The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Hardee Power Station and its associated facilities, including the corridors for the directly associated transmission lines and the natural gas pipeline, should receive certification.
Findings Of Fact Ultimate Site Capacity for Hardee Power Station Project The site for the proposed Hardee Power Station electric generating equipment is a 1,300 acre site located at the Polk and Hardee County lines approximately 9 miles northwest of the City of Wauchula in Hardee County. The Hardee Power Station electrical generating structures will be located primarily in Hardee County; a major portion of the 570 acre cooling reservoir is located in Polk County. Co-applicants have proposed in their Site Certification Application an ultimate nominal capacity of 660 megawatts, and certification of the electric generating equipment, associated cooling reservoir, associated natural gas pipeline, and three associated transmission lines, described in paragraphs 2 through 7 above. In March of 1989, the Florida Public Service Commission issued an initial need order based on SECI's application for a need determination for construction of two 220 megawatt combined cycle facilities. The PSC order confirmed the following: 1) SECI's need for 450 megawatts of back-up generation capacity; 2) the three interconnection points for the three 230 kV transmission lines; and 3) that a combined cycle plant was SECI's least costly alternative to constructing this electric generation capacity. Thereafter, SECI contracted with Teco Power Services Corporation for, among other things, the construction of the combined cycling units. In December of 1989, the PSC issued a final need order. Hardee Power Station Project Co-applicants propose to construct and operate a combined cycle power plant and associated transmission lines and natural gas pipeline facilities. The Hardee Power Station project will consist of combined cycle electric generating facilities with an ultimate nominal capacity of 660 megawatts to be constructed in two phases. In phase 1-A, one 220 megawatt (nominal) combined cycle unit will be built along with one 75 megawatt (nominal) combustion turbine, resulting in a total of 295 megawatts (nominal), to begin commercial operation in January of 1993. In phase 1-B of the project, an additional 75 megawatt (nominal) combustion turbine and a 70 megawatt (nominal) heat recovery steam generator will be added to the facility resulting in an additional 145 (nominal) megawatt combined cycle facility, the capacity of which is scheduled to be on line in January of 2003. Phase 2 of the project is the addition of a third 220 megawatt (nominal) combined cycle facility at an unspecified future date. Associated with the Hardee Power Station electrical generating plant will be a cooling reservoir to cool the steam in the heat recovery steam generator so that water can be reused in the system. The cooling water will be returned to the reservoir which is designed to discharge water in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. The Hardee Power Station will also have associated oil storage and handling facilities, water treatment facilities, a control building and warehouse, and an administrative building. Power generated from the Hardee Power Plant will be distributed to the Pebbledale, Vandolah and Lee County substations via three 230 kV transmission lines. One line, owned by Tampa Electric Company, heads north from the plant site and terminates at the Pebbledale substation. A preferred corridor and an alternate corridor have been proposed for this line. The other two transmission lines, owned by SECI, will head south from the Hardee Power Station facility and follow their respective corridors, one terminating at the Vandolah substation and the other at the Lee County substation. The corridors running north from the plant site to the Pebbledale substation are approximately 16 miles in length with a corridor width of approximately 1/2 mile but varying in sections from 1/4 of a mile to 1 mile. The transmission line heading south from the plant site to the Vandoloah substation will be approximately 8 miles in length and generally 1/2 mile in width with variations from 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile. The transmission line running south from the plant site to the Lee County substation will be approximately 78 miles in length with a width generally of 1/2 mile with variations from 150 feet to approximately 1 mile. The transmission line structures will encompass only the rights-of-way within the corridors. The right-of-way for a typical H frame structure ranges from 100 to 150 feet while the right-of-way for a single pole structure ranges from 75 feet to 100 feet. The H-frame structures consist of two vertical poles having a typical out-of-ground height of approximately 65 feet with cross-arm assemblies holding porcelain insulators. The single pole structure consists of a single vertical structure with a typical out-of-ground height of 95 feet with insulator sets holding the conductors in place. Construction and maintenance activities with respect to these structures will require the construction of access roads. The proposed power plant facility will include a natural gas pipeline which will connect into the existing Florida Gas Transmission pipeline system north of Polk City. The pipeline will route south past Polk City, Auburndale, and Bartow to State Road 60. The pipeline will then continue past Pierce and Bradley Junction until it meets County Road 630 where the pipeline heads east until it reaches County Road 663 where it turns south to the plant site. The natural gas pipeline will be an 18-inch diameter pipe which will be buried three feet underground with a length of approximately 49 miles. The purpose of the pipeline is to transport natural gas, the primary fuel for the facility, to the plant site. The DER published notices of the March 6, 1990 land use hearing in the Herald-Advocate (Hardee County) on January 18, 1990 in the Tampa Tribune, the Mulberry Press (Polk County), and the Ledger (Polk County) on January 15, 1990; and in the DeSoto County Times on January 17, 1990. Notice of the March 6, 1990 hearing was also published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 19, 1990. Co-applicants published notice of the May 3, 1990 continuance of the March 6, 1990 land use hearing in the April 18, 1990 editions of the Lakeland Ledger, the Tampa Tribune, the DeSoto County Times, the Ft. Myers News-Press (Lee County), the Cape Coral Daily Breeze, the Bradenton Herald, and the Charlotte Sun/Herald-News. On April 18, 1990, the Hearing Officer reviewed Co- applicants' Notice of Resumption of Land Use and Zoning Hearing and found it sufficient to provide notice to all parties and the public of the continuation of the land use hearing. Polk County Aspects of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in Polk County include: (a) a portion of the cooling reservoir; (b) a 230 kV transmission line extending from the plant to the Pebbledale substation; (c) a natural gas pipeline extending from the plant to Florida Gas Transmission Company's main gas line north of Polk City; and (d) miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, including access roads. The land use plan that governs the Hardee Power Station and associated linear facilities located in Polk County is the Polk County Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 26, 1979. The applicable zoning regulation is the 1983 Polk County zoning ordinance. Polk County has not adopted a land-use plan map and thus there are no land use plan designations encompassed by the site or its associated facilities in Polk County. With respect to Polk County's Comprehensive Plan, the Polk County Chief of Current Planning, ron Borchers, on January 20, 1989, confirmed that the cooling reservoir, transmission line, and natural gas pipeline complied with Polk County's Comprehensive Plan. Expert testimony also demonstrated that the proposed project is consistent and in compliance with the zoning ordinance and land use plan of Polk County. The Polk County Zoning category for the Hardee Power Station generating facility site and the cooling reservoir site is RC (rural conservation). The transmission line corridor crosses four zoning categories in Polk County: RC (rural conservation district); GI (general industrial district); R3 (rural residential district); and R2 (rural residential district). The gas pipeline corridor crosses the following zoning categories within Polk County: R1, R2, and R3 (residence districts); RE1 and RE2 (rural estates districts); SF1 (single family district); SF1M (single family district); RC and RC2 (rural conservation districts); C2 (commercial district for a multi- neighborhood commercial); C3 (commercial district for regional commercial; C4 (commercial district for heavy commercial; GI (general industrial district; and PUD (planned unit development district. In Polk County gas pipelines are classified as Class I essential services and are permitted in all zoning districts. By letter dated January 24, 1989, Zoning Administrator Gerald Martin confirmed that the plant site and associated facilities are in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance, stating: Specifically, transmission lines and gas pipelines are Class I essential services; and the power plant's cooling reservoir is a Class II essential service. Class I essential services are permitted in all zoning districts. The site of the proposed cooling reservoir in Polk County is zoned Rural Conservation (RC) which permits Class II essential services. Therefore, these proposed facilities are in compliance with the Polk County Zoning Ordinance. Expert testimony also demonstrated that the power plant site and associated linear facilities are in compliance and consistent with Polk County's Zoning Ordinance. Co-applicants have entered into a stipulation with Polk County in which the County confirms that the site of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in Polk County are consistent and in compliance with Polk County's existing Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Hardee County Aspects of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternative corridors, to be located in hardee County include: (a) the power plant facility; (b) a portion of the cooling reservoir; (c) a portion of the 230 kV transmission line extending from the plant to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County; (d) a 230 kV transmission line from the plant to the Vandolah substation in Hardee County; (e) a 230 kV transmissionline extending from the power plant to the Lee County substation; (f) a portion of the natural gas pipeline extending to Florida Gas Transmission Company's main gas line north of the power plant in Polk County; and (g) miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories including access roads. The land use plan that governs the Hardee Power Station in Hardee County for purposes of this hearing is the future land use plan element of the Hardee County Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulation is Hardee County Zoning Ordinance No. 82-2 as codified in the Hardee County Land Development Code T. The zoning category for the site of the Hardee Power Station generating facility located within Hardee County is I-1 (light industrial). The light industrial district, as described in the Hardee County zoning ordinance, includes "public and semi-public plants" in an enumeration of authorized "principle uses and structures", and authorizes the proposed power plant. The Hardee County Board of Commissioners rezoned the planned location of the plant site to I-1 on May 11, 1989 to authorize construction of the plant. The transmission line corridors cross the following zoning categories in Hardee County: I-1 (light industrial); A-1 (agricultural); C-2 (general commercial); FR (farm residential); and C-1 (neighborhood commercial). These linear facilities are authorized uses in all districts pursuant to 2.3G of the hardee County zoning ordinance, which states that "local public utility distributing and collecting structures such as pipes and transmission lines" are "permitted in all zoning districts." Hardee County has not adopted a land use plan map and thus there are no land-use plan designations affected by the site or associated facilities. The Hardee County Building and Zoning Department staff report on the April 17, 1989 rezoning application confirms that the proposed power plant is in compliance with Hardee County's Comprehensive Plan. Expert testimony was presented demonstrating that the proposed Hardee Power Station is consistent and in compliance with Hardee County's land use plan and zoning ordinance. On November 2, 1989, co-applicants and Hardee County entered into a stipulation in which the County confirmed that the proposed site of the power plant and associated facilities, including preferred and alternate corridors, are consistent and in compliance with Hardee County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Hardee County Board of County Commissioners on September 21, 1989. DeSoto County The associated linear facility located in DeSoto County is an approximately 23 mile portion of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the proposed linear facility is the DeSoto County Ordinance No. 81-3 adopted on June 25, 1981. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in the DeSoto County Zoning Ordinance No. 81- 10. DeSoto County has not adopted a land-use plan map and thus there are no land use categories crossed by the transmission line corridor in DeSoto County. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed transmission line corridor associated with the Hardee Power Station does not contravene the policies or objectives of the DeSoto County Comprehensive Plan. The transmission line corridor crosses the following zoning categories in DeSoto County: A-5 (rural agriculture); A-10 (agriculture district); E (estate district); IL (industrial light district); CG (commercial general district); RSF-3 (residential signle family district); COS (conservation open space district); TTRVC (travel trailer recreational vehicle and campground district); MHC (mobile home conventional district); and RMF-6 (residential multifamily district). Section 8-8 of the DeSoto County zoning ordinance provides that "electric cables" are "permitted uses" and "allowed as a matter of right" in all zoning districts; thus, the proposed transmission line corridor does not contravene the DeSoto County Ordinance. On November 2, 1989, a stipulation was entered into between DeSoto County and the Co-applicants confirming that the zoning officials of DeSoto County have reviewed the Co-applicants' site certification application, are familiar with the proposed site of the associated linear facility, and that the proposed facility is consistent and in compliance with DeSoto County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the DeSoto County Board of Commissioners on September 12, 1989. Charlotte County The associated linear facility located in Charlotte County includes approximately 22 miles of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the associated linear facility to be located in Charlotte County is the future land use element of the December 16, 1988 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in the Charlotte County zoning regulations adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 8, 1981, including the June 30, 1989 amendments to the Charlotte County zoning regulations enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 89-34. In Charlotte County, the transmission line corridor crosses the following land use plan categories: agriculture 1 and 2; agriculture conservation; preservation; public; semi-public; commercial; residential estates; mobile home; and low density residential. The transmission line corridor also crosses two overlay districts which include surface water protection districts for Alligator Creek, Prairie Creek, and Shell Creek. The Charlotte County land use plan does not specifically address placement of electric transmission lines. The Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan includes objectives that contemplate ensuring the availability of suitable land for utilities facilities necessary to support development; that the County, in conjunction with private utility franchises, coordinate efforts in identifying appropriately located environmentally suitable land to meet those needs; and that land suitable for utility facilities necessary to support future development be acquired by either the County or the private utility. The land use plan provides that development is permissible in preservation areas "as may be provided within the land development regulations'. Thus, to the extent that such development is permitted within preservation areas under the zoning ordinance, it similarly is authorized under the land use plan. In Charlotte County, the transmission line corridor crosses the following zoning categories: AE (agriculture estate); AG (agriculture general); CG (commercial general); CI (commercial intensive); ES (environmentally sensitive); MHC (mobile home conventional); MHP (mobile home park); PD (planned evelopment); RE-5 (residential estate); RMF-10 (residential multi-family); RSF- 3.5 (residential single family); and RE-1 (residential estate). The Charlotte County zoning ordinance traditionally has been applied as authorizing transmission lines without the requirement of obtaining a special exception permit. Unrebutted expert testimony confirmed that this interpretation comports with the language of the zoning ordinance. Charlotte County has entered into a stipulation in this proceeding