriculture. Policy(b)1. is to ensure that state and regional plans are not interpreted to permanently restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. This policy recognizes that agricultural landowners have the same right to seek to change the use of their lands, and that engaging in agricultural activities is not a permanent servitude to the general public. The policies cited by Petitioners (regarding the encouragement of agricultural diversification, investment in education and research, funding of extension services, and maintaining property tax benefits) are not affected by the Brown Amendment. For the reasons stated above, Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal (25)(a) and its associated policies address plan implementation, intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement, and ensuring that local plans reflect state goals and policies. Because the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G of the CDMP, and was found to contribute to the proliferation of urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that when the State Comprehensive Plan is construed as a whole, the County’s adoption of the Brown Amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan.. Strategic Regional Policy Plan Petitioners claim that the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with Goals 11, 12, and 20 of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) and several policies associated with these goals. The SFRPC reviewed the proposed Brown Amendment and found it was generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Goal 11 and its associated policies encourage the conservation of natural resources and agricultural lands, and the use of existing and planned infrastructure. For the reasons stated previously, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with this goal and its associated policies. Goal 12 and its associated policies encourage the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. The CDMP encourages the retention of rural lands and agricultural economy. Because it was found that the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with Policies LU-8F and LU-8G, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment was inconsistent with this regional goal and its policies. Goal 20 and its associated policies are to achieve development patterns that protect natural resources and guide development to areas where there are public facilities. Because it was found that there is no need for the Lowe’s Amendment and that it constitutes urban sprawl, Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the County’s adoption of the Lowe’s Amendment is inconsistent with these regional goal and policies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a final order determining that: Ordinance No. 08-44, the Lowe’s Amendment, is not in compliance, and Ordinance No. 08-45, the Brown Amendment, is in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2009.