confirming that the proposed site of the associated linear facility is consistent and in compliance with Charlotte County's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Charlotte County Board of Commissioners on September 26, 1989. Lee County The associated linear facility located in un-incorporated Lee County is a five mile length of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County. The land use plan that governs the linear facility to be located in Lee County is section A of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan (entitled "the Lee Plan") adopted by the lee County Board of County Commissioners on January 31, 1989. The applicable zoning regulations are Lee County's official Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 86-17) and amendments thereto. In Lee County, the transmission line corridor crosses four land-use plan categories which include open lands, resource protection transition zones, rural, and central urban. Expert testimony demonstrated that the associated linear facility does not contravene any of the policies or objectives contained in the Lee County Land Use Plan. The transmission line corridor corsses the following zoning categories in Lee County: AG-2 (agricultural district); C-2 (commercial district); MH-1 (residential uses); and MH-2 (residential uses). The associated linear facility is an "essential service facility" under Sections 1001.13 and 202.12 of the Lee County zoning ordinance and is permitted in all zoning districts within Lee County. Lee County has entered into a stipulation in this proceeding confirming that the proposed site of the associated linear facility is consistent and in compliance with Lee County's land use plan and zoning ordinance. This stipulation was authorized by the Lee County Board of Commissioners on February 7, 1990. City of Cape Coral The associated linear facility located in the City of Cape Coral is approximately a 3.2 mile portion of a 230 kV transmission line, including miscellaneous appurtenances and accessories, extending from the plant to an existing substation in Lee County, located east of the City of Cape Coral. The land use plan that governs the proposed linear facilities in Cape Coral is the February 13, 1989 City of Cape Coral Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are the City of Cape Coral Land Development Regulations, as amended February 1990 by Ordinance No. 7-90. The transmission line corridor crosses three land-use plan categories: mixed use; parks and recreation; and single family. There are no references to transmission line corridors in the Cape Coral land use plan; however, expert testimony was presented that the proposed transmission line corridor does not contravene the City of Cape Coral's land use plan. The transmission line corridor primarily crosses the agricultural (AG) zoning category in the City of Cape Coral; moreover, the outer fringes of the corridor briefly intersect with a portion of land zoned R1 (single family residential district) where it enters the City of Cape Coral. On February 12, 1990, the City of Cape Coral amended its zoning ordinance to provide, among other things, that the transmission was a permitted use in areas zoned "Agricultural". To the extent a transmission line structure intersects with the R-1 district, it would be authorized under section 2.7.1 of the zoning ordinance. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed transmission line is an authorized use under the City of Cape Coral's zoning ordinance. On February 16, 1990, Co-applicants and the City of Cape Coral entered into a stipulation in which the County confirmed that the Co-applicants' proposed transmission line corridor traverses through an area of the City of Cape Coral that is zoned Agricultural and that, therefore, the transmission line is an authorized use under the City of Cape Coral zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the County stipulated that the proposed site of the transmission line is consistent and in compliance with the City of Cape Coral's land use plan. City of Auburndale The associated linear facility to be located in the City of Auburndale is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed corridor of the natural gas pipeline through the City of Auburndale is the June 1977 City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulation is the City of Auburndale's zoning ordinance codified in Chapter 25 of the City of Auburndale Code. In Auburndale, there are two future land use maps for the City of Auburndale contained in its comprehensive plan. One of these land use plan maps covers an area where the pipeline corridor crosses three land use plan categories: agricultural; medium-density residential; and low-density residential. The City of Auburndale Comprehensive Plan does not mention gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed pepeline corridor does not contravene the land use plan of the City of Auburndale. Within the City of Auburndale, the proposed gas pipeline corridor crosses the zoning category CH (commercial highway). The City of Auburndale's zoning ordinance defines essential services to include gas facilities and indicates they can be located in any zoning district after review and approval by the City Commission. That review and approval occurred on April 2, 1990 as reflected in the City Commission resolution. On May 3, 1990, the City of Auburndale entered into a stipulation with Co-applicants wherein the County confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with the City of Auburndale's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance. City of Bartow The associated linear facility located in the City of Bartow is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed natural gas pipeline associated with the Hardee Power Station is the 1979 City of Bartow Comprehensive Plan. The applicable zoning regulations are the City of Bartow's zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 981-A. The City of Bartow has not adopted a land use plan map so there are no land use plan categories crossed by the pipeline corridor in the City of Bartow. The City of Bartow's comprehensive plan does not mention gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the proposed natural gas pipeline will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Bartow's land use plan. In the City of Bartow, the proposed pipeline crosses the following zoning categories: R1 and R1A (residential districts); C3 (highway commercial); P1 (professional office); and I-1 and I-2 (industrial districts). The City of Bartow's zoning ordinance defines gas pipelines as public service structures which are permitted in all zoning districts after review by the Zoning Commission. That review occurred on March 22, 1990 where the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed gas pipeline. The recommendation was subsequently adopted by the City Commission. On May 3, 1990, the City of Bartow and the Co-applicants entered into a stipulation in which the City confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with the City of Bartow's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 981-A, as amended). City of Polk City The associated linear facility to be located in Polk City is a portion of a natural gas pipeline that extends from approximately one mile north of Polk City where it interconnects with the existing Florida Gas Transmission 18 inch St. Petersburg lateral and continues south to the Hardee Power Station. The land use plan that governs the proposed natural gas pipeline associated with the hardee Power Station is the Town of Polk City Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City Commission on September 4, 1980. The applicable zoning regulations are contained in Polk City Ordinance 89-11. In Polk City, the pipeline crosses two land-use categories, commercial and agricultural. The Polk City Comprehensive Plan does not mention natural gas pipelines. Expert testimony demonstrated that the natural gas pipeline corridor will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Polk City's land use plan. Within Polk City, the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor crosses one zoning category, C1 (commercial restricted). The Polk City zoning ordinance is silent on the matter of gas pipelines. However, the City Commission in Polk City, pursuant to a request by the Co-applicants, approved the proposed natural gas pipeline as an allowable use under the City's zoning ordinance. On May 3, 1990, Co-applicants and Polk City entered into a stipulation wherein the City confirmed that the proposed natural gas pipeline corridor is consistent and in compliance with Polk City's existing land use plan and zoning ordinance (Ordinance No. 89-11, as amended).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Governor and cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order finding that the site of the Hardee Power Station electric generating facilities and cooling reservoir, the site of the associated natural gas pipeline; and the site of the corridors for the directly associated transmissionlines, as proposed in the Site Certification Application, are consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1990. Copies Furnished to all persons shown in Appendix A APPENDIX A APPEARANCES Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E. Administrator, Siting Coordination Section Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Richard Donelan, Esquire Gary C. Smallridge, Esquire Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 G. Stephen Pfeiffer, Esquire Steve Hall, Esquire Dept. of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Catherine D'Andrea, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, FL 34609-6899 Sarah Nall, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Susan P. Clark, Esquire Suzanne S. Brownless, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building, Suite 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0863 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Samuel J. Morley, Esquire P. O. Drawer 810 Tallahassee, FL 32302 William H. Green, Esquire James S. Alves, Esquire P. O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Eugene E. McClellan, Jr., Esquire Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 William Powell, Esquire City of Cape Coral Attorney P. O. Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915-0027 Gary Vorbeck, Esquire DeSoto and Hardee County Attorney 207 East Magnolia Street Arcadia, FL 33821 Sandra Augustine, Esquire Beth A. Sullivan Esquire Charlotte County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, FL 33948-1094 Mark F. Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Attorney P. O. Box 60 Bartow, FL 33830 H. Hamilton Rice, Jr., Esquire Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder, Esquire Manatee County Attorney 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Suite 969 P. O. Box 1000 Bradenton, FL 34205 James V. Antista, Esquire Kenneth McLaughlin, Esquire Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Rivers H. Buford, Jr., Esquire Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Alton Roane, Director Lee County Division of Planning P. O. Box 398 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-0398 David Emerson Bruner, Esquire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 1114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, FL 33937 David C. Holoman, Esquire City of Arcadia Attorney P. O. Drawer 592 Arcadia, FL 33821 James Q. Duane, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council P. O. Box 3 Lakeland, FL 33802-0003 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire Manasota-88 123 Eighth Street, North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX B RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT (DOAH Case No. 89-3560) The proposed findings of fact contained in the Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of the Co-Applicants and the Department have been substantially adopted in Findings 1-93. The following rulings are made on proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 70. Adopted in Finding 71. Adopted in Findings 72, 73. Adopted in Finding 76. Adopted in Finding 77. Adopted in Finding 78. Adopted in Finding 79. Adopted in Finding 80. Adopted in Finding 81. Adopted in Finding 82. Adopted in Finding 83. The following rulings are made on proposed findings of fact contained in the Proposed Recommended Order filed on behalf of Intervenors Slack and Katzen: 1-2. Adopted in Finding 1. 3-6. Rejected as unnecessary since this is not in dispute. 7. Adopted in Finding 46. 8-10. Adopted in Finding 12, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 71-73. Adopted in Finding 90. 13-14. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence 15-16. Adopted in Finding 45. Adopted in Finding 48. Adopted in Findings 64, 65. Adopted in Findings 46, 71. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 46, 75. 21-26. Rejected in Findings 75-83, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 27. Rejected in Findings 76, 80, 83, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 28-30. Adopted in Finding 12, but otherwise Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 84, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 84. Adopted in Finding 85. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 46. 36-37. Rejected in Findings 71-73. Adopted in Findings 53, 54. Rejected in Finding 53, and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 53. 41-42. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 43-44. Adopted in Finding 70. Adopted in Findings 75-83. Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 47-48. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 49. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 79. 50-53. Rejected as unnecessary, immaterial and irrelevant. 54-55. Rejected in Finding 84 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. 56-57. Adopted in Finding 70. 58. Rejected as speculative, irrelevant, and as not based on competent substantial evidence. 59-60. Adopted in Finding 70. Rejected in Finding 84 and otherwise as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 78. 63-64. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 76-80. 65. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence 66-71. Adopted in Findings 74, 76 and 79, but otherwise Rejected in Finding 80 and as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence Rejected in Findings 73, 75. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 77. 77-78. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. APPENDIX C * CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * NOTE: THE REMAINING APPENDIX CONTAIN MAPS AND OTHER UNSCANABLE MATERIAL WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE DIVISION'S CLERK'S OFFICE.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Commission adopts the hearing officer's Findings of Fact Numbers 1 through 445, set out in pages.12 to 143 of the Recommended Order. 2. In reviewing Ultimate Findings Number 446 through 592, on pages 144 to 202 of the Recommended Order, the Commission is guided by the principle that ultimate findings are usually mixed with ideas of law and policy, and involve either conclusions of _law or determinations of mixed questions of law and fact. See Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Company, 300 U.S. 481, 491 (1937). The Commission adopts Findings Number 446 through 592 to the extent that they represent findings of fact. Conclusiohs of Law 3, The Commission adopts the legal conclusions stated within Ultimate Findings Numbers 446 through 470 on pages 144 through 154 of the Recommended Order, 472 through 473 on pages 154 through 155 of the Recommended Order, 475 through 487 on pages 156 through 161 of the Recommended Order, 489 through 530 on pages 162 through 177 of the Recommended Order, 531 through 537 on pages 178 through 180 of the Recommended Order, 540 through 548 on pages 181 through 186 of the Recommended Order, 550 through 551 on pages 186 through 187 of the Recommended Order, and 553 through 592 on pages 187 through 202 of the Recommended Order, particularly with respect to internal plan consistency and consistency of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.Ss. 4. The Commission does not adopt the Ultimate Findings listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. : (a) The Commission does not adopt Ultimate Findings 471 on page 154 of the Recommended Order, 474 (insofar as it refers to an "unidentified potential wellfield") on pages 155 _ through 156 of the Recommended Order, 488 on pages 161 through 162 of the Recommended Order, 538 and 539 (to the extent they find that floodplains were omitted from the Future Land Use Map) on pages 180 through. 181 of ‘the - Recommended Order, 549 on page 186 of the Recommended Order, and 552 on page 187 of the Recommended Order. 5. The Commission adopts Conclusions of Law Numbers 1 through 74 on pages 202 through 229 of the Recommended Order, 76 through 78 on pages 230 through 231 of the Recommended Order,: 80 through 92 on pages 231 through 236 of the Recommended Order. 6. The Commission does not adopt the Conclusions of Law listed below with respect to Future Land Use mapping requirements in the Act because the required mapping is incorporated by reference in the Future Land Use Map Series in the notation on page 77, Map 16, of the Future Land Use Element of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. (a) The Commission does not adopt Conclusions of Law 75 on pages 229 through 230 of the Recommended Order, and 79 (to the extent it says the County did not include floodplains on its Future Land Use Map) on page 231 of the Recommended Order. . 7. .The Act clearly requires that local government comprehensive plan goals and policies be based on appropriate data. See sections 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), F.S. The Commission concludes that there is competent substantial evidence in the record that supports a determination that the Comprehensive Plan is internally inconsistent based on repeated failures to reconcile its future directives with the requisite factual basis and analysis provided. 8. The Commission concludes that the elements of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan are internally inconsistent with respect to efficiency of land use, protection of natural resources, protection of agricultural resources, efficiency of provision of public facilities, and coastal management. See sections 163.3177(2) and 163.3184(10)(a), F.S. 9. ‘The Commission concludes that the Comprehensive Plan does not meet the minimum criteria required by the Act and Rule 93-5, with respect to the following elements: Future Land Use; Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and 6 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge ("Infrastructure"); Conservation; Coastal Management; and Capital Improvements. 10. The Future Land Use Element, as well as the remainder of the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 90-5 with respect to the following: (a) The Commission concludes that the County's designation of densities for certain agricultural areas at one unit per acre on the Future Land Use Map is inconsistent with projected population demand established by data and analysis for the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives coordinating future: land uses with appropriate topography, soil conditions, and the availability of public facilities and services. {c) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required objectives ensuring the protection of natural resources, coordinating coastal area population densities with applicable plans, and ensuring the availability of suitable land for utility facilities necessary to support proposed development. (d) The Future Land Use Element does not contain required policies toward activities providing for compatibility of adjacent land uses; drainage, stormwater Management and open space; protecting potable water wellfields and environmentally sensitive land; and establishing. standards for densities or intensities of use for each land use designation. 11. The Comprehensive Plan's Infrastructure Element is inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and Rule 9J-5. (a) The Infrastructure Element is not correlated to the future land uses and does not indicate ways to provide for the County's sanitary sewer, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater recharge needs. : (b) The Infrastructure Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not contain required objectives addressing the correction of existing facility deficiencies, the coordination of the extension and ‘increase of facilities to meet future needs, the maximization of the use of existing facilities, the conservation of potable water, and the protection of the function of natural groundwater recharge areas and natural ~ drainage features. (c) The Infrastructure Element does not contain required policies toward using potable water conservation strategies and techniques and toward regulating land use. and development to protect the functions of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas. 12. The Conservation Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not meet the following requirements of section 163.3177, F.S., and Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. (a) The Conservation Element does not contain required objectives effectively conserving, appropriately using, and protecting: the quality and quantity of current and projected water sources and waters that flow into estuarine or oceanic waters; soils and native vegetative communities; and fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and marine . habitat. {b) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies toward protecting native vegetative communities from destruction by development activities and restricting activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. (c) The Conservation Element does not contain required policies protecting and conserving the natural functions of existing soils, fisheries, wildlife habitats, rivers, bays, floodplains, harbors, wetlands, and marine habitats. 13. The Coastal Management Element, as well as the remainder of the Compreherisive Plan, does not contain objectives and policies required by the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Coastal Management Element does not contain objectives protecting, conserving, or enhancing remaining coastal wetlands; wildlife habitat; and coastal barriers; nor does the element contain objectives directing population concentrations away from known coastal high hazard areas, maintaining or reducing hurricane evacuation times, and preparing post-disaster redevelopment plans to reduce or eliminate the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards. (b) The Coastal Management Element does not contain required policies limiting the impacts of development upon wetlands, water quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine resources, and beach and dune systems; restoring or enhancing disturbed or degraded natural ' resources including beaches and dunes, estuaries, wetlands, and drainage systems; mitigating future disruptions to disturbed or degraded hatural resources; mitigating hazards by regulating floodplains, stormwater management, sanitary . sewer and septic tanks, and land use to reduce the exposure of human life and public and private property to natural hazards; addressing hurricane evacuation; providing for post~disaster redevelopment; identifying areas in need of redevelopment; and limiting development in coastal high hazard areas and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas. 14. The Capital Improvements Element, as well as the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan, does not include the following required objectives consistent with the Act and Rule 9J-5: (a) The Capital Improvements Element does not address the County's needs for capital facilities, including land acquisitions, to meet existing deficiencies, accommodate desired future growth, and replace worn-out facilities; 10 (b) The Capital Improvements Element fails to demonstrate the County's ability to provide or require the provision of the items identified elsewhere.in the Comprehensive Plan; and (c) The Capital Improvements Element does not adequately relate to managing the land development process . so that public facility needs created by previously issued land development orders or future development do not exceed the County's ability to ensure provision of needed capital improvements. , 15. The Commission concludes that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S., ("State Plan") construed | as a whole. See section 163.3184(1)(b), F.S. This consistency determination requires the Commission to assess whether the local government comprehensive plan is compatible with and takes action in the direction of realizing goals or policies of the State Plan. Section 163.3177(10)(a), F.S. (a) The Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Water Resources goal of the State Plan to protect existing water supplies, “£loodplains, surface and groundwater quality and quantity; to consider alternative methods of wastewater treatment; and to reserve from use the water necessary to support essential nonwithdrawal demands. 11 (b) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Coastal and Marine Resources goal of the State Plan; in particular, the Charlotte County/city of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan fails to encourage land uses that are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. . , (¢) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Natural Systems and Recreational Lands goal, - which requires Florida to protect and acquire natural habitats and ecological systems and restore degraded systems to a functional condition. ) (d) Comprehensive Plan provisions also conflict with the State Plan's Land Use goal, which requires that development shall be directed to areas that already have in place, or have agreements to provide, land and water resources, fiscal abilities, and service capacity to accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner. (e) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the State Plan's Downtown Revitalization goal, which encourages the centralization of commercial, governmental, retail, residential, and cultural activities within downtown areas. (£) The Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the Public Facilities goal, which requires the planning and financing of new facilities to serve new residents ina timely, orderly, and efficient manner. 12 Rulings on Exceptions The Commission notes that Charlotte County filed exceptions to the hearing officer's Recommended Order, which stipulated that in the event the Commission adopted the Agreement between the . County and the DCA, the County would waive its right to file such : exceptions. ‘At a meeting with Cabinet Aides on March 7, 1990, Sandra Augustine, counsel to the County, stated that the county would not seek a ruling on the exceptions provided that the Commission adopted the remedial actions specified in the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum and the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order. Determination of Compliance and Order 16. It is hereby concluded by the Administration Commission that the 1988 Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda Comprehensive Plan, as adopted by the Charlotte County Commission on December ° 16, 1988, is not in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and with Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, F.S. 17. Pursuant to Chapter 28-39.005(1), F.A.C., the Commission has requested the DCA to provide a recommendation as to the remedial actions which would bring the County's Comprehensive Plan into compliance, as well as the type and extent of funds which should be withheld or other sanctions, as specified in section 163.3184(11), F.S. The DCA and Charlotte County have authorized a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and 13 Sanctions ("Joint Agreement"), which is attached as Exhibit B to this Order, and an Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Addendum"), which is attached as Exhibit c to this Order.’ 18. Having determined that the Charlotte County/City of Punta Gorda's Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rule 93-5, F.A.C., the Commission orders that the remedial actions specified in Part I-A of the Joint Agreement, as amended by the Addendum, be implemented by the County in order to bring the plan, as adopted and submitted to the DCA, into compliance. 19. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 18 of this order, with the exception of the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than May 15, 1990. The plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this : paragraph shall include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum. (a) The DCA shall, by May 30, 1990, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by May 15, 1990, the DCA shall notify 14 the Commission by May 30, 1990; and the Commission shall review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by September 30, 1990. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1991. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the ., County's conformance.with.the remedial..actions specified.in this Paragraph. 20. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in Part I-A 4.a. of the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June 1, 1992. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1992, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment (s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1992, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1992; and the Commission shall 15 review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the _ progress of its review of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this paragraph by October 1, 1992. (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than - January 31, 1993. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 21. The Administration Commission further orders that the County: (a) Adopt a Conservation Overlay as part of the Conservation Element and Future Land Use Map identifying natural resources and environmental features; (b) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Conservation Element to provide protection to the identified natural resources and environmental features, in conformance with statutory and rule provisions and in furtherance of the State Comprehensive Plan; and (c) Amend the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element and other pertinent elements, to 16 ensure consistency with the revised Conservation Element and the Future Land Use Map. 22. A plan amendment or amendments prepared pursuant to section 163.3187, F.S., and accomplishing the remedial actions specified in paragraph 21 of this order shall be prepared by the County and transmitted to the DCA no later than June i, 1991. (a) The DCA shall, by June 15, 1991, certify to the Commission that the County's plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has been received. In the event the plan amendment(s) pursuant to this paragraph has not been received by the DCA by June 1, 1991, the DCA shall notify the Commission by June 15, 1991; and the Commission shall ‘review the matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.s. (b) The DCA shall report to the Commission on the progress of its review. of the Charlotte County plan amendment or amendments submitted pursuant to this Paragraph by October 1, 1991. , (c) The DCA shall forward a recommendation to the Commission regarding the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph no later than January 31, 1992. The Commission shall consider the DCA's recommendation in the Commission's determination of the County's conformance with the remedial actions specified in this paragraph. 17 23. Comprehensive Plan.amendments outside the scope of this order shall be reviewed by the DCA in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. 24. The fact’ that the Coastal Management Element is included in the Commission's finding of noncompliance in this order shall be a consideration if the Department of Natural Resources is asked to issue permits under section 161.053, F.S., or if the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is requested to sell, convey any interest in, or lease any sovereignty lands or submerged lands at any time prior to the Commission's determination that the County has complied with the provisions of this order. 25. .Since all issues raised in General Development Corporation and General Development Utilities, Incorporated's ("GDC/GDU") Petition to Intervene for Limited Purpose or, in the alternative, to Remand to DOAH for Evidentiary Hearing ("GDC/GDU Petition") are addressed by the Joint Agreement as amended by the Addendum, the GDC/GDU Petition is moot. 26. The Commission has considered the immediate imposition of sanctions, pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S., in this case. However, based upon the following mitigating factors, the Commission elects not to impose sanctions at this time, while retaining jurisdiction as noted below in paragraph 27 of this order. 18 (a) In this caSe, Charlotte County, pursuant to section 163.3184(10), F.S., proceeded with a DOAH hearing on disputed issues embodied. within the adopted local plan. In particular, the definition of urban sprawl was an issue that had not been litigated, and the County, in good faith, litigated the issue in the DOAH forum. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, issued on November 20, 1989, upheld the DCA's original finding that the adopted local plan was not in compliance with Chapter.163, Part II, F.S., DCA Rule Chapter 9U-5, F. A. C.; and Chapter 187, F.S., largely based upon the disputed urban sprawl issue, which is a component of several plan elements. (b) During the pendency of the DOAH hearing process, the County exercised restraint in issuing development orders » and permits in the area of the County subject to the disputed issues. This course of action by the County is evidence of the County's sensitivity to the need for protection of State resources while the urban sprawl issue underwent review. (c) No precedent existed in law for the urban sprawl determination until the hearing officer's Recommended Order was published. Subsequent local governments have the advantage of the hearing officer's findings and conclusions as a guide in preparing local comprehensive Plans that \ adequately discourage urban sprawl. Once the hearing 19 officer's ruling was known, the County proceeded rapidly, and in good faith, to reach a settlement with the DCA. 27. The Commission shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the provisions in this order. Lf the Commission determines that the County has complied with the actions specified in this order, the Commission will conclude its jurisdiction over this action. If the Commission determines that the County has not complied with the remedial actions specified in this order, the Commission shall review the Matter for implementation of sanctions pursuant to section 163.3184(11), F.S. 28. Any party to this order has the right to seek judicial review of the order pursuant. to section 120.68, F.S., by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the Clerk of the Commission, Patricia A. Woodworth, Office of Planning and Budgeting, Executive Office of the Governor, Room 415 Carlton Building, 501 South Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal, accompanied by the | applicable filing fees, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the day this order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. 20 tad DONE and ordered this /S day of March, 1990, in Seu) A. WOODWORTH Secretary to the Administration Commission Tallahassee, Florida. cc: Members of the Commission Counsel of Record 21 Honorable, Bob Martinez Governor The Capitol, PL 05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Bob Butterworth Attorney General The Capitol, PL 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Doyle Connor Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol, PL 09 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 David J. Russ, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 - Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire ' County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Kenneth G. Oertel Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 c. Guy Batsel Batsel, McKinley & Ittersagen, P.A. Manor Pointe Professional Center 1861 Placida Road, Suite 104 Englewood, Florida 34223 Alan S. Gold, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 22 Thomas G. Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer The Capitol, PL 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol, PL 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol, PL 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399- -0001 Pelham Secretary Department, of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley, Emerich and Sifrit, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney City of Punta Gorda Post Office Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive . Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David Emerson Bruner, Esquire Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 114-B North Collier Boulevard Marco Island, Florida 33937 af, LIGLHXa Valuold "ALNNOD 3LLOTYVHO wowtoa some swsagne samo: assert dVW XSdNI “2 s78¥4 er ytevs - ' yor-ta HHSHAOL SIHSNMOL OF FIVE WLe- STF CHS NMOL . F9z-"Ser GIHSNMOL aze~ Sep oIHSAMOL UV FTaVL 2 FTGVE Z F1GVL toasen Shaeweens aaa 5 zee-sie $4 FAz- Git Faz-sie : HUSNMOL eHSNMOL -- ~ AF == net 2 F18V4 aaa + 2 F1AUL l - oe | | l searing 3 1 WLs-S0d 393-"soF aa FeS-SOb | HSNMOL . DIHSNMOL | HSUMOL + . . a A . : AN _- can) i = Tete ae emit - 4 ap _ soot sR —"} " z aunola —_——-+ ae enw —_—, wee, pone ney —_ ——_ EXHIBIT B STATE OF FLORIDA SAM tek ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FLORIDA ‘4-8 AND WATER g Spluoicatory commission DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, . Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY‘ OF PUNTA GORDA, " : ) ) ) ..) CASE NO. 89-0810GM ) Respondents. ) ) NOTICE OF FILING JOINT AGREEMENT ON _ REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached joint agreement on remedial actions and sanctions in this case. Respectfully submitted, D ECEIVE) favidb.( Rubs, Senior Attorney Departmen of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive JAN 22 1990 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 Office of Planning & Budgeting Office.of Director CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to the Parties listed below this LU day of January, 1990. uss Senior Attorney J. Michael Rooney, Esquire city Attorney P. O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Michael P. Haymans P. O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda,’ Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite :c Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 1/18/90 JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS ~ CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parties to this proceeding do hereby enter into the following Joint Stipulation on Remedial Actions and Sanctions and request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Joint Stipulation as part of the final order in this matter: . I. REMEDIAL ACTIONS A. The County of Charlotte (hereinafter "County") will amend its Comprehensive Plan to include the following: 1. The County shall amend its Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") to limit residential densities, in the areas located south and east of the Peace River and outside of the Urban Service Area ("USA"), in the following manner: ae The areas currently identified as , Agriculture/Conservation on the FLUM shall he : Limited to a density of one unit per 40 acres. b. The C. M. Webb Wildlife Management Area will retain-its designation of Preservation. c. The areas previously identified as Agriculture I and Agriculture II on the FLUM shall be limited to a density of one unit per 10 acres, with the exception of existing (as of January 1, 1990), platted lands which are subdivided into individual lots of less than 10 acres in size, whereby one unit per subdivided lot is the maximum density allowed, except when vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. ao ‘qd. The areas shown on the FLUM with a designation other than those mentioned in a, b, or ¢ above, : shall retain their current’ designation. 2. The County shall amend its FLUM to limit residential densities on the bridgeless barrier islands in the following manner: a. All areas one acre or greater in size (as of January 1, 1990) shall be limited to a density of one unit per acre, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It-is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. b. All platted areas (as of January 1, 1990) less than one acre in size shall have an allowable density of one unit per subdivision lot, except where vested rights, related to allowable densities, are determined to exist under the vested rights provisions of the Charlotte County Ordinance 88-44. It is not the intent of this provision to exempt these areas from any applicable concurrency requirements. 3. The County shall amend its designated Urban Service Area boundaries to reflect the following: a. The inclusion of the area known as Charlotte Ranchettes, located near the northwest boundary of the Cc. M. Webb Wildlife Management area. b. The inclusion of the existing mobile home and commercial areas on Burnt Store Rd. just north of the Burnt Store Isles area. : ce. The exclusion of the bridgeless barrier islands (Knight Island, Don Pedro Island, and Little Gasparilla Island). 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infrastructure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. _b. As an interim measure, the County shall amend ; the plan to include a policy which will prohibit the _ extension of water lines, within the unincorporated area of the County, without the simultaneous extension of sewer lines. This will have the effect of limiting the provision of utilities to : areas that are built-out to a degree which would make expansion financially feasible, and directing growth to the areas that have existing infrastructure. . ¢. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's).: d. The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services outside of the urban service area, with the exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. 5. The County shall amend the FLUM to create a separate designation for RV parks, and shall develop -goals, - - objectives, and policies which will assure that areas so designated will accommodate vehicles/structures on a temporary recreational basis. . 6. The County shall amend the language of its goals, objectives, and policies in the drainage element, such that they will be consistent with the rules, regulations and policies of the applicable water management aistricts. It is the intent of this provision to prohibit post-development stormwater discharge at a greater rate than pre-development discharge, consistent with water management district rules. 7. The County shall incorporate the provisions ’ of Ordinance 89-53 (Special Surface Water Protection Districts) into its Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, and policies to assure the protection of those surface water resources. 8. The County shall amend all appropriate text and data to reflect the changes outlined herein. B. Charlotte County agrees to discontinue its rule challenge regarding the urban sprawl issue. II. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING, REVIEWING AND APPROVING THE ABOVE REQUIRED AMENDMENTS. 3 IIr. Iv. Ve A. The Comprehensive Plan amendments required in Part I (with the exception of 4.a.) above shall be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter, "Department") within 90 days of the date of this agreement. B. The procedures for reviewing the above referenced amendments shall be as outlined in Chapter 163. F.S. Cc. The Comprehensive plan amendments required in 4.a. of Part I above shall be transmitted to the Department in the County's Spring, 1992 submission period. However, the amendments to be included in the submission outlined in part A above, will include policies pertaining to the County's intent as it relates to 4.a. Upon receipt of the amendments, the Department shall review them in the same manner as any other plan amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. ” SANCTIONS A. The' County of Charlotte shall prepare. and transmit Comprehensive Plan amendments, in accordance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 97-5, Florida Statutes, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. B. In the event that County does not submit the required amendments in a timely fashion or does not amend the Comprehensive plan in a manner which is in conformance with the Final Order, the County may be subject to sanctions, the nature and extent to which will be determined by the Administration Commission in a manner consistent with the extent to which the failure to comply with the Final Order warrants. ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER MATTERS A. Sanctions approved under the terms of the Final Order shall be of no force and effect unless the Department of Community Affairs affirmatively notifies the appropriate state agencies that such sanctions have attached. B. Jurisdiction over these proceedings and parties is retained for the purpose of enforcing the Final Order. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT _ The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BY: __ DATE:__January 22, 1990 Secretary | . . Thomas G. Pelham COUNTY _OF CHARLOTT, BY DATE: is) 9) Board gf County issionéers ATTEST: : Approved as to Form and Legal Oo Sufficiericy Barbara T. Scott . Be Clerk of the Circuit Court Bayete Va ~ , , : Sandra J. Augustine, BY'(_.-7_. Tad . Cte County Attorney EXHIBIT c STATE OF FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, vs. CHARLOTTE COUNTY and CITY oF PUNTA GORDA, Respondents, and BABCOCK FLORIDA COMPANY, a Florida corporation, WILBUR H. COLE, FEBRUARY TRUST, and PALM ISLAND RESORT, Intervenors. Sef NOTICE OF FILING ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN = A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The undersigned hereby gives notice of filing the attached Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions previously filed in this case. D Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 (904) 488-0410 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail this 28h day of February, 1990, to the parties listed below. J. Michael Rooney, Esquire City Attorney P.O. Box 400 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0400 : Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Drawer 1447 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1447 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire 2700 Blair Stone Road; Suite c Tallahassee, Florida 32314- 6507 Sandra J. Augustine, Esquire County Attorney 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan S. Gold, Esquire 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 ADDENDUM TO JOINT AGREEMENT ON REMEDIAL ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS CHARLOTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ° The Department of Community Affairs and Charlotte County, Florida, hereby enter into this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions/Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan (hereafter "the Settlement Agreement") previously entered into by the parties on January 22, 1990. 1. The parties agree to amendment of Section I.A.4 of the Settlement Agreement, to provide as follows: 4. The County shall address orderly growth within the Urban Service Area in the following manner: a. Utilize the results of the Sewer and Water Study, currently being undertaken, to establish a series of districts or zones which will prioritize the areas within the USA for infra- structure expansion. The study is expected to be completed by January 1, 1992. cr b. The County shall develop land use policies which will prevent sprawl from occurring within the USA. These policies should address such land use tools as replatting, redevelopment, utility regulation, and transfers of development rights (TDR's). a c. . The County shall incorporate into its plan a policy which will prohibit the public provision of urban services ,outside. of the urban service area, with the: exception of police, fire, EMS, garbage, and certain road maintenance, where appropriate. - 2. In all other respects, the Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties on January 22, 1990, .shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The parties hereby request that the Administration Commission approve and include the terms of this Addendum to the Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions as part ef the ~ final order in Case No. 89-0810 GM (DOAH). 4. The representatives of the parties hereto have full authority of their principals to enter into this agreement. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS yp binne DFvps— pare: 2 -DL—9™ Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary COUNTY OF CHARLOTTE pATE: 27-22-90 of County Commissioners ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Barbara T. Scott, Clerk of AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Circuit Court.and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners / Sandra J.\\Au By. Abby County Attorney Deputy Clerk : jo: addendum/89-153/022290
Conclusions This cause came before the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission (the "Commission") on March 13, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida, pursuant to sections 163.3184(10) and 163.3184(11), Florida Statutes (F.S.), for consideration of a Recommended Order from the Division of Administrative Hearings, concerning Charlotte County's and the City of Punta Gorda's jointly adopted local government comprehensive plan. Based on review of the Recommended order, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, consideration of a Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions ("Joint Agreement") between Charlotte County and the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), a 1 copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, and consideration of the Addendum to Joint Agreement on Remedial Actions and Sanctions between Charlotte County and the DCA, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C, the Commission issues its final order as follows.
The Issue Whether Petitioner David Russ has standing to bring these proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Russ did not submit oral comments to the local governments between the time of the transmittal hearing for the plan amendment at issue in this case and the adoption of the plan amendment. Petitioner Russ testified that he faxed letters to Tallahassee City Commissioner Ron Weaver and Leon County Commissioner Gary Yordan during the required time period, but this assertion is not corroborated by any other testimony or exhibits. Although Petitioner Russ testified that he used paper- printed original documents to effectuate the fax of the written comments or letters, he did not present any documentary evidence in corroboration. He presented no documents or other evidence of attempts to follow-up or confirm receipt of his faxed comments by the local governments. A reasonable, diligent and thorough search by those personnel charged with responsibility for maintaining correspondence files of City Commissioner Ron Weaver and Leon County Commissioner Gary Yordan, as well as the joint city/county planning department, was conducted in order to locate the written comments purportedly faxed to the local governments by Petitioner Russ. No documents, relating to those written comments and allegedly sent during the comment period for the plan amendment, have been found. Petitioner Russ admitted at the hearing that he possesses copies of all correspondence and pleadings generated by himself in this challenge to the amended plan with exception of those initial written comments. In the course of his testimony, Petitioner Russ speculated with regard to his inability to corroborate his assertion that he did fax written comments. That speculation included his supposition that computerized copies of the documents in his computer may have been lost through possible destruction of the files during a computer repair or renovation, or that he might have saved the documents on a floppy disk which has subsequently been misplaced. The overwhelming evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the documents are not, and have never been, in the possession of the local governments in this case. Such evidence results in the finding that contrary testimony, absent some extrinsic corroboration that the documents were submitted, cannot be credited.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered in this case, Division of Administrative Hearings Case Number 97-2750GM, finding that Petitioner Russ is without standing to maintain these proceedings and dismissing his Petition Challenging Plan Amendments And Findings of Compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James V. Cook, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Linn, Esquire Cari L. Roth, Esquire Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Deborah Minnis, Esquire C. Graham Carothers, Esquire Ausley and McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julie E. Lovelace, Esquire James R. English, Esquire City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David J. Russ, Esquire 6823 Donetail Trail Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs Suite 325-A 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue is whether the plan amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, is in compliance.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background The County's original Plan was adopted on August 31, 1989, and became effective on September 11, 1989. In 2000, the County amended its Plan by establishing a Managed Growth Tier System, which includes five classifications of land (Urban/ Suburban, Exurban, Rural, Agricultural Reserve, and Glades), along with three classes of service areas within the County to guide delivery of public services: Urban Area, Limited Urban Service Area, and Rural Service Area (RSA). It also assigned different levels of service for potable water and wastewater for each service area. At the same time, the County amended its FLUE to add a new Policy 3.4-c, which provides as follows: The County shall neither provide nor subsidize the provision of centralized potable water or sanitary sewer in the Rural Service Area, unless urban levels of service are required to correct an existing problem, prevent a projected public health hazard or prevent significant environmental degradation, or the areas meet the criteria described in Future Land Use Policy 3.4.b. The County intended Policy 3.4-c to implement the Managed Growth Tier System by limiting the provision of centralized utility service in the Rural Tier. The effect of this new policy was to prohibit the County from providing urban levels of utility services outside its existing service area boundaries in the RSA unless necessary to correct or prevent a public health hazard, existing problem related to urban levels of service, or environmental degradation. In February or March 2003, the County Planning Department began assessing ways to address the problem of overlapping utility service in the RSA. Shortly thereafter, the Florida Legislature passed the Scripps Law (Chapter 2003- 420, Laws of Florida), which took effect on November 3, 2003. Both of these factors led to the development of the Amendments in issue here. In late 2003, the County staff began the actual development of new amendments to its Plan (also known as Round 04-1 Plan Amendments) that would allow the County to provide services into the RSA. More specifically, the staff proposed to add a new FLUE Policy 3.1, which (as finally drafted) read as follows: The Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall provide potable water, reclaimed water and wastewater service to all unincorporated areas of the County except those unincorporated areas where the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners has entered or enters into a written agreement that provides utility service area rights to a public or privately owned potable water, reclaimed water, and/or wastewater utility, or in areas where the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department is specifically excluded from providing utility service by Florida law. Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department shall continue to provide utility services to incorporated areas where service is already being provided by the County, or as provided for under utility service area agreements or as allowed for by law. In general terms, the new policy designated the County as a service provider of water and wastewater services for unincorporated areas of the County where the County has, or will enter into, interlocal agreements except where excluded by interlocal agreement or by law. The effect of the amendment is to allow the County to extend potable water and wastewater services to unincorporated areas of the County, particularly "the western communities," where it currently does not do so. The County staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c, described in Finding of Fact 1, which was previously adopted in 2000. Finally, the County staff proposed to delete another policy adopted in 2000, CAI Policy 1.5-c, which read as follows: Urban levels of service shall not be provided by any governmental entity (outside of its existing service area boundary) within the Rural Service Area of the unincorporated area, except where: The Rural Service Area receives urban services pursuant to Objective 1.1 in the Element, or An urban level of service is required to correct a demonstrated public health, or Development on a parcel in the Rural Tier that is adjacent to water and/or sewer lines which existed prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989 shall be allowed to connect to those existing lines and shall be allowed to connect to public sewer and/or water when required by the Public Health Department. This policy shall not allow the extension of new water and/or sewer lines into the Rural Tier to serve development without first amending the Service Area Map and the Future Land Use Atlas to reflect a change in the service area boundary. By deleting these two provisions, the County would no longer be prevented from providing utility services in the RSA unless certain conditions were met. (The staff also proposed to delete FLUE Policy 1.4-k, but that deletion is not in issue in these proceedings.) On January 14, 2004, the County initiated the adoption process by transmitting Notice of the Amendments to the Intergovernmental Plan and Amendment Review Committee (IPARC), which is made up of all the local governments and special districts in the County, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. IPARC acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC in turn distributed the notice to its members, including the City, Wellington, SID, and ITID. After a public hearing on March 12, 2004, before the County's Local Planning Agency (known as the Land Use Advisory Board), by an 11-0 vote it recommended denial of Round 04-1 Plan Amendments and recommended that the County meet with the affected parties to resolve problems voiced by various attendees, including the City, SID, and ITID. On April 2, 2004, the County held a meeting with interested persons in an attempt to resolve objections to the Amendments before they were presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The objections were not resolved. On April 5, 2004, by a 5-0 vote, the Board of County Commissioners approved transmittal of the Amendments to the Department, other commenting agencies, and each unit of local government or governmental agency that had filed a written request for copies of the Amendments. The Amendments were transmitted to the Department on April 15, 2004. Between January 2004 and August 2004, the County held at least 37 meetings with utilities and other interested persons to discuss the Amendments, including three meetings with the City, at least five meetings with SID, at least ten meetings with ITID, and at least two meetings with Wellington. In addition, the County invited all utilities to attend meetings on April 28, 2004, at three locations to discuss utility service area boundaries. These meetings were attended by approximately 25 different utilities, including the City, SID, ITID, and Wellington. As a result of these meetings, the County prepared and distributed utility service area maps in an attempt to demonstrate the necessity for better coordination between utilities. On May 21, 2004, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council notified the County of no objection or comments regarding the Amendments. On June 19, 2004, the Department issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report, which did not identify any objections, recommendations, or comments with respect to the Amendments. On June 22, 2004, the South Florida Water Management District (District) notified the Department of no objections or comments regarding the Amendments. After a public meeting on August 24, 2004, by a 5-1 vote, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 2004-26 enacting the Amendments, and they were transmitted to the Department on September 14, 2004. On October 29, 2004, the Department issued its Notice determining the Amendments were in compliance. On November 19, 2004, Petitioners (except Wellington) filed Petitions challenging the Amendments. Wellington filed its Amended Petition on December 16, 2004. The Parties and Their Standing The City is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County, operating its own water and wastewater utility system. The City owns the largest water treatment plant in the County and has an extensive wastewater treatment system, including partial ownership in the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facilty, the largest wastewater plant in the County. It owns property and currently provides bulk service to entities located within the unincorporated area of the County, including ITID. It submitted written objections to the County during the adoption process and has standing to bring this action. SID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1970. It lies within the unincorporated area of the County and has the authority to provide water and wastewater service within and without its boundaries. At present, SID provides potable water service within and without its boundaries, but only provides wastewater service within its boundaries. SID owns property in the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. These facts establish that SID has standing as an affected person to challenge the Amendments. Callery-Judge is a limited partnership, which owns and operates citrus groves on property located within the unincorporated area. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption process. Callery-Judge is an affected person and has standing to participate in this matter. Mr. Roberts owns property in the unincorporated area, including Callery-Judge, of which he is the General Manager. He submitted objections to the Amendments during the adoption process and is an affected person. ITID is an independent special district created by special act of the legislature in 1957. (In 2002, the Legislature amended and reenacted ITID's enabling legislation.) In 1998, ITID began operating a water and wastewater system within the unincorporated area. ITID does not generate its own potable water or treat its wastewater. It obtains bulk water from the City and SID and bulk wastewater service from the City. ITID owns property within the unincorporated area and submitted objections to the amendment during the adoption process. As such, it is an affected person within the meaning of the law. Wellington is a municipality and adjoining local government of the County and operates a utility providing water and wastewater service within its boundaries and outside to several developments. It also submitted objections to the County during the adoption of the Amendments. Because Wellington does not own property or operate a business within the unincorporated area of the County, in order to demonstrate standing, it must show that the Amendments will produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure or substantial impacts on areas designated for protection or special treatment within its jurisdiction. See § 163.3184(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Wellington bases its standing on alleged increases in traffic and the use of parks within its boundaries, which purportedly will occur as a result of the Amendments. While Wellington could not give a precise amount (in terms of dollars) of those impacts, the testimony of its Director of Community Services established that the availability of centralized water and sewer services in the areas adjoining Wellington will arguably lead to higher density development patterns, which in turn will lead to an increased need for publicly funded infrastructure. As such, Wellington is an affected person and has standing to challenge the Amendments. The Department is the state planning agency charged with responsibility for reviewing and approving comprehensive plans and amendments. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and amendments thereto, including the Amendments. The County Water Utilities Department currently serves approximately 425,000 people, making it the largest utility provider in Palm Beach County and the third largest in the State of Florida. The Current Plan As noted above, the County initially adopted its current Plan on August 31, 1989, by Ordinance No. 89-17. The Plan has been amended numerous times since its initial adoption. The original 1989 Plan and all subsequent amendments up to the ones at issue in this proceeding have been found in compliance by the Department. The current Plan is made up of sixteen elements, nine of which are mandatory, and seven of which are optional. The parties have indicated that the Utilities Element, CIE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and FLUE are relevant to this controversy; therefore, a brief description of their content and purpose is necessary. The purpose of a Utilities Element is to provide necessary public facilities and services correlated to future land uses. See § 163.3177(6)(c), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element contains potable water, wastewater, drainage, and solid waste sub- elements. The aquifer recharge sub-element is found in the Coastal Management Element. The Utilities Element and the aquifer recharge sub-element of the Coastal Management Element constitute the "general sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element" referenced in Section 163.3177(6)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.011. The existing Utilities Element has been found in compliance with applicable provisions of statute and rule. Section 163.3177(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.016 contain requirements for the capital improvements element of a comprehensive plan. The existing CIE complies with these requirements. Objective 1.7 and Policy 1.7-a describe how the County implements the CIE. Pursuant to these requirements, the CIE is updated annually at the same time as the County budget. Table 10 of the CIE reflects the water utilities revenue and expenditures for the then current budget year and five years into the future. Table 10 was not updated when the Amendments were adopted because any future changes to the County's capital expenditures resulting from the Amendments would be made through the annual budget update process. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains provisions encouraging coordination between the County and adjoining municipalities and special districts in order to more efficiently meet the needs of the County residents. (There are more than 25 municipalities and special districts within the County.) This Element has previously been found in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. One of the coordination tools identified in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element is the IPARC, described in Finding of Fact 5, which acts as a clearinghouse for all comprehensive plan amendments prepared by the IPARC members. IPARC distributes notice of plan amendments to all members, who then have the opportunity to provide comments regarding the proposed action. Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006 contain requirements for the future land use element of a comprehensive plan, including the future land use map (FLUM). According to the Plan, the FLUE "is the nucleus of the . . . Plan" and "defines the components of the community and the interrelationship among them, integrating the complex relationships between land use and all of the other elements of the Plan that address the physical, social, and economic needs of the people who live, work, and visit Palm Beach County." Both the existing FLUE and the current FLUM have been found in compliance. The Amendments do not alter the FLUM, but they do change FLUE Policy 3.1-c and delete FLUE Policy 3.4-c. As noted above, in 2000 the County adopted a Managed Growth Tier System, which is a planning tool intended to manage growth and protect varying lifestyles in the County. The Managed Growth Tier System consists of five categories or tiers, which are described in Objective 1.1 of the Plan. Objectives 1.2 through 1.6 govern development within the five tiers. FLUE Table 2.1-1 establishes permitted densities for each of the tiers. The Amendments do not modify any Goals, Objectives, or Policies governing the five tiers, with the exception of FLUE Policy 1.4-k. However, Petitioners have not challenged the proposed deletion of FLUE Policy 1.4-k and it is not one of the Amendments at issue in this proceeding. Additionally, the Amendments will not alter the permitted densities for any of the tiers. Concurrency Management refers to the system adopted in the CIE to ensure that infrastructure, which meets or exceeds the established minimum level of service standards, is in place concurrent with development approval. According to FLUE Policy 3.5-a, development orders and permits shall not be approved unless services and facilities meet or exceed the minimum levels of service. FLUE Objective 3.1 establishes three graduated service areas in Palm Beach County -- the Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas. Each service area corresponds to one or more of the five tiers. The minimum levels of service required for each area are listed in FLUE Table 3.1-1. According to FLUE Table 3.1-1, FLUE Policy 3.5-a, and Utilities Element Policies 1.2-g and 1.3-e, the minimum levels of service in the RSA for potable water and sewage are on-site wells and septic tanks, respectively. With the exception of water and sewer, the other minimum levels of service are the same for all three service areas. The Amendments do not alter the minimum levels of service for any service area. Through its planning expert, Wellington contended that the Amendments will cause a de facto change to the minimum levels of service. However, the extension of centralized water and sewer service into the RSA does not change the established minimum levels of service. Petitioners also argue that the Amendments will increase minimum levels of service in the RSA for traffic and parks. However, the minimum levels established in FLUE Table 3.1-1 for all services and facilities, other than potable water and sanitary service, are County-wide standards. Reasons for Adopting the Plan Amendments Policy 3.4-c did not have its intended effect because it prevented the County from providing service to the Rural Tier. After 2000, repeated efforts by the County to negotiate the service areas of the numerous entities operating utility services in the unincorporated area were unsuccessful. Indeed, "there was not a willingness of many utility providers to agree on anything." This created a lack of coordination and planning as to the provision of services in the Rural Tier. The City, SID, and ITID each have utility service areas which overlap the service area of other utility providers. In particular, portions of the Acreage, a community located in the central-western unincorporated area of the County, fall under the claimed utility jurisdiction of SID, ITID, Cypress Grove Community Development District, and the Village of Royal Palm Beach (Royal Palm Beach). The City is also rapidly expanding service in the unincorporated area by entering into bulk water service agreements with a number of utilities located in the Rural Tier, including Royal Palm Beach, Seacoast Utilities Authority, and ITID. The City intends further expansion of bulk service in the Rural Tier, so as to increase utility revenues. It views the Amendments as affecting its substantial interests by potentially limiting these revenues. Royal Palm Beach claims an exclusive utility service area which overlaps the utility service areas claimed by SID and ITID. Royal Palm Beach is located entirely within the legislative boundaries of ITID and claims all of ITID as its service area. The Amendments support the authority granted to the County by the Scripps Law. That law gives the County the exclusive right to provide water and wastewater service to the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility and to construct utility facilities within and without the boundaries of the Scripps project. The enactment of the Scripps Law reinforced the need for the Amendments, as the Scripps Biomedical Research Facility will be located in the unincorporated area. Existing FLUE Policy 3.4-c is arguably inconsistent with the Scripps Law because it prevents the County from providing utility service in the RSA. Since the Scripps Law supersedes all other contrary provisions of Florida Law, it logically follows that FLUE Policy 3.4-c should be repealed. The Amendments are also supported by the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances Sections 27-16 through 27-22, which codify County ordinances that were adopted in the 1970s and deal with utility service. These ordinances authorize the County to designate a Control Area in the unincorporated area and to require County approval of any water and wastewater facilities constructed in these areas. In summary, the County adopted the Amendments to avoid service area disputes between utility providers such as those described above, to prevent wasteful and duplicative utility services, to implement the Legislature’s mandate regarding the Scripps Biotechnology Park, to ensure a sufficient water supply to meet the reasonable development needs of the unincorporated area, and to enforce the provisions of the County Code of Ordinances. Petitioners' Objections Data and analysis Petitioners contend that the only data and analyses submitted by the County to support the Amendments are contained in a rather brief County Staff Report (Petitioners' Exhibit 5), and that no other documentation was actually forwarded to the Department. They further contend that the Amendments must be based on demographic, economic, and fiscal studies, and that none were utilized by the County. Because of these omissions, they argue that the Amendments violate relevant statute and rule provisions and are not in compliance. Section 163.3177(8) and (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) require that plan amendments be based on relevant and appropriate data and analyses applicable to each element. In determining whether a plan amendment complies with this requirement, the Department reviews each amendment on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it does not require the same amount or type of data for all plan amendments. See, e.g., Zemel et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case No. 90-7793 (DOAH Dec. 16, 1992, DCA June 22, 1993)(projections of aquifer thickness and transmissivity do not require the same precision as calculating volume-to- capacity ratios for levels of service on road segments); 1000 Friends of Florida et al. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 04-4492GM, 2005 WL 995004 at *15 (DOAH April 28, 2005, DCA May 9, 2005)("a numeric analysis is not necessary to justify industrial uses since they may be goal- based and aspirational"). For example, if amendments merely represent a policy or directional change and depend on future activities and assessments (i.e., further analyses and decision-making by the local government), the Department does not require the degree of data and analyses that other amendments require. (These amendments have sometimes been referred to as aspirational amendments. See Collier County v. City of Naples et al., DOAH Case No. 04-1048GM, 2004 WL 1909265 at *5 and *6 (DOAH Aug. 24, 2004, DCA Dec. 28, 2004)). Conversely, amendments which are mandatory in nature, that is, amendments which are required to be implemented by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 9J-5, require more data and analyses. Thus, under Department interpretations of the relevant statutory and rule provisions, if an amendment does not have an immediate impact on the provision of services in the unincorporated area, is policy- based, does not require any capital improvement expenditures at the time the amendment is adopted, and simply represents a directional change in the County's long-term water utility planning, it is similar to an aspirational amendment and can be based on less data and analyses than might otherwise be required. Here, the County’s actual policy regarding utility service areas will depend on future activities and assessments. The Amendments do not require the County to take any immediate action. The Amendments do not mandate that existing utility customers in the RSA switch to the County. The Amendments do not authorize any new development in the Rural Tier, and any future development would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the normal development approval process. Therefore, the Amendments are akin to an aspirational amendment and do not require the degree of data and analyses that are required for other amendments. The County Staff Report identifies, albeit in brief fashion, data and analyses in support of the Amendments. It provides, among other things, that the Amendments are necessary because "[t]he lack of County participation as a service provider has created a void in effective long-term utility planning, resulting in duplicative service lines, inefficient services in the RSA, overlapping utility jurisdictions and, absence of some written agreements defining service areas." The Staff Report further identifies the County’s authority to provide service and the necessity for the Amendments to allow the County to provide service to the Biotechnology Research Park in northwest Palm Beach County. In addition, a number of documents presented at hearing provide data and analyses in support of the Amendments. In considering these documents, the undersigned notes that all data or analysis available and existing at the time of the adoption of the plan amendment may be relied upon to support an amendment in a de novo proceeding and may be raised or discussed for the first time at the administrative hearing. Zemel, supra; McSherry et al. v. Alachua County et al., DOAH Case No. 02-2676GM, 2004 WL 2368828 at *54 (DOAH Oct. 18, 2004, DCA May 2, 2005); Melzer et al. v. Martin County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 02-1014GM and 02-1015GM, 2003 WL 2150756 at *33 (DOAH July 1, 2003, DCA Sept. 26, 2003 and Oct. 24, 2003). The District's Districtwide Water Supply Assessment identifies future potable water demands for various utilities in the County. The District's Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan describes the available raw water supply to meet future demands in the County. The District's CUP-CERP (Consumptive Use Permit-Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) Guiding Principles lists interim water use permitting guidelines, which indicate utilities may experience problems obtaining permitted allocations beyond what is needed to meet their 2005 demands. District Water Use Permit 50- 00135-W is the County's 20-year water use permit, which confirms that the County is the only utility in the unincorporated area with a guaranteed, long-term potable water allocation. The information contained in these documents confirms the County's ability to act as the default water utility provider in the unincorporated area. The County Linking Land Use and Water Supply Plan, Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Reclaimed Water Master Plan, Raw Water Master Plan, 20-Year Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, and Projected Yearly Capital Expenditures each provide data and analysis, which support the County's ability to serve as the default utility provider in the unincorporated area. As a water management district study, the District's documents are professionally accepted sources, which constitute appropriate data and analyses under Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(c). Similarly, the County's reports constitute existing technical studies, which are also appropriate data and analysis. Petitioners contend that the County was required to collect new data and prepare a comparative analysis of the County Water Utilities Department and other utility providers in the unincorporated area. However, according to Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b), local governments are not required to collect new data in support of a plan amendment. Further, neither Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2) nor Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, requires a comparative analysis. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments are supported by relevant and adequate data and analyses. Intergovernmental Coordination Petitioners also contend that in order to comply with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan, the County must inventory and analyze the facilities and services provided by other utility providers in the areas affected by the Amendments. In other words, they contend that without data and analysis relative to other providers, the coordination function is incapable of being done and is meaningless and renders the Amendments inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015. (That rule sets forth in detail the data requirements upon which the element in a local government's comprehensive plan must be based, and the goal statements, specific objectives, and policies which must be found in the element.) Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 set forth requirements for the intergovernmental coordination element of a comprehensive plan. The existing Intergovernmental Coordination Element has been found to be in compliance. The Amendments do not modify this element. Although not required for purposes of compliance, the County followed intergovernmental coordination procedures in the comprehensive plan when adopting the Amendments. The Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by member governments prior to their consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. The County met with other utility providers and interested persons no less than 37 times to discuss the Amendments. Further, Petitioners' own witnesses concede that their representatives attended multiple meetings with the County regarding the Amendments. Such efforts demonstrate that the County substantively complied with the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners' contention that these meetings were not conducted in good faith has been rejected. Petitioners implicitly suggest that intergovernmental coordination means acquiescing to the position of an objector. If this were true, adjacent local governments would have veto power over the County's ability to enact plan amendments, a result not contemplated by the statute. The intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.015 do not require that local governments resolve all disputes regarding a comprehensive plan and its amendments to the satisfaction of all interested persons, but only that the local government take into consideration input from interested persons. See, e.g., Department of Community Affairs et al. v. Lee County et al., DOAH Case Nos. 89-1843GM and 90-7792GM, 1990 WL 749359 (DOAH Jan. 7, 1993, Admin. Comm. Feb. 10, 1994). The numerous meetings held by the County demonstrate adequate consideration of opposing views. It is at least fairly debatable that the County satisfied the intergovernmental coordination requirements of Section 163.3177(6)(h), Florida Statutes. Economic Feasibility/Comparative Analysis Petitioners argue that the Amendments fail to comply with Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, which requires that "the comprehensive plan shall be economically feasible." Petitioners claim that in order to establish economic feasibility, the County first should have conducted a comparative economic analysis of the cost of utility service in the unincorporated area by various existing and hypothetical service providers. However, this construction of the statute is at odds with the Department's interpretation. The Department does not interpret the economic feasibility requirement of Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, as requiring such a comparison. Instead, it construes the statute as only requiring that a plan amendment be realizable in financial terms, that is, that the local government has the financial ability to achieve what is specified in the amendment. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 5182GM, 1995 WL 1052797 *6 (DOAH April 19, 1995, Admin. Comm. Sept. 4, 1998)("Economic feasibility means plans should be realizable in financial terms."). Compare Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District et al. v. Charlotte County et al., 774 So. 2d 903, 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), where the Court interpreted the use of the term "economically feasible" in a proposed Basis of Review provision as meaning "financially feasible or financially 'doable' . . . [and the] financial ability of a WUP applicant to institute reuse." The Department's interpretation of the statute was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. The evidence shows that the Amendments are financially realizable. The County Water Utilities Department is one of the financially strongest utilities in the nation. It has the highest municipal bond rating (AAA) granted by the three major rating agencies. As of August 24, 2004, no other utility in the State of Florida had achieved an AAA rating from the three bond rating agencies, and the County Water Utilities Department is among only a handful of utilities nationwide to have achieved that status. Petitioners have acknowledged that the County is a very strong utility from a financial perspective. Given the County's strong financial state, it is qualified and able to serve as the default provider in the unincorporated area. In summary, it is fairly debatable that the Amendments are economically feasible as the term is used in Section 163.3177(2), Florida Statutes, because the County has the financial ability to extend utility service to the unincorporated area. Urban sprawl Wellington (but not the other Petitioners) essentially contends that the Amendments will promote urban sprawl because the County will now allow new urban services (water and wastewater) into undeveloped areas thereby resulting in urban development. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5) contains standards discouraging the proliferation of urban sprawl. Existing provisions in the Plan, including the Managed Growth Tier System, prevent urban sprawl within the County. Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.006(5)(k) provides in part that "if a local government has in place a comprehensive plan found in compliance, the Department shall not find that plan amendment to be not in compliance on the issue of discouraging urban sprawl solely because of preexisting indicators if the amendment does not exacerbate existing indicators of urban sprawl within the jurisdiction." The Amendments do not affect existing growth management provisions in the Plan and thus will not exacerbate urban sprawl. Although not required, the amendment of FLUE Policy 1.4-k, which Petitioners did not challenge, will also have the effect of maintaining the status quo with respect to urban sprawl. At the same time, the Amendments do not directly or indirectly authorize new development and are only aspirational in nature. Any extension of water and sewer lines into the unincorporated area does not necessarily create urban sprawl because development is not automatically authorized by these activities. Even Wellington's planning expert concurred that urban sprawl is not caused by the provision of utility services, but by the Board of County Commissioners' approval of development orders. It is at least fairly debatable that the Amendments will not encourage urban sprawl in contravention of the Plan.2 Internal consistency Petitioners next contend that the Amendments fail to comply with Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(10)(a), and 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(5), which require that all elements of a comprehensive plan be consistent with each other. In addressing this objection, only those inconsistencies expressly alleged in their Petitions and Amended Petition will be considered. See, e.g., Heartland Environmental Council v. Department of Community Affairs et al., DOAH Case No. 94- 2095GM, 1996 WL 1059751 at *19 (DOAH Oct. 15, 1996; DCA Nov. 25, 1996). Future Land Use Element Petitioners first contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 3, Objective 3.1, and Policies 3.1-a and 3.1-b of the FLUE. These provisions require that the County "define graduated service areas for directing services to the County's diverse neighborhoods and communities in a timely and cost-effective manner"; that the County establish graduated service areas "to distinguish the levels and types of services needed within a Tier, consistent with the characteristics of the Tier," which include "the need to provide cost effective services"; that the County establish Urban, Limited Urban Service, and Rural Service Areas based on several factors in Table 3.1.1, including "[t]he cost and feasibility of extending services"; and that the County review minimum levels of service "during preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report [EAR] and the Comprehensive Plan as amended." The latter provision also requires that each service provider determine the maximum and available capacity of their facilities and services for this review. The first broad goal is implemented through the County's existing Managed Growth Tier System and is not affected by the identity of the utility provider. Also, the Amendments do not alter the Managed Growth Tier System, nor do they alter the existing minimum levels of service required for the RSA. Similarly, FLUE Objective 3.1 is not affected, as the Amendments only have the potential to change the utility provider in certain areas, and not the level of service provided within the RSA. Further, the Amendments do not change the existing service area boundaries and established service area definitions. As to Policy 3.1-a, the service areas have been established and found in compliance and the Amendments do not alter the service area designations or Table 3.1-1. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 3.1-a. Finally, Policy 3.1-b is not affected by the Amendments because the minimum levels of service are not altered and the Amendments are not the product of an EAR. Capital Improvements Element – Table 10 Table 10 of the CIE describes water and sewer revenues, operating revenues, federal/state grants, other revenues, bond/ loan proceeds, fund balances, total water and sewer revenues, water and sewer operating expenditures, water and sewer capital projects, annual surplus/deficit, and cumulative surplus/deficit for fiscal years 2004-2009. Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with this provision because the Table has not been amended to reflect the expenditures that will be made by the County as a result of the Amendments. This Table is not affected because the Amendments do not require any changes to the County's capital expenditures. If changes do occur as a result of the County's planned extension of utility service into the unincorporated area, the capital improvements associated with extension of service will be addressed in subsequent annual updates of Table 10. Intergovernmental Coordination Element Petitioners contend that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 1 and Objective 1.1 of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, which require the County to "provide a continuous coordination effort with all affected governmental entities" and to "utilize existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts with the plans of school boards, other units of local government providing services, adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties, the region, the State, and residents of Palm Beach County." Petitioners essentially claim that the Amendments were adopted and transmitted without coordination with other local governments, as required by the goal and policy. As explained above, the evidence shows that the Amendments were submitted to IPARC for review by each of the local governments and special districts located in the County, these entities were given ample opportunity to comment or object to the Amendments, and the County utilized existing mechanisms to coordinate planning efforts. Therefore, the Amendments are consistent with these portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Petitioners also contend that the Amendments conflict with Goal 4, Policy 4.1-a, and Policy 4.1-b of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The broad goal relates to coordination of "service provision to assure the most effective and efficient service delivery for the residents of Palm Beach County and its municipalities," while the two policies require that the County coordinate with special taxing districts and each municipality within the County during "the concurrency management and development review processes" and in defining the "ultimate boundaries of that entity's sewer and water service areas." The Amendments are consistent with the goal because their purpose is to create more effective and efficient service delivery by encouraging utility providers to enter into agreements which establish exclusive service areas and eliminate overlapping service areas. For similar reasons, the Amendments are consistent with Policy 4.1-a because the County coordinated with each of the special taxing districts through IPARC and numerous subsequent meetings relating to the Amendments. Finally, the main purpose of the Amendments is to prevent overlapping utility service areas and to encourage utility providers to enter into agreements defining service areas. Therefore, they are not inconsistent with Policy 4.1- b. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Plan Petitioners next allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with Goal 8.1, Regional Strategy 8.1.1, and Regional Policies 8.1.1.3 and 8.1.1.4 of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Regional Policy Plan (Regional Policy Plan). In order for a plan amendment to be consistent with a regional policy plan, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that plan amendments be consistent with the regional plan "as a whole," and that no specific goal or policy be "applied in isolation from the other goals and policies in the plans." Because the Petitions and Amended Petition do not allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with the Regional Policy Plan as a whole, their challenge must necessarily fail. See, e.g., 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra at *38. Even if a provision in the Regional Policy Plan could be viewed in isolation, the Amendments are consistent with Regional Goal Regional Goal 8.1, which requires "public facilities which provide a high quality of life." Nothing in the Amendments would impair the provision of a high quality of life. One of the purposes of the Amendment is to more efficiently provide utility service by defining service areas and improving the provision of services. Regional Strategy 8.1.1 relates to the provision of "levels of public service necessary to achieve a high quality of life cost-effectively." The Amendments are not inconsistent with this strategy, as they are designed to help the County implement the existing objectives and policies relating to this strategy. The purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.3 is to "encourage patterns of development which minimize the public cost of providing service, maximize use of existing service systems and facilities and take into full consideration environmental/ physical limitations." As stated above, one purpose of the Amendments is to provide more efficient and cost-effective utility service by encouraging providers to enter into agreements that prevent overlapping service areas and avoid duplication of services. Finally, the purpose of Regional Policy 8.1.1.4 is to "develop local Capital Improvement Programs which maximize development of existing systems before allocating funds to support new public facilities in undeveloped areas." Because the Amendments do not alter the County's Capital Improvement Programs, they do not implicate this policy. State Comprehensive Plan Petitioners further allege that the Amendments are inconsistent with two goals in the state comprehensive plan, which are codified in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes. Like regional policy plans, Section 163.3177(10)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that for purposes of determining consistency, the state plan is to be construed as a whole, with no specific goal or policy applied in isolation from the other goals and policies. If a plan appears to violate a provision of the state plan, a balanced consideration must be given to all other provisions of both the state and local plan to determine whether a local comprehensive plan is consistent with the state plan. Petitioners have not alleged that the Amendments are inconsistent with the state comprehensive plan as a whole. Therefore, their challenge to the Amendments must necessarily fail. See 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., supra; Heartland Environmental Council, supra. Assuming that a provision within the state comprehensive plan can be viewed alone, Section 187.201(17)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "Florida shall protect the substantial investments in public facilities that already exist and shall plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner." Petitioners contend that because the Amendments fail to protect the public facilities that already exist in the unincorporated area of the County, the Amendments conflict with this goal. The Amendments are not inconsistent with this goal because their purpose is to implement the Plan provisions in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(17)(b), Florida Statutes. Petitioners also allege that the Amendments contradict the requirements of Section 187.201(20)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with cooperation between levels of government, elimination of needless duplication, and promotion of cooperation. Again, the purpose of the Amendments is to eliminate duplication and promote cooperation between entities by encouraging utility providers to enter into interlocal agreements with the County that define exclusive service areas and prevent duplication of services. Further, the Amendments are consistent with the specific provisions of Section 187.201(20)(b), Florida Statutes. Other Objections Finally, any other contentions raised in the Petitions and Amended Petition not specifically addressed herein have been considered and found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2004-026 on August 24, 2004, are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 2005.
The Issue The dispositive issue in the above-styled cases is whether certain Lee County plan amendments and revisions to data and analysis are consistent with and substantially similar to the amendments and revisions described in a settlement agreement previously entered into by the parties.
Findings Of Fact Lee County is a local government that is required to prepare and submit to the state land planning agency a comprehensive plan pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes ("the Act"). Section 163.3167, Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections and their corresponding Chapters are to Florida Statutes. All references to Rules and their corresponding Chapters are to the Florida Administrative Code.) The Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") is the state land planning agency, pursuant to Section 163.3164(19). As such, DCA is responsible for reviewing the comprehensive plans of local governments and determining whether they are in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(8). The City of Fort Myers ("Ft. Myers") and the City of Cape Coral ("Cape Coral") are municipalities located in Lee County. Relative to Lee County, they are adjoining local governments, pursuant to Section 163.3184(1)(a). Each municipality has standing in the above-styled case. By Lee County Ordinance No. 89-02, adopted on January 31, 1989, Lee County adopted a comprehensive plan, effective March 1, 1989. (The Lee County comprehensive plan shall be referred to as "the Plan.") Although not adopted as part of the Plan, two volumes of data and analysis, which are entitled "Support Documentation," accompany the Plan. (These materials shall be referred to as "the Data and Analysis.") On March 24, 1989, DCA issued its Notice of Intent to Find the Lee County Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance. The Notice of Intent is accompanied by a 24-page Statement of Intent to Find Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance. The Statement of Intent details the various alleged deficiencies in the Plan, but omits any mention of the Intergovernmental Coordination element contained in the Plan. On July 12, 1989, Ft. Myers filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene. Paragraph 19 of the petition alleges that the Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Plan fails to provide a strong and effective intergovernmental coordination element showing relationships and stating principles and guidelines to be used in the accomplishment of coordination of the [Plan] with the comprehensive plans of adjacent municipalities. The Intergovernmental Coordination element of the Plan states: GOAL 108: SERVICE COORDINATION. To provide for efficient and effective coordination of provision of public services by Lee County and its special districts, bodies, boards, and other entities. OBJECTIVE 108.1: SPECIAL DISTRICTS. By 1991, a clearinghouse process shall be instituted to provide for the regular exchange of information, proposals, and plans between the county and its special districts, bodies, boards, and other entities. POLICY 108.1.1: The office of the county administrator shall establish a special district clearinghouse, in coordination with district directors and managers, for the purpose of coordinating the programs, activities, and procedures for the provision of services and information. OBJECTIVE 108.2: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE STANDARDS. By 1991, conflicts in level-of-service standards for public facilities shall be resolved. POLICY 108.2.1: The Planning Division shall prepare an inventory and analysis of the various level-of-service standards for public facilities and shall recommend means of coordinating those standards which are not in agreement. POLICY 108.2.2: Where conflicts with other entities regarding service standards cannot be resolved through discussion among those concerned, the informal mediation process of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council shall be utilized to seek resolution. POLICY 108.2.3: Development proposals within Lee County shall be reviewed for their impacts on levels of service for public facilities as stated in the comprehensive plans of adjacent governments. OBJECTIVE 108.3: POLICY COORDINATION. By 1989, the Lee County Executive Advisory Committee shall be re-established in order to provide an intergovernmental policy coordination policy. POLICY 108.3.1: The office of the county administrator shall be responsible for organizing meetings of the Executive Advisory Committee. POLICY 108.3.2: The initial agenda for the Executive Advisory Committee shall be to discuss issues identified during the 1988 comprehensive plan revision process. Other items for discussion may include: --discuss areas of mutual interest; --establish and implement formal procedures for mutual review of appropriate planning and policy documents; --enter into agreements at the direction of and with the approval of the Lee County Board of Commissioners; --encourage participation of representatives from adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions, and state and federal agencies to attend EAC meetings on a standing or specific basis when appropriate; --utilize staff support of the appropriate planning departments; and --schedule public meetings, when appropriate, to ensure citizen awareness. POLICY 108.3.3: Lee County shall continue to: --utilize the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for matters of coordination in transportation planning and implementation; and --utilize the Technical Advisory Committee to the MPO in matter requiring communication, cooperation, and coordination between Lee County and other jurisdictions. GOAL 109: GROWTH MANAGEMENT. To coordinate the plans and policies of Lee County, its municipalities, and adjacent local governments so as to guide, manage, and regulate urban growth in a compatible fashion. OBJECTIVE 109.1: EFFECTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. By 1990, the review of impacts of planned developments on the municipalities within Lee County and on adjacent counties, regional agencies, and other governmental units shall function in a coordinated and efficient manner. POLICY 109.1.1: Lee County shall adopt formal coordination procedures for mandated planning activities with other local governments, regional agencies, the state, and other governmental units. POLICY 109.1.2: Where conflicts regarding growth management and development issues cannot be resolved through discussion among those concerned, the informal mediation process of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council shall be used where judicial action can be avoided. POLICY 109.1.3: Lee County shall enter into interlocal agreements with appropriate entities for the notification and exchange of information regarding changes in land use or zoning of areas within one mile of its boundaries. POLICY 109.1.4: The county shall strive to negotiate interlocal agreements with all incorporated municipalities to resolve planning issues relating to areas outside the cities' limits which they would like to target for annexation. "Urban Reserve" boundaries adopted in such agreements will be designated on the future land use map (see Policy 1.7.3). POLICY 109.1.5: The county shall protect natural resource systems that cross governmental boundaries through the means described under Goal 82 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.6: The county shall coordinate transportation planning and road improvements with other jurisdictions through the means described under Goal 28 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.7: The county shall address the regional need for adequate sites for water- dependent uses through means described under Objective 98.7 of this plan. POLICY 109.1.8: The county shall continue to pursue efforts to establish a plan for surface water management with the surrounding affected counties and affected municipalities within Lee County. OBJECTIVE 109.2: POLITICAL INTERVENTION. By 1989, vehicles for dialogue and communication with other local governments shall be initiated by Lee County to address issues which have an effect beyond the boundaries of unincorporated Lee County. POLICY 109.2.1: In order to address issues which cross jurisdictional boundaries, during 1989 the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners shall initiate and coordinate interactions with political counterparts in municipalities and counties in the region. The Data and Analysis accompanying the Intergovernmental Coordination Element contains an evaluation and appraisal report (the "EAR") concerning intergovernmental coordination provisions of the former comprehensive plan. The EAR notes that the Executive Advisory Committee is a permanent committee of the chief executive officers (or their designees) of the County, the municipalities, the Regional Planning Council, the School Board, and the South Florida Water Management District. The EAR states that the Executive Advisory Committee has been effective in the past, but has not met since 1984. Addressing the Traffic Circulation Element of the proposed comprehensive plan of Ft. Myers, the EAR accompanying the Data and Analysis of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element merely notes the inconsistencies between the two plans as to the proposed Mid-Point Bridge. The EAR concludes that the intergovernmental coordination goals, objectives, and policies of Lee County's former comprehensive plan are "very general and broad in scope[, which] is unfortunate [because] this element provides an excellent opportunity to establish a better working relationship with other units of government." The Data and Analysis underlying the Intergovernmental Coordination Element note that Lee County uses the following methods to ensure intergovernmental coordination: interlocal agreements, coordinating organizations, and informal working groups. The Data and Analysis explain that interlocal agreements allow two or more units of government to integrate functions and provide services more efficiently than each could separately. The Mid-Point Bridge is not the subject of such an agreement. The Data and Analysis state that Lee County is a member of three coordinating organizations. In addition to the Florida Association of Counties and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Lee County belongs to the Lee County Metropolitan Planning Organization (the "MPO"). The MPO, which consists of representatives from the governing boards of each local government in Lee County, is primarily concerned with transportation planning. The Data and Analysis describe three working groups: the Regional Planning Council Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives from the planning departments of each of the 19 local governments in the region, the Florida Department of Transportation, and other entities; the MPO Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of staffpersons from Lee County and the cities of Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, and Sanibel; and the now-dormant Executive Advisory Committee, which consisted of the chief executive officers of Lee County, the three municipalities, and three other entities. The Data and Analysis analyze the three coordination mechanisms. The interlocal agreement is "only used when the solution to an issue has been decided upon." The interlocal agreement "has had only a small role in resolving disputes." Addressing specifically the Mid-Point Bridge dispute, the Data and Analysis note: For over twenty years a new bridge across the Caloosahatchee has been discussed to connect the central portions of Cape Coral and Fort Myers. Although such a bridge would cause admitted difficulties on both sides of the river, the idea has persisted and gained momentum through the years. The obvious symptom was the increasingly paralyzing traffic backups, especially during the commuting hours, on the existing bridges. The underlying causes of this congestion include both the area's general strong growth and also the extremely rapid construction of homes in Cape Coral, which had originally been intended as a retirement haven but instead has become a full-fledged city with all age groups well represented. Very little land was set aside for employment and commerce when Cape Coral was platted, and despite active efforts by both the Cape Coral and Lee County governments to allow business development on the Cape Coral side of the river, most jobs still lie across the river. Many studies have been conducted by all parties to this dispute. The mid-point bridge has at this point become a political issue of the greatest importance. Lee County leaders for years opposed the bridge but now are very actively supporting it as the only possible means of relieving the crippling traffic problems that have developed. The politics of the situation are such that no Cape Coral councilman could get elected without being an absolute proponent of the bridge, and no Ft. Myers councilman could get elected without being an absolute opponent. Within this context it has become apparent to all parties that the solution lies not with intergovernmental cooperation in the normal sense but rather by resolving the legalities involved. Since the issue will ultimately be settled by the courts anyway, Lee County has decided to force the issue at this time by filing suit against the city of Ft. Myers over their resistance to the bridge and their inclusion in their comprehensive plan of language to positively forbid the bridge. Just prior to the filing of this suit, a joint meeting was held between the city council and the county commission in a last attempt to resolve the difference. As this effort was entirely unsuccessful, the case is working its way through the courts. It is an emotional issue for all parties but has not otherwise interfered with a generally friendly relationship between both governments on a multitude of other issues. The Data and Analysis identify working groups as efficient methods of coordination between governments, but acknowledge that they were unsuccessful as to the Mid-Point Bridge issue. The Traffic Circulation Element of the Plan states in relevant part: GOAL 24: MAJOR INTRA-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS. To provide for efficient intra- county vehicular traffic by planning an integrated system of transportation corridors, possibly of limited access design, that connect urban centers within the county. OBJECTIVE 24.1 MID-POINT CORRIDOR. Create a new east-west transportation corridor, possibly of limited access design, across central Lee County in order to alleviate existing congestion of traffic crossing the Caloosahatchee River. POLICY 24.1.1: The county will continue the planning, feasibility determination, and environmental impact assessment for the Mid- Point Bridge. POLICY 24.1.2: The construction of this east- west transportation corridor will be coordinated through the Metropolitan Planning Organization to ensure system-wide continuity. POLICY 24.1.3: Due to the overriding public need to provide this critically important corridor so as to solve existing roadway deficiencies affecting most of Lee County, and due to the admitted impossibility of devising any alignment which would not generate at least some negative impacts, it is declared as the policy of Lee County that once the best alignment is selected, this policy shall preempt any other perceived conflicting portion of the Lee Plan and such conflicts, real or perceived, shall not be construed so as to require or justify blocking the construction of this facility. POLICY 24.1.4: Because of the high priority Lee County places on the planning and construction of this transportation corridor, permitting efforts shall be initiated by the year 1989, if feasible, and construction shall begin, if possible, by the year 1993. * * * GOAL 28: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. Lee County shall participate in and share the leadership of all necessary and desirable programs in coordinating the transportation planning and improvements of routes within or affecting Lee County. OBJECTIVE 28.1: PLANNING. Lee County will continue to plan cooperatively with its municipalities, surrounding counties, and FDOT. POLICY 28.1.1: The county will participate in the MPO and Regional Planning Council planning processes for system-wide facility needs. POLICY 28.1.2: The county will use informal mediation whenever possible to resolve disputes before other formalized processes are pursued. * * * The Data and Analysis accompanying the Traffic Circulation Element contain an EAR for the transportation goals, objectives, and policies of the former comprehensive plan of Lee County. The EAR addresses only those goals, objectives, or policies for which modifications are recommended. Nothing concerning the Mid-Point Bridge is discussed in the EAR. The Data and Analysis note that the continued rapid growth of Lee County necessitates major roads beyond a traffic circulation map dated November 26, 1986. One of the two major elements of the addition is an east-west corridor through Cape Coral and across the Caloosahatchee River. The second is a continuous loop around central Lee County. Further studies will determine if the southwest quadrant of the loop could replace the east-west corridor. The two major additions remain largely conceptual. The Data and Analysis explain: The exact location, timing, and cost of these improvements cannot be easily determined until at least general alignments have been selected. The final alignment process is time-consuming because it must address and weigh a multitude of sometimes conflicting factors such as needed capacity, environmental impacts, affordability, engineering feasibility, neighborhood disruption, relative costs, air quality and noise impact, and permitting requirements. Moreover, this exercise must address more than one possible alignment and a "no-build" alternative. To provide the necessary flexibility to allow this alignment selection process to function, the alignment for the east-west corridor was shown only in general form on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map (which was originally adopted November 16, 1984, amended on November 26, 1986, . . . and incorporated by reference as an integral part of the Lee Plan). A shaded corridor was shown that incorporated the alignment alternatives that have been previously studied. The bridge portion of this corridor is popularly known as the "Mid-Point Bridge." Another alternative which is also being considered was not shown on the Traffic Circulation Plan Map because it was not sufficiently detailed as of the most recent revision. This alterative can generally be described as the accelerated construction of the southwest quadrant of a future loop expressway system which would include a crossing of the Caloosahatchee four to seven miles southwest of the existing Cape Coral Bridge, connecting Cape Coral from a point somewhere between Piney Point and Punta Blanca Creek, to the mainland at a point somewhere between Iona Point and Punta Rassa Cove. The bridge which would be needed to accomplish this crossing has yet to acquire a popular name. For purposes of this element it is called the "Loop Bridge." Ft. Myers opposes the construction of the Mid-Point Bridge and associated expressway, and Cape Coral supports the construction of the bridge and expressway. Provisions in the respective plans of the two municipalities generally reflect these positions. The plan of Ft. Myers was adopted on February 13, 1989, but was in preparation and available to Lee County when it adopted the Plan. No evidence was presented at the hearing that Lee County requested the participation of DCA at the adoption hearing or that DCA participated at the adoption hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the petition of the City of Fort Myers. ENTERED this 6 day of April, 1990, 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 this 6 day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Ft. Myers' Proposed Findings rejected as irrelevant. 2-3 adopted in substance. 4-5: rejected as subordinate. 6: adopted in substance. 7: adopted. 8-22: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence and, in some cases, irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Lee County's Proposed Findings All of Lee County's proposed findings are adopted or adopted in substance except for Paragraphs 10, 11, 21, 22, and 25-28, which are rejected as conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Russ, Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399 Andrew C. Stansell Siemon, Larsen & Purdy Mizner Administration Building East Camino Real Boca Raton, FL 33432 Michael J. Ciccarone Assistant County Attorney P.O. Box 398 Ft. Myers, FL 33432 William M. Powell City Attorney P.O. Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915-0027 James F. Murley 1000 Friends of Florida P.O. Box 5948 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Thomas W. Reese 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Kenneth G. Oertel Scott Shirley Oertel, Hoffman, et al. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Gary P. Sams Elizabeth C. Bowman Douglas S. Roberts Hopping, Boyd, et al. P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Frank B. Watson, Jr. City Attorney City of Fort Myers 2200 Second Street Ft. Myers, FL 33901 Harold N. Hume Henderson, Franklin, et al. P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, FL 33902-0280 David Emerson Bruner Chamber of Commerce Plaza 1114-B North Collier Blvd. Marco Island, FL 33937
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File following the Notice of Dismissal filed by Petitioners, A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-039 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency. Clerk, and that true and correct copies furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this ebreary? 2010. March, * U.S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Jeffrey Brown, Esq. Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. P.O. Box 1110 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq. Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A P.O. Box 1110 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Michael P. Donaldson, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 P.O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Robert C. Apgar, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 e been day of Paula Ford Agency Clerk Sherry Spiers, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. P.O. Box 1838 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah S. Minnis, Esq. Ausley & McMullen, P.A. P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Routa, Esq. Robert A. Routa, P.A. P.O. Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esq. Carlton Fields, P.A. ; 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 P.O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Nancy G. Linnan, Esq. P.O. Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Hand Delivery: Matthew Davis Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs - 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Final Order No. DCA10-GM-039
